Betting 2 hands with this spread...

pooptarts92

Well-Known Member
#1
Ok so I know that the 2 hands should total 150% of what I'd be betting on one hand to keep my RoR the same, but some of my bets make for weird math, or weird sized bets. For example, my true 4 bet is $50, 150% of that is $75 but I can't bet $37.50 on 2 spots. Any suggestions?
Here's my 4 deck ES (vs 10) bs
tc1: $5 (wouldn't play 2 hands here)
tc2: $20 (2 hands of 15)
tc3: $35 ?
tc4: $50 ?

and my 6 deck LS spread
tc1: $10 (wouldn't play 2 hands here)
tc2: $25
tc3: $40 (2 hands of 30)
tc4: $55 ?
tc5: $60 (2 hands of 45)
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#2
pooptarts92 said:
Ok so I know that the 2 hands should total 150% of what I'd be betting on one hand to keep my RoR the same, but some of my bets make for weird math, or weird sized bets. For example, my true 4 bet is $50, 150% of that is $75 but I can't bet $37.50 on 2 spots. Any suggestions?
Here's my 4 deck ES (vs 10) bs
tc1: $5 (wouldn't play 2 hands here)
tc2: $20 (2 hands of 15)
tc3: $35 ?
tc4: $50 ?

and my 6 deck LS spread
tc1: $10 (wouldn't play 2 hands here)
tc2: $25
tc3: $40 (2 hands of 30)
tc4: $55 ?
tc5: $60 (2 hands of 45)
Suggestions? Yes. You round off. And you probably should round up, as the actual number is that when spreading to two hands your bets should be 77% of your original wager to remain at the same risk. So if you normally wager $50 @ TC +4 then you should wager 2 hands of $38.50 (50 x .77) or rounded to 2 hands of $40.

I question your spread for the 6 deck game, though. I certainly hope you aren't playing all with a 1-6 spread. Even wonging out of negative counts, depending on rules, 1-6 may not be enough to gain a reasonable advantage. :confused:
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#3
kewljason said:
Suggestions? Yes. You round off. And you probably should round up, as the actual number is that when spreading to two hands your bets should be 77% of your original wager to remain at the same risk. So if you normally wager $50 @ TC +4 then you should wager 2 hands of $38.50 (50 x .77) or rounded to 2 hands of $40.

I question your spread for the 6 deck game, though. I certainly hope you aren't playing all with a 1-6 spread. Even wonging out of negative counts, depending on rules, 1-6 may not be enough to gain a reasonable advantage. :confused:
My bad! That number should be 73% meaning you should wager 2 hands of $36.50. So either round up tp $40 or down to $35, which ever you are more comfortable with.
 

assume_R

Well-Known Member
#4
I agree with Jason. And also wonder about the 1-6 spread, but hey if you've worked out the numbers and it comes out +EV enough for you, go for it!

Rounding up will ever so slightly increase your EV, rounding down will ever so slightly decrease your RoR. The results from those differences of +/-$2.50 per bet probably won't be too noticeable, depending on your total bankroll. There are a host of other "rounding inaccuracies" when you count (deck estimation, index numbers, etc.) that this might not make too much of a difference.
 

pooptarts92

Well-Known Member
#5
kewljason said:
Suggestions? Yes. You round off. And you probably should round up, as the actual number is that when spreading to two hands your bets should be 77% of your original wager to remain at the same risk. So if you normally wager $50 @ TC +4 then you should wager 2 hands of $38.50 (50 x .77) or rounded to 2 hands of $40.

I question your spread for the 6 deck game, though. I certainly hope you aren't playing all with a 1-6 spread. Even wonging out of negative counts, depending on rules, 1-6 may not be enough to gain a reasonable advantage. :confused:
I got the bet spread from one of the members here, he ran a bunch of sims for me and that's what it came up with. It's 6 deck LS H17 DAS DA2 NRSA but the pen is where the main advantages come from apparently, they cut usually 1 deck or less off... in a 6 deck shoe that's pretty prime.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#6
pooptarts92 said:
I got the bet spread from one of the members here, he ran a bunch of sims for me and that's what it came up with. It's 6 deck LS H17 DAS DA2 NRSA but the pen is where the main advantages come from apparently, they cut usually 1 deck or less off... in a 6 deck shoe that's pretty prime.
If it provides for a level of profit that you are comfortable with, thats great. As a very general rule, most people use a larger spread for a six deck game, like 1-10 or 1-12, especially if playing all hands. I personally use a 1-16 spread for such games. Just seemed a little odd that you are using a 1-10 spread for a 4 deck game but a 1-6 spread for a 6 deck game.
 

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#7
pooptarts92 said:
Ok so I know that the 2 hands should total 150% of what I'd be betting on one hand to keep my RoR the same, but some of my bets make for weird math, or weird sized bets. For example, my true 4 bet is $50, 150% of that is $75 but I can't bet $37.50 on 2 spots. Any suggestions?
)
I would go to 2 x $35 here. Remember that the 73% edict for same ROR refers to l--o--n--g term ROR. At 2 x 73%, your session volatility (and daily ROR) goes higher than with 1 x 100%. It's only after your greater EV grinds its way into the picture that your long range ROR for 2 x 73% becomes the same as 1 x 100%. This takes several thousand hours.

Incidentally, your hourly standard deviations will be just about the same as each other going with 2 x 65% as with 1 x 100%. And 2 x 65% does get more money on the felt (per card used up) than 1 x 100% as long as there are at least two other players at the table.
 
Last edited:

pooptarts92

Well-Known Member
#8
kewljason said:
If it provides for a level of profit that you are comfortable with, thats great. As a very general rule, most people use a larger spread for a six deck game, like 1-10 or 1-12, especially if playing all hands. I personally use a 1-16 spread for such games. Just seemed a little odd that you are using a 1-10 spread for a 4 deck game but a 1-6 spread for a 6 deck game.
Oh I may have misled you since my true 1 was $10, my minimum at this table is $5 at anything below true 1.
 
Top