using 2 or 3 hand codependence

#1
I used to go to happy hour where they had video blackjack that was strickly for entertainment, no payouts. I dont know if they were setup so counting would be useful or not so I never counted. The thing I would do for fun was try to see how long I could play for a dollar. I assume whatever worked the best was the best strategy.

What I found to work the best was playing 3 hands. I would double all 3 bets every time I won all 3 bets and drop back to my minimum bet if I lost 2 out of 3 bets. It worked surprisingly well. I rarely had to put in an extra dollar while I was there and often built up enough credits($20 worth) to make it worth asking the bartender if I could get paid. None said they would pay me.

My question is, Is the codependence among hands strong enough to merit such an approach as cover in small disadvantage situations?

I thought this idea had enough merit that some of you might be curious enough to run some sims on it. I posted it on the voodoo board because thats probably where it belongs. I only have a limited amount of experience with it in an unknown game so my question is based on anecdotal evidence not math but we all know that multiple hands have a fair degree of codependence. With that in mind I thought it was worth a look especially for those who feel they need some cover play.
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#2
My guess is that this game is rigged to let you win small $1 bets and then eat you alive when when the monsterous $2 and $3 bets come out! :rolleyes:
 
#3
Its a for fun game like a pinball machine

Thanks for the response. Its a for fun game. I guess the owner wants money in since thats the profit. It also allows you to choose from dozens of other entertainment games ranging from yatzee, trivia, video games, and many more. I was only interested in blackjack once I discovered it was an option.

The profit motive of the owner could be money in the machine or chairs filled at the bar. Im not sure if the machine allowed the owner to alter the game. The bar went belly up during the economic downturn so more information is not possible at this time. Maybe I will come across it somewhere else.

I was curious because the codependence of the hands has a mathematical foundation. Whether this translates into some sort of advantage or trimming of the HE for someone looking for cover or earning a comp was what I was wondering. Many like to play multiple spots at the table anyway.

I hear people considering employing obviously horrible ideas to increase their longevity. My experience in this game shows that this might not be a bad option for these players but without analysis independent of this video game who knows.

Obviously if its strength is in advantage situations its not of much use. You arent going to alter your betting ramp for cover. But in the situation were you are at minimum bet but still playing 2 or 3 spots before you drop to 1 hand or wong out some sort of variation that has some math behind it is desirable if cover is what one seeks. These parameter limitations should help anyone interested in exploring this.

Either it didnt get any interest or it worked so well people are keeping the results to themselves. Usually people arent shy about criticism on the voodoo board.

This would have you "ramping your bet" when the negative variance from cover play might be low. I could be showing my somewhat weak understanding of variance with that statement. At least you arent chasing your losses but I guess thats a matter of personal preference.

Maybe a smaller increase on a sweep in wins followed by the total regression the first time a round shows a loss. Or an increase geared to mimic the steps in your ramp.

I certainly dont recommend trying this without further investigation.
 

Midwestern

Well-Known Member
#4
tthree said:
I hear people considering employing obviously horrible ideas to increase their longevity.

Obviously if its strength is in advantage situations its not of much use. You arent going to alter your betting ramp for cover. But in the situation were you are at minimum bet but still playing 2 or 3 spots before you drop to 1 hand or wong out some sort of variation that has some math behind it is desirable if cover is what one seeks. These parameter limitations should help anyone interested in exploring this.

Either it didnt get any interest or it worked so well people are keeping the results to themselves. Usually people arent shy about criticism on the voodoo board.

This would have you "ramping your bet" when the negative variance from cover play might be low. I could be showing my somewhat weak understanding of variance with that statement. At least you arent chasing your losses but I guess thats a matter of personal preference.
haha the reason this may not have gotten immediate interest is because no one could stand the heavy math right before the first weekend in May!

here are my thoughts on your idea. it sounds like a waste of time unless cover is your primary objective. yes, hands played on the same round have a high degree of covariance. and in the short term, it may seem like a win in one bucket offsets a loss in another bucket..and there are the pluses that this strategy chews up cards, and provides cover.

however the fact that you may be doing this in a negative expectation game completely goes against the entire reason for AP. why put more money on the table when the long-run EV is the negative house edge?
money-wise it's not huge, but as a long run it adds up.
3 hands of $10 at house edge of -0.5% equals 15 cents a round that you are paying to play this betting strategy and we know that any betting strategy does not win in the long run.

also, why waste your time in negative to neutral counts? if you need cover that bad, then id say better 'cover' can be obtained by just leaving and playing another casino.

on the concept of codependence, what i think you experienced were the benefits of diversification (common financial&investment knowledge).
your returns were smoothed by spreading the risk over 3 hands as opposed to the usual 1. Sometimes you win all 3, sometimes you lose all 3, and sometimes you have a mix. however by doing this on the same shoe This would be no different than randomly switching bets of $15 -$30 on one hand (without counting or any AP edge) in the long run.

A much more profitable (and mathematically sound) version of the above would be playing 3 different hands on 3 different tables and playing correct AP play on those. However this is physically impossible as each AP is limited to one table without team play.

spreading to multiple hands during POSITIVE EXPECTATION counts has been researched quite thoroughly. blackjack attack goes over a "revised" bet ramp when a player is willing to spread to 3 hands.
(for example when the count is +3, you can spread 1-10 on one hand, 1-7 on two hands, and 1-5 on 3 hands..... these are not exact figures but you get the idea)

you give the appearance of a lower spread while putting more money on the table its great cover and this also allows you to randomly switch up the number of hands you play in +ev scenarios which just makes you look like a gambler
 
#5
Thanks for the input

Thanks for the reply midwest. I dont expect people who believe it isnt going to help them to do the sims. The game was for fun and my goal was to lose credits the slowest not necessarily win since I wasnt compensated. This worked the best.

One day I will have the software to satisfy my curiosity. I doubt it will encourage me to use it because Im not looking for cover yet. If I were the idea would have more appeal to me. After all isnt cover making larger bets in a nonadvantage situation at a minimal loss rate. That is the same goal that I used in what I determined through trial and error.
 
#6
tthree said:
I used to go to happy hour where they had video blackjack that was strickly for entertainment, no payouts. I dont know if they were setup so counting would be useful or not so I never counted. The thing I would do for fun was try to see how long I could play for a dollar. I assume whatever worked the best was the best strategy.

What I found to work the best was playing 3 hands. I would double all 3 bets every time I won all 3 bets and drop back to my minimum bet if I lost 2 out of 3 bets. It worked surprisingly well. I rarely had to put in an extra dollar while I was there and often built up enough credits($20 worth) to make it worth asking the bartender if I could get paid. None said they would pay me.

My question is, Is the codependence among hands strong enough to merit such an approach as cover in small disadvantage situations?
No validity at all. BUT I have noticed - when using Grifter Gambit betting, and observing and listening to ploppies who religiously play three hands, that three hand s exhibit a different pattern of strikiness (best I can describe it) and that creates a different user experience, which can be confused for winning. zg
 
#7
ploppy appeal

Thanks for the reply zg. I see the ploppy appeal factor. When the dealer is busting alot it really seems like you have something. You make a big score makes it easy to forget about the other side of the coin. Unusually strong staying power for a positive progression system between hits.
 

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member
#8
zengrifter said:
No validity at all. BUT I have noticed - when using Grifter Gambit betting, and observing and listening to ploppies who religiously play three hands, that three hand s exhibit a different pattern of strikiness (best I can describe it) and that creates a different user experience, which can be confused for winning. zg
Strikiness?
 
Top