Insurance is just a side bet...?
Quote: AceTwo
That is a methematical fact.
You have placed two bets when taking even money. That is the mathematical fact. You have skipped steps to arrive at zero variance. Your high school math teacher would mark up your paper with red ink. If you want to take the view that this is zero variance, that is fine because it is certainly not a wrong conclusion. I mentioned very early in the post that doubling down a hard 20 also decreases variance. The decrease in variance in offset by the loss in EV. As a general rule of thumb, the more money wagered, the higher the variance. There can be exceptions, but I personally try to not make exceptions. Looking back, I realize there is a bit of incoherence in my post. Apologies if it was misleading or jumbled.
Variance cannot be a negative number because it is square. Actual results can be to the left (negative) or to the right (positive) of the expectation; anything unequal to the expectation is described as variance. It is generally accepted that negative variance is a bad thing, and positive variance is a good thing. You can argue against this forever, and you will always be wrong.
Quote: SonuvabishVariance cannot be a negative number. Variance can be to the left (negative) or the right (positive) of the expectation. It is generally accepted that negative variance is a bad thing, and positive variance is a good thing. You can argue against this forever, and you will always be wrong.
I think that this is the confusion -- you are misusing the term "variance".
It cannot be to the left or to the right -- it is a property of a random variable. Your results can be larger or smaller than expectation, but that is not variance.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that this is the confusion -- you are misusing the term "variance".
It cannot be to the left or to the right -- it is a property of a random variable. Your results can be larger or smaller than expectation, but that is not variance.
Yeah I was editing before you posted because I realized it sounded a bit inaccurate. I'm not sure my cavalier attitude towards definitions is the problem; he said there's no such thing.
Quote: SonuvabishYou have placed two bets when taking even money. That is the mathematical fact. You have skipped steps to arrive at zero variance. Your high school math teacher would mark up your paper with red ink. If you want to take the view that this is zero variance, that is fine because it is certainly not a wrong conclusion. I mentioned very early in the post that doubling down a hard 20 also decreases variance. The decrease in variance in offset by the loss in EV. As a general rule of thumb, the more money wagered, the higher the variance. There can be exceptions, but I personally try to not make exceptions. Looking back, I realize there is a bit of incoherence in my post. Apologies if it was misleading or jumbled.
Variance cannot be a negative number because it is square. Actual results can be to the left (negative) or to the right (positive) of the expectation; anything unequal to the expectation is described as variance. It is generally accepted that negative variance is a bad thing, and positive variance is a good thing. You can argue against this forever, and you will always be wrong.
First of all it does not matter that there are 2 bets. The 2 bets are 100% correlated. So you can thing of them as 1 bet if they are 100% correlated.
And in practical terms it can actually be 1 Bet. In the specific situation of Even Money, many casinos allow practically only Even Money, ie they do not allow you to put insurance for the BJ. Ie you have a Bet, still unresolved and you have 2 Options: Even Money, EV 100% Var 0, or Stand EV 103.88%, Var 0,47.
If 2 bets are 100% Correlated, then you can always consider them as 1 Bet and find the Combined EV and Variance of the 2 bets. This is again Standard Math.
Nothing wrong with this.
The above are for example the basis of Hedging (ie currency hedging). You take opposing currency bet to minimize your risk (ie variance). Standrad stuff in finance where you will calculate the combined EV (return in finance) and Risk of your original position % the Hedging. And these can be done also with less than 100% correlation, as long is highly correlated. You consider your Position + Hedging as 1 Position even though they are 2 different bets which are highly correlated.
And as you said you are using the terms 'negative variance' to mean an Actual result which is lower than EV. Of course Actual Results lower than EV are a bad thing. I do not think that this statement needs to be elaborated and discussed more. Everyone will agree with that.
Quote: AceTwoFirst of all it does not matter that there are 2 bets. The 2 bets are 100% correlated. So you can thing of them as 1 bet if they are 100% correlated.
And in practical terms it can actually be 1 Bet. In the specific situation of Even Money, many casinos allow practically only Even Money, ie they do not allow you to put insurance for the BJ. Ie you have a Bet, still unresolved and you have 2 Options: Even Money, EV 100% Var 0, or Stand EV 103.88%, Var 0,47.
If 2 bets are 100% Correlated, then you can always consider them as 1 Bet and find the Combined EV and Variance of the 2 bets. This is again Standard Math.
Nothing wrong with this.
The above are for example the basis of Hedging (ie currency hedging). You take opposing currency bet to minimize your risk (ie variance). Standrad stuff in finance where you will calculate the combined EV (return in finance) and Risk of your original position % the Hedging. And these can be done also with less than 100% correlation, as long is highly correlated. You consider your Position + Hedging as 1 Position even though they are 2 different bets which are highly correlated.
And as you said you are using the terms 'negative variance' to mean an Actual result which is lower than EV. Of course Actual Results lower than EV are a bad thing. I do not think that this statement needs to be elaborated and discussed more. Everyone will agree with that.
1) Even money is not different from taking insurance.
2) 100% correlation is a restatement of your original short-hand conclusion, which I already affirmed correct.
3) There are two bets. Pretend you made only one if you like; this casino procedure increases casino profit from ploppies.
4) Taking even money is bad. Comparing it to financial risk management is misleading. This variance control is irrelevant or potentially harmful in most cases. EV is of primary concern.
5) If you knew what negative variance is, why did you ask? It seems your purpose was hoping I would equivocate actual results with variance, as is the short hand commonly used, and then you would attack it in a premeditated and fruitless strike. In reality, by editing before anyone posted, I believe I defined it succinctly...so you're really just talking about previous posts, probably at least getting the gist of what I meant the whole time. I think AOC wrongly thought there was confusion!
6) I am tired of this bickering. I will not respond further due to #5. I make mistakes, and probably don't realize them quick enough when I do. But I try not to pointlessly bicker. And I am not mad enough to continue. Apologies if I have ticked you off, as I probably did and was too ignorant to notice. Let us cease.
3. Ugh....so what?
4. The discussion is about variance, not EV.
Always insuring (or even moneying) a BJ decreases variance.
Buying insurance in real life has lower variance compared to not buying insurance. Real life insurance is -EV, but people buy it to reduce variance.
If there was a 5% chance you'd get cancer. Treatment costs $100,000. Or you can buy insurance for $8,000....would you buy the insurance even though it's -EV?
Life is the main bet and insurance is the side bet.
Insurance is not a misnomer....but it is still a side bet.
Quote: Sonuvabish4) Taking even money is bad. Comparing it to financial risk management is misleading. This variance control is irrelevant or potentially harmful in most cases. EV is of primary concern.
Well, yes, in most cases. But not all.
Quote: RS1. He isn't saying they are different, he's using a specific example of what happens when you're dealt a BJ (and for some reason mentioned some stores don't allow insurance on a BJ, either stand or even money).
3. Ugh....so what?
4. The discussion is about variance, not EV.
Always insuring (or even moneying) a BJ decreases variance.
Buying insurance in real life has lower variance compared to not buying insurance. Real life insurance is -EV, but people buy it to reduce variance.
If there was a 5% chance you'd get cancer. Treatment costs $100,000. Or you can buy insurance for $8,000....would you buy the insurance even though it's -EV?
Life is the main bet and insurance is the side bet.
Insurance is not a misnomer....but it is still a side bet.
Insurance is a misnomer. With real insurance, you are insuring something, like your health. In the game, you are insuring nothing. You are betting the dealer has a 10 as his hole-card. The result of two wagers, which separately increase variance, decrease variance when combined. This is because EV goes in opposite directions. Not news. If I have a blackjack or a 16 every other hand, variance will similarly decrease. Let's see the math of it equaling 0 (which I cannot reproduce), pointing out where my logic is incompatible rather than these constant statements ignoring I already said the two bets combined do result in no variance. I'm also tired of bickering with you for no apparent reason.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell, yes, in most cases. But not all.
Always exceptions. I don't think it is a rule thumb too riddled with exceptions. If you are an AP and betting full Kelly, then taking even money probably is an important non-cover consideration. If you are a non-AP, you are just playing wrong. BTW, I was thinking of you this weekend. I won $23 in addition to the freeplay amounts I was given on VBJ. So now I have to go on a serious losing streak just to get back to even. LOL.
Quote: SonuvabishI'm also tired of bickering with you for no apparent reason.
Then why are you? This thread was dead. You brought it back.
Quote: DeucekiesThen why are you? This thread was dead. You brought it back.
Greasyjohn brought it back, someone I enjoy conversing with because he likes to talk about the actual game. Any more wrong statements you want to make? This is the first one directed at me, but pretty much everything you say is wrong. Rather than bolster Greasyjohn's position, which regardless of being right or wrong, does indicate a little less experience than mine, I just have A2, dw, and RS trying to poke holes in anything I say. I was just talking to GJ. Not them, not you. AOC is the only one with a neutral position. So go ahead I want to hear more wrong stuff from you so I can just attack. Unlike RS who appears to have a working knowledge of advantage play, your statements are supremely wrong 90% of the time. Even questions as simple as who brought back the thread, which only require the ability to read and a little research, leave you unable craft a sensible answer. This thread has become highly annoying to me. Out of the four, the things you say will always be the easiest to attack if you wanna jump on the bandwagon, no offense. And although I am annoyed presently by others, I at least can respect intelligent counter responses. And I am sure the three of them combined can easily outwit me, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I hope that doesn't rise to the level of insulting.
Quote: SonuvabishGreasyjohn brought it back, someone I enjoy conversing with because he likes to talk about the actual game. Any more wrong statements you want to make? This is the first one directed at me, but pretty much everything you say is wrong. Rather than bolster Greasyjohn's position, which regardless of being right or wrong, does indicate a little less experience than mine, I just have A2, dw, and RS trying to poke holes in anything I say. I was just talking to GJ. Not them, not you. AOC is the only one with a neutral position. So go ahead I want to hear more wrong stuff from you so I can just attack. Unlike RS who appears to have a working knowledge of advantage play, your statements are supremely wrong 90% of the time. Even questions as simple as who brought back the thread, which only require the ability to read and a little research, leave you unable craft a sensible answer. This thread has become highly annoying to me. Out of the four, the things you say will always be the easiest to attack if you wanna jump on the bandwagon, no offense. And although I am annoyed presently by others, I at least can respect intelligent counter responses. And I am sure the three of them combined can easily outwit me, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I hope that doesn't rise to the level of insulting.
10/10. Glorious. Simply glorious.
Quote: Deucekies10/10. Glorious. Simply glorious.
No, this is a 10/10. "So adding one ace per deck would basically wipe out the house advantage. Interesting. Thanks." Curious as to your take on what is so interesting.
Quote: SonuvabishNo, this is a 10/10. "So adding one ace per deck would basically wipe out the house advantage. Interesting. Thanks." Curious as to your take on what is so interesting.
I'm exploring the possibility of inventing a game, since you asked. Since I'm not involved in the world of card counting, I thought I'd ask people who knew more about it than I did. I do think that's allowed, is it not?
Quote: DeucekiesI'm exploring the possibility of inventing a game, since you asked. Since I'm not involved in the world of card counting, I thought I'd ask people who knew more about it than I did. I do think that's allowed, is it not?
One of your hobbies is exploring possibilities of inventing casino card games? Well, it is possible that's how all card games exist because they were invented. Do you also explore the possibility of inventing other things with the same level of seriousness, like time travel? I didn't ask by the way, I stated I was curious.
Quote: SonuvabishOne of your hobbies is exploring possibilities of inventing casino card games? Well, it is possible that's how all card games exist because they were invented. Do you also explore the possibility of inventing other things with the same level of seriousness, like time travel? I didn't ask by the way, I stated I was curious.
This conversation is over.
Quote: DeucekiesThis conversation is over.
About time, thank you for getting the hint after upteen posts.
