Have new post on bjmath.com, counting and groups.yahoo.com

AKA The Blackjack Cardcounters Cafe.

Instead of considering risk adverse indexes from the Certainty Equivalent (defined as expected value -risk etc.) I looked at it in terms of the alpha (ratio of your actual bet and optimal bet) for playing decisions. The index that does not change your long run index or your SCORE (SCORE is not included in the post I made) is actually quite a bit below the usual, zero edge/maximum expected value/common, index (except for soft doubling A,9)(thopper is on strike from giving feedback until I include that....).

Your risk adverse index goal then has to excede this zero impact index value enough to pull the fluctuations of adding money (to double or split) and not excede the zero edge index for this goal. It lowers what is and is not a risk adverse index, as compared to previous thought.

Do I need to know what you said in order to win in bj? Can anyone win without knowing this piece of information? How about something about implementation of what you've posted. Any example? BR, actual bet, optimum bet, SCORE, etc.

Please keep on the flow of such interesting findings. May be I should wait before hitting the bj tables for more of this type of important information to increase the edge in this game.

Be sure you click on the groups link from here and not the clubs link. Most of your questions have already been discussed there.

It just shows that algebraic approximation of risk adverse playing recomendations is valid, within limits, and modifies the basis for determining what a risk adverse index is.

Risk Adverse play is most important during the growth in bankroll initial phase of your play and becomes less and less important as you top off your bet sizing! (T-hopper is off strike too---we all should appreciate him more!).

...The NEW Card Counter Cafe, clickbelow. G

I just don't want to push the slack David gives by making too many multiple board posts!