bj sims vs basic strategy

my bj sims is for the european blackjack

Six decks
Dealer stands on soft 17
Player may only double on hard totals of 9-11
Player may double after a split
no resplit
No-peek (player loses total bet, including after doubling or splitting, if dealer has blackjack)
early surrender (except with A)

at the same time 3 players follow their own strategy :

player 1 : play the standard basic strategy
player 2 : play the same except standing with 16 vs 10

(when surrender is not available)
player 3 : follow a Risk-Averse basic strategy

witch is near BS except:

- double 9 vs dealer 4-6 only

- double 10 & 11 vs 2-8 only

- never split 2,3,4

- split 6 vs 5,6

- split 8 vs 2-8

- split 9 vs 4-6

- stand with soft 18 vs 9,10 & A

- hit 13 vs 2

- surrender 8,8 vs 9 & 10

over 1000000 hands with a random shuffle the result is:

player 1: edge : -0.45 (the theorical edge)

player 2: : -0.39

player 3: : -0.63

How can we explain the result for player 2 where standing

with 16 (with more than 2 cards) vs 10 is a true BS

violation ?

player 3 reduce the variance for a give back of 0.2 to the casino,
a good deal for a non counter ?

thanks for your opinion.

first, your sim of only 1,000,000 rounds is insufficient. With more rounds (at least 10,000,000) you may see the differences begin to shake out...even so the difference between standing on 16v10 and hitting 16v10 is negligible in the overall scheme of things.

Regarding the Risk Averse strategy versus just plain basic strategy...I think that if you're playing for comps a risk averse strategy can be beneficial...but the deviations you've got here are just plain ridiculous...you've increased the house take by 40%...more than you could possibly get back in comps. If you want to decrease variance you should

1. Tighten up on soft doubles

2. Use a conservative split strategy (perhaps the NDAS splits at all games)...(note, you should continue to split 8's vs 9/10/Ace)

Many of the other deviations just give up way too much expectation.

>first, your sim of only 1,000,000 rounds is insufficient

don't change with more rounds.(see Don response)

>Regarding the Risk Averse strategy versus just plain basic >strategy...I think that if you're playing for comps a risk averse >strategy can be beneficial...

comps don't exist in europe,I don't use this strategy,it's
just the one advocated by j.Patterson in his book 'casino gambling'.

>but the deviations you've got here are just plain ridiculous.

I'm not sure of this ,read the answer from Don.

>1. Tighten up on soft doubles

soft double not allowed.

>Use a conservative split strategy (perhaps the NDAS splits at all >games)...(note, you should continue to split 8's vs 9/10/Ace)

splitting 8 vs 10 and A is incorrect with an european rule.

a good way for me to reduce the variance is to play 2 spots at a time ...

thanks for your reply.

the European NHC rule. Jerry Patterson = Snake Oil