What betting strategies do you use?

I use a 50% positive progression. All the math experts say that it isn't any different than flat betting in the long run. I still do it because it increases the entertainment value of my play and my short term (10 years of play is considered short term in the universe of blackjack mathematics) results have been positive.
I don't advocate anyone else doing what I do. Everyone chooses their own style of play.
 
BlackjackRebel said:
I use a 50% positive progression. All the math experts says that it isn't any different than flat betting in the long run.
Click to expand...

One thing it does do is it increases your avg. bet, but if you're just trying to complete a WR it should be the same thing in the long run just with more variance.
 
In all honesty, I do use a positive progression sometimes when going for bonuses. It certainly doesn't help in any way and it could actually hurt a little but it breaks up the monotony in that it actually gets a little exciting when I have a "big" bet out there ($10 maybe).
 
Switch it up a little

I finally got it through my head that betting strategies dont change EV and I feel like it freed me up to bet whatever I wanted. I enjoy the exitement of big swings and i wont soon forget switching my bet from $5 to $50 and hitting BJ. The way i see it, if increasing entertainment doesn't hurt EV then do whatever feels right.

One caveat: After playing a few hands at $15, hitting BJ on a $5 almost feels like a loss. I found myself wanting to bet higher to chase the thrill and I'd have to take a breath and calm myself down.
 
AsparaChief said:
I finally got it through my head that betting strategies dont change EV and I feel like it freed me up to bet whatever I wanted. I enjoy the exitement of big swings and i wont soon forget switching my bet from $5 to $50 and hitting BJ. The way i see it, if increasing entertainment doesn't hurt EV then do whatever feels right.

One caveat: After playing a few hands at $15, hitting BJ on a $5 almost feels like a loss. I found myself wanting to bet higher to chase the thrill and I'd have to take a breath and calm myself down.
Click to expand...
A $50 bet has a 10-fold increase in -EV than a $5 bet, and a 50-fold increase in variance (swings). I take it all back! Please use your progression scheme! Oh, and REALLY/TRUELY: Learn correct BS for real, no bullshit. zg
 
How can you say you know what effect it has on his variance? EV is an easy one. He's expected to lose $2.50 on his $50 and $0.25 on his $5. What effect does that have on variance though. I understand variance to be a result of the cards coming out or a result of the bankroll. How can you know his variance if you don't know his bankroll size?
 
I think what he's saying is that, suppose you played $10,000 worth of blackjack: You should have lost $50 according to the .5% house advantage. If you had made 10,000 $1 bets, you'd be pretty damn close to that number. However, if you had made 100 $100 bets, although your EV is still a loss of $50, the variance is much higher.

P.S. He's expected to lose $.25 on his $50 and 1/4 of a penny on his $5.
 
[honestly, please preface this post with all of the deference and respect that noshoes has shown]

I completely agree that the expected loss is directly porportional to the amount of the bet (as is your possible payoff, chance of ruin, comp level, etc. ad nauseam).

My argument, however (and this could be completely wrong), is that when you are playing a game at a disadvantage, i.e. not counting, variance is your only hope. Your 'expected value' is easy to calculate and undoubtedly correct from a statistical perspective - and yet it is very rarely the actual observed outcome. Most of my friends aren't taking the time to learn to count (for whatever reason) and yet they still occasionally win.

I think its misleading to think of EV as a concrete number; it's just the mean of a distribution of likely outcomes, and increasing your variance will give you a higher chance of winning (and also a higher chance of losing). It will move your actual result farther from the mean without changing your EV.

It seems to me that that implies more entertainment for the same amount of expected loss, right?
 
Definetely an interesting question - I want to be person B, so I'll say he's smarter (but maybe I'm A, b/c I'm not seeing the connection to my opinion on variance.(?))
 
AsparaChief said:
My argument, however (and this could be completely wrong), is that when you are playing a game at a disadvantage, i.e. not counting, variance is your only hope.
Click to expand...

Look at that backwards. For a card counter, variance is your only enemy.
 
AsparaChief said:
My argument, however (and this could be completely wrong), is that when you are playing a game at a disadvantage, i.e. not counting, variance is your only hope. Your 'expected value' is easy to calculate and undoubtedly correct from a statistical perspective - and yet it is very rarely the actual observed outcome. Most of my friends aren't taking the time to learn to count (for whatever reason) and yet they still occasionally win.

You can only win in BJ when you are betting more $ during a positive varance, predicting when the positive varance begins, it's strength, and how long it last, is done with card counting, that in a nut shell is why we use card counting systems. However, we have all seen winning streaks and losing streaks that are so unreal that anyone could see the varance without counting. I also have friends whom play without counting and amaze me how well they pick-up on a positive varance, none are as good as a good card counter.
Click to expand...
 
I think you misundertand a bit.

For all purposes here (blackjack, roulette, gambling etc...) variance is a descriptor.

IE. when you are in a +10 TC situation and you are dealt a hard 16 to a 5 up and then hit to get a 5, you would say that variance (luck) gave you that 5.
 
I agree with both of the replies so far, but I'm most intersested in everyone's opinion of the following statement.

"All else equal, increasing statistical variance (whether counting or not) will have no effect on EV."

It will, however, increase swings (good if you enjoy swings, which I do) and increase your risk-of-ruin (I assume we'll all agree this is bad). But, each person will have a different opinion of an acceptable risk-of-ruin.

Here's what I'm getting at: Maybe a logical betting system could be developed that would focus on the effects of variance. For example, split your bankroll into 5 equal shares. With the first share use some betting scheme to maximize variance (maybe progression); forget RoR and go for the big score. If that doesn't work, reduce your variance as you get closer to your last share (maybe a more appropriate term would be "your last stand"). The final share's strategy would focus on minimizing RoR; hopefully it will keep you breathing through the last hours of your vacation.

Though betting cant change EV, maybe it can have some effect?

As always, this is just a thought; lemme know what you all think.

[Edit: This is based on my assumption that EV is calculated (or maybe can be calculated) with only one hand, that each hand is independant, and therefore that RoR doesn't affect EV. I may have this a bit twisted]
 
I think you have described the life of a card counter.

step 1. go to vegas and play blackjack with no strategy whatsoever.
step 2. learn basic strategy and play as a long term loser.
step 3. learn to count but don't realize the limitations of your skill (50/50)
step 4. finally get it all and use it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top