June 4th, 2011 at 4:33:14 PM
permalink

This is NOT a "System" question, so please do not lambast me for it. I'm trying to understand this, but since my math stinks, I really can't work this out for myself, I can't seem to find a sensible answer, and this thought keeps driving me around the bend.

In short: What do you get when you combine an over-aggressive surrendering with a Martingale like increment in the bet?

For instance, consider Surrendering, say, all 4 to 6 and/or 12 to 16 against, say, all Dealer's 2's, 3's, and 9 or higher (or something of the sort). Thus, you surrender where the Dealer has a higher expectation of winning (no idea if that applies to these examples), and then increment the following bets accordingly (1 1/2 last bet), hoping for a subsequent hand of high(er) probability for a player's win, i.e. something like a short-step Martingale. Furthermore, what would the probabilities look like for allowing, say, 2, 3, ... subsequent surrenders?

Since I can't seem to find a breakdown for the actual Probabilities (not returns +/-0.47 , nor prescriptions hit/stay) for a given player hand to succeed/fail against a given Dealer's hand, I am stymied, and would be really grateful for some help - especially on getting a simple table table of those blasted probabilities (hint hint hint) ;-)

Any bright ideas???

In short: What do you get when you combine an over-aggressive surrendering with a Martingale like increment in the bet?

For instance, consider Surrendering, say, all 4 to 6 and/or 12 to 16 against, say, all Dealer's 2's, 3's, and 9 or higher (or something of the sort). Thus, you surrender where the Dealer has a higher expectation of winning (no idea if that applies to these examples), and then increment the following bets accordingly (1 1/2 last bet), hoping for a subsequent hand of high(er) probability for a player's win, i.e. something like a short-step Martingale. Furthermore, what would the probabilities look like for allowing, say, 2, 3, ... subsequent surrenders?

Since I can't seem to find a breakdown for the actual Probabilities (not returns +/-0.47 , nor prescriptions hit/stay) for a given player hand to succeed/fail against a given Dealer's hand, I am stymied, and would be really grateful for some help - especially on getting a simple table table of those blasted probabilities (hint hint hint) ;-)

Any bright ideas???

June 4th, 2011 at 5:10:51 PM
permalink

Surrender lowers your variance, and hence it is more conservative to give up a tiny fraction of EV for reduced variance.

If you play aggressive (strict for EV), then you surrender LESS often.

If you play aggressive (strict for EV), then you surrender LESS often.

June 4th, 2011 at 5:46:12 PM
permalink

Quote:MangoJIf you play aggressive (strict for EV), then you surrender LESS often.

Understood ... but the concern is "aggressive surrender", i.e. utilize surrender 'more aggressively' as a tactical tool.

The idea is to avoid 'engaging' the dealer in unfavorable circumstances, i.e. where the dealer has a higher than (dealer-expected) average-probability of winning, thereby gaining an advantage in the form of temporarily reduced/delayed losses, 'until' the player holds a better than average expectation of winning a subsequent hand.

Put differently, common discussions and analyses apparently limit their considerations to a 'one-hand' framework, while the 'surrender' question raised refers explicitly to (limited) 'sequences' of hands, i.e. two or more, which alters the probability assessments to a degree which is beyond my reach ... hence the request for help.

June 4th, 2011 at 8:38:40 PM
permalink

So let's say that you lose four hands in a row. Using Martingale, You're now up to betting 8 units. If you have to surrender, you give away 4 units. Does that mean that you bet 12 units next time?

It doesn't seem to matter, you'll eventual get that bad streak of luck where you can't or are unwilling to cover the next bet because it's astronomical or above the table limit.

It doesn't seem to matter, you'll eventual get that bad streak of luck where you can't or are unwilling to cover the next bet because it's astronomical or above the table limit.

Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez

June 4th, 2011 at 8:43:50 PM
permalink

In short, no advantage can be gained this way. You would be losing more money on average by surrendering when you should play on. It turns out almost every blackjack hand has a reasonable chance of winning (even if it doesn't seem that way), which is why you almost never surrender in BS.

There is only a very small negative correlation between consecutive blackjack hands, and I doubt anyone has bothered to calculate if there is a correlation between hands you describe for surrendering and subsequent hands. Really, there is no point in calculating the probabilities or correlation here...

Your mini-Martingale is as doomed as the next, and you would make it worse by making bad EV plays in the form of surrendering too often.

There is only a very small negative correlation between consecutive blackjack hands, and I doubt anyone has bothered to calculate if there is a correlation between hands you describe for surrendering and subsequent hands. Really, there is no point in calculating the probabilities or correlation here...

Your mini-Martingale is as doomed as the next, and you would make it worse by making bad EV plays in the form of surrendering too often.

Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it

June 4th, 2011 at 11:02:51 PM
permalink

Quote:CanisPut differently, common discussions and analyses apparently limit their considerations to a 'one-hand' framework, while the 'surrender' question raised refers explicitly to (limited) 'sequences' of hands, i.e. two or more, which alters the probability assessments to a degree which is beyond my reach ... hence the request for help.

Sure this is beyond your reach, but let me tell you anyway. Blackjack hands are, to a very high degree, independent events. Therefore it is absolutely sufficient to focus on the "one-hand" framework, the hand you are playing right now, because it is this one-hand's bet which is at stake. What you will do on the next hand, or what you did on the hand before doesn't matter.