Is the double down portion of a bet always +EV ?
For example if you were to sit in a casino and wait for players who did not wish to double down in advised double down situations (lets say you're ignoring the count) would you expect to show a profit over the long term?
Quote: jimbo123I was wondering - is the house edge on the double down portion of a bet (where a bespoke basic strategy table would advise you to double) always in the players favor? I.e that exclusive portion of the total bet would always have a >100% return to player (RTP)?
For example if you were to sit in a casino and wait for players who did not wish to double down in advised double down situations (lets say you're ignoring the count) would you expect to show a profit over the long term?
It would be positive EV for you, but not for the player. As an example, if the player doubles 11 against a 9, and draws a 3, he should hit again. If he allowed you to double for him he loses that ability. If doubling wasn't a >100% RTP, why would anyone double?
*An exception is at the handful of casinos that allow you to double, but not hit, after splitting aces. Here if the expected loss of a doubled (or raised by the minimum allowed if you can double for less) bet with an additional card is less than that of standing then you'd DD on said -EV hand.
Quote: WizardMy blackjack appendix 5 shows in green every situation that is positive EV. Notice how every double down situation is.
Wizard,
You may want to add to that appendix that there is "no surrender" permitted.
A companion table of interest is how much delta there is in EV there is between the correct move, and the second best incorrect play. You can color code to above and below average improvement.
PS who's the hot blonde in the blue jersey at the bottom of the Blackjack page. Not usually into blondes, but mama mia. And why is that table outside? Where is that? How does that work?
It's the Wizard's model, Lisa. She's in a lot of the photos on the site. The table is outside in the pool area at the Golden Nugget Las Vegas.Quote: ewjones080PS who's the hot blonde in the blue jersey at the bottom of the Blackjack page. Not usually into blondes, but mama mia. And why is that table outside? Where is that? How does that work?
So that's an actual gaming table? That's seems very risky with little security to me. People can just walk out of the pool and play some blackjack? Is the dealer suffocating in layered clothing?
If you are not counting, doubling could either raise or lower your EV. It would depend on both the card you receive and the dealer's up card; you could potentially double then lose or tie.
Quote: ikusaIs it accurate to say that doubling down also doubled the EV for that hand? I'm curious because the hand with the best EV is blackjack. If we can double it, then would the EV be 2.8 instead of 1.4?
No. Doubling down never doubles the EV of not doubling, but it always increases the EV when done according to basic strategy.
Quote: jimbo123I was wondering - is the house edge on the double down portion of a bet (where a bespoke basic strategy table would advise you to double) always in the players favor? I.e that exclusive portion of the total bet would always have a >100% return to player (RTP)?
For example if you were to sit in a casino and wait for players who did not wish to double down in advised double down situations (lets say you're ignoring the count) would you expect to show a profit over the long term?
Yes as WoO said.
DOUBLES
And if you see the WoO Appendix 5 you will notice that there are also additional hands that would be Positive Ev for the Double element of the play.
For example Double 8 v 6. Overall is better to Hit but if you are only betting the Double element it is in your benefit (to the detriment of the main player).
The Player playing the main bet loses some EV in such a situation because he loses the ability to hit again (for example if the hit card is 2).
The same applies to correct Doubles where the ability to hit again is lost (for example 9 v 6). ie a player who does not want to double and allows someone else to do it, the he lose some Ev.
This does not apply if the player would only get only 1 card in any situation (ie 11 v 6). In such a case if he does not want to double he does not lose any Ev if he lets someone else to Double.
SPLITS
You can also see from Appendix 5 (green plays), also the correct time to take someone's 2nd Split Hand if he does not want to put extra money down himself.
You will notice that not all BS Split Decisions are correct if taking the 2nd Split Hand. For example 6,6 v 3 even though it is a correct BS Split, it is ngative Ev.
That's because these are kind of Defensive Splits. Both Hit (or Stand) and SpliT are negative Ev but the Split is lower negative Ev.
If you take someone's Split make sure you agree which exact hand you are taking. If a possible resplit arises then you use BS (since now you own that hand).
There is actually a term phrased for taking other people's Doubles and Splits for your benefit, it is 'Scavenger BJ'
And it is a very profitable endeavour
Edit: I wrote this before I saw the responses. Thanks for the replies.
Quote: ikusaThe ev has to be slightly less than 1.5 because the hand will push sometimes. But in general does the EV if a hand double when the bet is doubled? I'm talking about when doubling on 10 and 11 as well. But more specifically, is it better to double blackjack? because you could get paid 2 to 1 instead of 3 to 2.
It is never good to Double BJ or even Soft 21 if allowed (like after splitting 10s).
The Ev of a Double is twice that of the Hit only in the hands that you would take only one hit card in any situations.
Like 11 v 6 if you where to hit you would only hit once whatever the hit card.
But if you where to hit and there are situations where you would hit again (under BS) then the Ev of the Double is less than twice that of the Hit.
Like 11 v 7. If you where to hit and got an Ace you would hit again. But if you double you are stuck with the 12. This makes the Ev of teh Double less than twice that of the hit.
Quote: jimbo123I was wondering - is the house edge on the double down portion of a bet (where a bespoke basic strategy table would advise you to double) always in the players favor? I.e that exclusive portion of the total bet would always have a >100% return to player (RTP)?
For example if you were to sit in a casino and wait for players who did not wish to double down in advised double down situations (lets say you're ignoring the count) would you expect to show a profit over the long term?
Why doesn't anyone just answer his question in simple terms, without rambling on about everything under the sun.
The answer to your question is YES. The caveat is that sometimes the double does not double your EV, which does not apply when you did not make the original bet. It is always plus EV.
It would also be favorable to double down on any positive EV hand, even if not specified in the basic strategy chart (Soft 21 v. Anything, Soft 19 v. 2, 8 v. 5, etc.). Most players are smart enough not to let you double their blackjacks, but universal ploppy logic would let you double their A3 v. 4 if they didn't wrongly do it themselves.
These are called scavenger plays. You have to trust the other player to pay you. I do not trust other players. I do not like to go around purposely annoying people, and I believe only a fool would let you pay their hand and not demand a cut, especially when you are potentially hurting their chances at winning.
Strangely this would be correct in Freebet on the free money side, however you could never get there as you're not allowed free splits of 10s or double after splitting Aces.Quote: AceTwoIt is never good to Double Soft 21 if allowed (like after splitting 10s).
As to the original question, by doubling you may reduce your probability of winning but you win twice as much. The net effects of this is you double if you stand to win more in the long term by doubling. Were your chance of winning was less the 50%, then it would be impossible to be better off doubling.
For instance, ignoring ties, say your chances by hitting was 57%, but by doubling it was 54% (this is because you have to stand on totals you might have hit e.g. 12 vs 2). Hit would be +57 -43 = +14p. Double would be +54 -46 = 8p but times 2 = +16p. By and large the difference in chances and 50% has to exceed half: 57-50=7; 54-50=4; 2x4>7.
There is also a topic when playing behind and the player Doubles (when they shouldn't) whether you're better off doubling in any case - a simple example is 9 vs 2 or 7.
Quote: charliepatrickStrangely this would be correct in Freebet on the free money side, however you could never get there as you're not allowed free splits of 10s or double after splitting Aces.
As to the original question, by doubling you may reduce your probability of winning but you win twice as much. The net effects of this is you double if you stand to win more in the long term by doubling. Were your chance of winning was less the 50%, then it would be impossible to be better off doubling.
For instance, ignoring ties, say your chances by hitting was 57%, but by doubling it was 54% (this is because you have to stand on totals you might have hit e.g. 12 vs 2). Hit would be +57 -43 = +14p. Double would be +54 -46 = 8p but times 2 = +16p. By and large the difference in chances and 50% has to exceed half: 57-50=7; 54-50=4; 2x4>7.
There is also a topic when playing behind and the player Doubles (when they shouldn't) whether you're better off doubling in any case - a simple example is 9 vs 2 or 7.
Much of this is wrong generally, or as it pertains to the question. You only win twice as much when you double a 10 or 11 against a 4-6; otherwise, you always win less than twice as much. The EV of hitting or standing with original wager has nothing to do with the EV of doubling on someone else's hand, other than the original wager must have positive EV as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition precedent to scavenge a double. The player has an EV of 1.5 when he has blackjack against a dealer Ace after peek. EV is reduced to 0.1 when doubling. You want to double the other player's hand.
Can we be schooled again as to why not occasionally split against a 5 or 6?
Quote: UTHfanThe Wiz's cool table also shows that splitting 10's can have a plus EV.
Can we be schooled again as to why not occasionally split against a 5 or 6?
Although it is plus EV, it is lower EV than standing, which makes it the worse decision.
Quote: WizardMy blackjack appendix 5 shows in green every situation that is positive EV. Notice how every double down situation is.
Actually if you optimize your Blackjack return so that you minimize element of risk rather than house edge, you should make some double downs that are lower EV than standing. For example double down A,7 vs. 2.
6 decks, S 17:
EV by standing 0.124001
EV by doubling 0.120980
(source: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/9/6ds17r4/
So the extra double down wager will have -0.3021% expected return. If the house edge of the main game is higher than this (for example if blackjack pays 6:5) you should make this double down wager rather than making the same wager for the next hand.
So yes: you should make negative EV double down wager whenever the disadvantage of double down is less than disadvantage of the initial bet.
That is one reason to be friendly with other players on the table.
Opportunites particularly arise in the following circumstances:
Player runs out of money for his double.
Player puts an occasional bet way above his normal betting range (because he feels lucky, he is on a roll etc). ie Player usually bets $10-$20, he feels lucky and bets $100 and gets the Double opportunity. You seem him agonising on whether to Double. OR he goes to Double for less (some places allow Double for less). It is the perfect opportunity to suggest to him that you can Double for him (especially if you have been friendly with him). A single such opportunity on a High Bet could be more EV for the whole session than Counting Ev.
And another point for counters. You should be willing to backbet way above your maximum bet if such a Double opporunity arises.
Max bet for a counter is usually at around TC 5 with Advantage of around 2%.
In a 11 v 5 Double the EV for the Double is 60%, ie 30% for the Double element.
Somebody betting at Kelly level should be willing to put upto 30% of his bankroll, or conservatively at half kelly 15% of his bankroll. That's 15 times his normal maximum bet.
Or even a lousy Double like 10 v 9 the Ev for the Double is 14%, ie 7% for The Double element. That is still 3.5 times more EV than at TC 5.
I have done this many times especially in places that I play regularly and I know some of the regulars.
Where I play, Bacbetting (puting bet behind another player's bet) is also allowed.
On occasion someone will be backbetting on me and a 'Difficult' Double play will come up (like Soft Doubles and especially S18).
Almost always the backbettor does not want to Double and I will Double for them.
Quote: BizzyBYou only win twice as much when you double a 10 or 11 against a 4-6; otherwise, you always win less than twice as much.
A6 (soft 17) vs. those dealer upcards also qualify - since as with a 10 or 11 you'd be drawing a single card just as if you were to hit (soft 18 doesn't count since BS says to stand in those cases if you can't double).
Quote: Jufo81Quote: WizardMy blackjack appendix 5 shows in green every situation that is positive EV. Notice how every double down situation is.
Actually if you optimize your Blackjack return so that you minimize element of risk rather than house edge, you should make some double downs that are lower EV than standing. For example double down A,7 vs. 2.
6 decks, S 17:
EV by standing 0.124001
EV by doubling 0.120980
(source: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/9/6ds17r4/
So the extra double down wager will have -0.3021% expected return. If the house edge of the main game is higher than this (for example if blackjack pays 6:5) you should make this double down wager rather than making the same wager for the next hand.
So yes: you should make negative EV double down wager whenever the disadvantage of double down is less than disadvantage of the initial bet.
What? This is not only utterly wrong, it doesn't even make sense.
1) You do not have negative EV when you double soft 18 v. 2, your EV is positive. I see the reasoning error, excusable.
2) When scavenging another player's hands, it is not even close. You should obviously double. Missed the call of the question.
3) Doubling never minimizes risk, it always increases risk. Betting twice as much, lower risk, higher house edge?
4) There are some hands you may wish to NOT double, because the INCREASED risk is too disproportionate to the added EV. Doubling a soft 18 v. 2, the appropriate basic strategy in an H17 game, may in fact, be one of the hands. None of #4 could possibly apply to scavenging a double.
5) "Optimize returns by making low EV decisions" appears to be a remarkable misunderstanding of risk-averse indices, mixed in with some thought salad.
Grade: E
Quote: KellynbnfA6 (soft 17) vs. those dealer upcards also qualify - since as with a 10 or 11 you'd be drawing a single card just as if you were to hit (soft 18 doesn't count since BS says to stand in those cases if you can't double).
It is a good thought, but you are incorrect. Last night after turning the computer off, I actually thought about this wondering if I forgot to include Soft 18...and quickly realized I had not forgotten. There is a 5/9 chance you will end up in worse position than you started in when doubling A6 v. 4 thru 6, excluding the 10s which would double your EV. With Soft 18, it does not matter that you stand rather than hit because you are, in fact, doubling. It only matters that there is a 2/3 (6/9) chance that you will end up in a worse position than you when you began, excluding 10s.
In other words, with a soft 17, there is a 9/13 chance you will be be at the same strength or better. With 10 v. 6, there is 100% chance you will be at the same strength or better. You may not want to analyze doubles in this fashion against stronger cards, this is just illustrative.
Quote: BizzyBWhat? This is not only utterly wrong, it doesn't even make sense.
1) You do not have negative EV when you double soft 18 v. 2, your EV is positive. I see the reasoning error, excusable.
2) When scavenging another player's hands, it is not even close. You should obviously double. Missed the call of the question.
3) Doubling never minimizes risk, it always increases risk. Betting twice as much, lower risk, higher house edge?
4) There are some hands you may wish to NOT double, because the INCREASED risk is too disproportionate to the added EV. Doubling a soft 18 v. 2, the appropriate basic strategy in an H17 game, may in fact, be one of the hands. None of #4 could possibly apply to scavenging a double.
5) "Optimize returns by making low EV decisions" appears to be a remarkable misunderstanding of risk-averse indices, mixed in with some thought salad.
Grade: E
You are talking about completely different things. You are talking about playing to make money. He is talking about gambling for fun.
Think about it this way: making the double is less expensive than playing the next hand. If a gambler is happy playing a -EV game, and his goal it to get the most money in action for the least amount of cost, then the double makes sense here.
Quote: BizzyB
What? This is not only utterly wrong, it doesn't even make sense.
1) You do not have negative EV when you double soft 18 v. 2, your EV is positive. I see the reasoning error, excusable.
2) When scavenging another player's hands, it is not even close. You should obviously double. Missed the call of the question.
3) Doubling never minimizes risk, it always increases risk. Betting twice as much, lower risk, higher house edge?
4) There are some hands you may wish to NOT double, because the INCREASED risk is too disproportionate to the added EV. Doubling a soft 18 v. 2, the appropriate basic strategy in an H17 game, may in fact, be one of the hands. None of #4 could possibly apply to scavenging a double.
5) "Optimize returns by making low EV decisions" appears to be a remarkable misunderstanding of risk-averse indices, mixed in with some thought salad.
Grade: E
I think we are talking apples and oranges here.
1) your EV is positive on soft 18 but the EV of the double down bet (only the double down bet, not the main bet which you already made) is -0.3% bringing the EV down from +0.124 to +0.121.
What I wrote holds for any -EV game, which regular blackjack is if you are not counting cards or making bets for someone else (ie. when you are not playing for profit). I see now that the OP was talking about making double down bets for other people. Yes in that situation you shouldn't deviate from basic double down strategy. But it may be a bit different if you are playing -EV game by yourself.
Actually what I wrote still has merit in a particular +EV situation if you play through an online casino bonus with a wagering requirement, because by doubling on borderline hands you wager more per hand and reach more playthrough with less EV cost, ie. you change playing strategy to minimize element of risk rather than house edge.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou are talking about completely different things. You are talking about playing to make money. He is talking about gambling for fun.
Think about it this way: making the double is less expensive than playing the next hand. If a gambler is happy playing a -EV game, and his goal it to get the most money in action for the least amount of cost, then the double makes sense here.
Even if that's the case, it still does not make sense. Is this his last hand, and the only time he will play wrong? Is he making a choice between playing one more hand or doubling this one? If not under some strict guideline, then it makes no sense to say something like that. Playing this way increases the house edge...every hand he plays is, therefore, more expensive from a statistical point of view. What has he saved? I realize the decrease in EV is less than the expected house edge on an particular hand, but without constraints, that indicates nothing other than imperfect play. And why is he talking about something different than I am? I am talking about what the OP is talking about! If someone talks about any random thing without specification or reason, I'd call that thought salad.
Quote: BizzyBEven if that's the case, it still does not make sense. Is this his last hand, and the only time he will play wrong? Is he making a choice between playing one more hand or doubling this one? If not under some strict guideline, then it makes no sense to say something like that. Playing this way increases the house edge...every hand he plays is, therefore, more expensive from a statistical point of view. What has he saved? I realize the decrease in EV is less than the expected house edge on an particular hand. And why is he talking about something different than I am? I am talking about what the OP is talking about! If someone talks about any random thing without specification or reason, I'd call that thought salad.
He increases house edge BUT decreases element of risk, which is the same as (total amount paid out)/(total amount wagered).
You seem to assume that the only valid criterion is to minimize house edge, but that is just one of possible optimizations. Another possible optimization for a player could be to get the highest probability to triple his balance, and minimizing house edge doesn't always achieve that as you should increase variance as well, ie. attempt to reach target balance in minimum number of hands played (while keeping bets low enough to be able to double/split)
Quote: Jufo81I think we are talking apples and oranges here.
1) your EV is positive on soft 18 but the EV of the double down bet (only the double down bet, not the main bet which you already made) is -0.3% bringing the EV down from +0.124 to +0.121.
What I wrote holds for any -EV game, which regular blackjack is if you are not counting cards or making bets for someone else (ie. when you are not playing for profit). I see now that the OP was talking about making double down bets for other people. Yes in that situation you shouldn't deviate from basic double down strategy. But it may be a bit different if you are playing -EV game by yourself.
Actually what I wrote still has merit in a particular +EV situation if you play through an online casino bonus with a wagering requirement, because by doubling on borderline hands you wager more per hand and reach more playthrough with less EV cost, ie. you change playing strategy to minimize element of risk rather than house edge.
It still hasn't turned into negative EV. You win more than you bet, despite a decrease in EV. Negative EV is doubling hard 20. Negative 3/10ths of a percent no less, be reasonable, no one would ever agree to that.
You can double a soft 18 in any -EV game? I don't even know what you're referring to as holding correct; nothing you said was correct. When scavenging plays, you SHOULD double down against basic strategy. Playing by yourself, you should NOT deviate if not counting. You clearly do not understand double downs, yet you insist on schooling me.
It would probably make sense to play a few hands like you suggest when chasing an Internet bonus. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the OPs question and if anyone is expected to know that is what your post is about then it is pretty confusing.
Quote: BizzyBEven if that's the case, it still does not make sense. Is this his last hand, and the only time he will play wrong? Is he making a choice between playing one more hand or doubling this one? If not under some strict guideline, then it makes no sense to say something like that. Playing this way increases the house edge...every hand he plays is, therefore, more expensive from a statistical point of view. What has he saved? I realize the decrease in EV is less than the expected house edge on an particular hand, but without constraints, that indicates nothing other than imperfect play. And why is he talking about something different than I am? I am talking about what the OP is talking about! If someone talks about any random thing without specification or reason, I'd call that thought salad.
He is talking about playing with a stated goal of reducing the element of risk. This is defined (possibly by the Wizard... I'm not sure if he made it up or got it from someone else) as the total expected loss divided by the total of all money put in play (as opposed to the house edge, which only counts the initial bet).
He is correct; doubling here reduces the element of risk.
More simply put: If he is willing to pay 0.6% of a bet to play the next hand, why should he not pay 0.4% of a bet to double down here? Both get another bet into play, but this one is cheaper! If his goal is simply get as much money in play for as little cost as possible, this is the cheaper way to do it.
I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad goal. But you are focused on maximizing EV, and he is focused on getting as much action for as little cost as possible. Since your goals are different, your decisions will also be different. His decision is not "wrong" -- it just satisfies his goals (and not yours). The decision would be wrong for you, but it's right for him.
If you are driving north on the highway, the people who are driving south are not going the wrong way -- they are just trying to get to a different place than you are.
Quote: BizzyBIt still hasn't turned into negative EV. You win more than you bet, despite a decrease in EV. Negative EV is doubling hard 20. Negative 3/10ths of a percent no less, be reasonable, no one would ever agree to that.
You seem to mix up the EV of the total bet and the EV of the double down wager.
Quote: BizzyB
You can double a soft 18 in any -EV game? I don't even know what you're referring to as holding correct; nothing you said was correct.
Please specify.
Quote: BizzyB
It would probably make sense to play a few hands like you suggest when chasing an Internet bonus. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the OPs question and if anyone is expected to know that is what your post is about then it is pretty confusing.
The question was: are correctly made double down bets in all situations always +EV and the answer is: no.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe is talking about playing with a stated goal of reducing the element of risk. This is defined (possibly by the Wizard... I'm not sure if he made it up or got it from someone else) as the total expected loss divided by the total of all money put in play (as opposed to the house edge, which only counts the initial bet).
He is correct; doubling here reduces the element of risk.
More simply put: If he is willing to pay 0.6% of a bet to play the next hand, why should he not pay 0.4% of a bet to double down here? Both get another bet into play, but this one is cheaper! If his goal is simply get as much money in play for as little cost as possible, this is the cheaper way to do it.
I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad goal. But you are focused on maximizing EV, and he is focused on getting as much action for as little cost as possible. Since your goals are different, your decisions will also be different. His decision is not "wrong" -- it just satisfies his goals (and not yours). The decision would be wrong for you, but it's right for him.
If you are driving north on the highway, the people who are driving south are not going the wrong way -- they are just trying to get to a different place than you are.
Playing this way increases risk and variance. It is true that I am focused on maximizing EV, and based on your clarifications, I am seeing that he is attempting to reduce risk. But it is a failure. He would just increase risk and lower EV. You can only lower risk by not doubling. By doubling, your are putting more money in play, and then you play the next hand at an INCREASED house edge. The edge is based on perfect strategy; playing wrong causes the edge to inflate. Compensating for that could lead to more doubles under this system, which could lead to more doubles. The only way your explanation reduces his risk is by adding constraints like: he has to either double the hand as his final hand, or stand and play one more hand OR he plays a set number of hands and reduces that set number of hands by one everytime he makes that type of deviant double. As he stated, this type of play could be applicable when chasing an online bonus (when bonus hunting, although usefulness would be negligible). Otherwise, it would simply fail.
Quote: BizzyBPlaying this way increases risk and variance. It is true that I am focused on maximizing EV, and based on your clarifications, I am seeing that he is attempting to reduce risk. But it is a failure. He would just increase risk and lower EV. You can only lower risk by not doubling. By doubling, your are putting more money in play, and then you play the next hand at an INCREASED house edge. The only way your explanation reduces his risk is by adding constraints like: he has to either double the hand as his final hand, or stand and play one more hand OR he plays a set number of hands and reduces that set number of hands by one everytime he makes that type of deviant double. As he stated, this type of play could be applicable when chasing an online bonus (when bonus hunting/APing is the sole reason you are there). Otherwise, it would simply fail.
I didn't say anything about lowering risk. Quite the opposite, you should take maximum variance when you play -EV game, because you want to deviate from the average losing result as far as possible. That's the whole idea. If you run a computer simulation about two players then the one who has higher probability to double his balance will not be the one who minimizes house edge but who minimizes the ratio of (house edge/variance). If you optimize for the latter, some strategy decisions will change, meaning you double more on slightly -EV hands. This has nothing to with online casino bonus, which is a completely different playing scenatio.
Quote: BuzzardVery similar to selling items at a loss, but making a profit due to increased volume.
Well playing -EV games is a losing proposition, but you can at least maximize your chances like I proposed.
Quote: BizzyBbased on your clarifications, I am seeing that he is attempting to reduce risk.
Perhaps "element of risk" is poorly named, because the name makes it sound like he is trying to reduce risk, which he is not. Element of risk is simply defined as (total expected loss) / (total money risked). So, risking more money reduces this number (even though it also increases variance)
Consider craps. Taking full odds on a passline bet doesn't change EV, but it reduces element of risk. It also increases variance significantly. This bet is free in terms of EV, so it's generally considered a "good bet", but you can probably also see why some people would want to take it even if it had a slightly negative EV (less than the edge on the passline bet)
Anyone who is gambling to make money would ignore all of these bets. If it's -EV, you don't make the bet.
But, for someone who is gambling for entertainment, it's easy to see why they might want to put more money in play if it's cheap to do so. The point is, they measure "fun" by how much money they get to bet, and they measure "cost" by the total -EV of those bets. Anything that increases the fun:cost ratio could be argued to be a good idea (and this is exactly what element of risk is measuring)
Quote: BuzzardVery similar to selling items at a loss, but making a profit due to increased volume.
The difference is, the goal is not to make money. The goal is to pay as little as possible for your entertainment.
It's more like being offered the chance to go on a roller coaster once for $6, or twice for $10. Obviously neither is going to make you money, but if you measure your entertainment value by how often you get to ride, the 2nd one looks like a good deal.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
Consider craps. Taking full odds on a passline bet doesn't change EV, but it reduces element of risk. It also increases variance significantly. This bet is free in terms of EV, so it's generally considered a "good bet", but you can probably also see why some people would want to take it even if it had a slightly negative EV (less than the edge on the passline bet)
Yeah I wanted to mention craps. You can play only the pass line bet or pass line + full odds. Both have the same house edge (defined per initial bet), but any serious craps player would tell you that constantly playing just the pass line bet without odds just sucks. Now if you added, say 0.1%, house edge to the odds bet, it would still be a better gamble for the player than just the pass line bet.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
But, for someone who is gambling for entertainment, it's easy to see why they might want to put more money in play if it's cheap to do so. The point is, they measure "fun" by how much money they get to bet, and they measure "cost" by the total -EV of those bets. Anything that increases the fun:cost ratio could be argued to be a good idea (and this is exactly what element of risk is measuring)
For fun is one argument, but this also makes sense if you go to a casino with a goal, like you have $50 and want to either end up with $150 or nothing. It makes sense to maximize the probability to achieve this target. Actually the most effective way mathematically to do this is usually the least fun (you should make it in least number of bets which means that your entertainment is going to be short).
Quote: Jufo81I didn't say anything about lowering risk. Quite the opposite, you should take maximum variance when you play -EV game, because you want to deviate from the average losing result as far as possible. That's the whole idea. If you run a computer simulation about two players then the one who has higher probability to double his balance will not be the one who minimizes house edge but who minimizes the ratio of (house edge/variance). If you optimize for the latter, some strategy decisions will change, meaning you double more on slightly -EV hands. This has nothing to with online casino bonus, which is a completely different playing scenatio.
"Actually if you optimize your Blackjack return so that you minimize element of risk rather than house edge"...sound familiar? You want maximum variance? Always split 10s against 3-6 and never stand on 12 or 13. Surrender every 12-17 to a 9 thru Ace. There's some serious variance. Let me know how much fun you had in a real casino environment. You cannot optimize for maximizing variance versus only marginally increasing the house edge.
The person with the lowest house edge is more likely to come out ahead, and less likely to loss everything.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe difference is, the goal is not to make money. The goal is to pay as little as possible for your entertainment.
It's more like being offered the chance to go on a roller coaster once for $6, or twice for $10. Obviously neither is going to make you money, but if you measure your entertainment value by how often you get to ride, the 2nd one looks like a good deal.
It's not like that. It's like going on the roller coaster for $6, then deciding to pay $10 instead. Then going on it again for $6.
Quote: BizzyBIt's not like that. It's like going on the roller coaster for $6, then deciding to pay $10 instead. Then going on it again for $6.
The point is that doubling the bet doubles the action. You could think about it as being offered a ride that is twice as long for $10.
The key is that some people find it more fun to have $10 in play than $5. If you can get the 2nd $5 in play for less money than it cost to get the first $5 down... why not? It's cheaper than betting $10 off the top.
Quote: BizzyB"Actually if you optimize your Blackjack return so that you minimize element of risk rather than house edge"...sound familiar?
Sigh, element of risk is a term, similar to house edge. It has nothing to do with risk aversion.
Quote: BizzyB
You want maximum variance? Always split 10s against 3-6 and never stand on 12 or 13. Surrender every 12-17 to a 9 thru Ace. There's some serious variance. Let me know how much fun you had in a real casino environment. You cannot optimize for maximizing variance versus only marginally increasing the house edge.
Those suggestions are not a good idea because they increase the house edge too much. The idea is to reduce the ratio of [house edge/variance]. If you increase house edge too much and variance only a little then the value of the quotient will not reduce but increases.
"You cannot optimize for maximizing variance versus only marginally increasing the house edge. "
Yes you can. In fact there is a blackjack strategy calculator online that optimizes exactly that.
Quote: BuzzardPlease provide a link to that calculator, so my team of mathematicians can examine it's validity.
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/bjstrategy.php
Choose one of the three optimizations:
Per Hand (standard)
Per Wager (element of risk)
Two-tier (probability to reach target)
Here are some rule changes if you optimize for element of risk:
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1049&postcount=10
Quote: Jufo81Sigh, element of risk is a term, similar to house edge. It has nothing to do with risk aversion.
Those suggestions are not a good idea because they increase the house edge too much. The idea is to reduce the ratio of [house edge/variance]. If you increase house edge too much and variance only a little then the value of the quotient will not reduce but increases.
"You cannot optimize for maximizing variance versus only marginally increasing the house edge. "
Yes you can. In fact there is a blackjack strategy calculator online that optimizes exactly that.
Your strategy calculator tells you to play the deuce differently on doubles exclusively because of online bonuses. It is pretty clear on that. I'm sick of this ploppy nonsense. You have hijacked the OPs thread, and proved your theory is no better than the flow of the cards. I'm surprised Axiom is supporting this.
Quote: BizzyBYour strategy calculator tells you to play the deuce differently on doubles exclusively because of online bonuses. It is pretty clear on that. I'm sick of this ploppy nonsense. You have hijacked the OPs thread, and proved your theory is no better than the flow of the cards. I'm surprised Axiom is supporting this.
Let me be clear with what I'm supporting.
I'm saying that if your goal is to get as much money in play as possible, for as little cost as possible, then it will occasionally be "correct" to double on hands where basic strategy says to stand or hit, where the difference in EV between doubling and the basic strategy play are very small. It may also be "correct" to occasionally split hands in violation of basic strategy (again, where the difference in EV is small)
You must realize that some plays are very, very close, so soft-doubling can be very, very cheap even when it's the 2nd-best choice in terms of EV. What you are really doing here is buying variance (ie, paying slightly more in EV to take on a significantly higher variance)
This is not my goal, so it's not something that I'd do. When playing with an edge, you generally have the opposite goal -- you want to reduce variance (since this allows you to bet more, and therefore bet more money with your edge). However, when playing a -EV game "for fun", seeking out variance is a reasonable goal (since you can't win without variance)
My main point here is that if people have different goals than yours, their "correct" decisions may be different from yours.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceLet me be clear with what I'm supporting.
I'm saying that if your goal is to get as much money in play as possible, for as little cost as possible, then it will occasionally be "correct" to double on hands where basic strategy says to stand or hit, where the difference in EV between doubling and the basic strategy play are very small. It may also be "correct" to occasionally split hands in violation of basic strategy (again, where the difference in EV is small)
You must realize that some plays are very, very close, so soft-doubling can be very, very cheap even when it's the 2nd-best choice in terms of EV. What you are really doing here is buying variance (ie, paying slightly more in EV to take on a significantly higher variance)
This is not my goal, so it's not something that I'd do. When playing with an edge, you generally have the opposite goal -- you want to reduce variance (since this allows you to bet more, and therefore bet more money with your edge). However, when playing a -EV game "for fun", seeking out variance is a reasonable goal (since you can't win without variance)
My main point here is that if people have different goals than yours, their "correct" decisions may be different from yours.
Variance is a two way street. Playing hands wrong increases the house edge, making it that more likely (on top of the original house edge) that he will lose a lot than win a lot. I have seen a lot of stuff said by the NEW OP flip-flopped and taken out of context as well to just continually support his main thesis...which is what any ploppy would do in real life. I see how variance is the -EV player's only friend, but this doesn't seem like fun...it seems like a systematic, and compulsively poor strategy, which dually avoids using your brain and having fun.
