betting method in Burning The Tables In Vegas

[squeeks]

I have latly been playing around with this strategy at home and I was wondering if anyone else uses of used this meathod in real play and how it worked out for you. This strategy is called the base in burning the tables in vegas, how it works is you start out betting one unit until the true count gets to +2 or higher then youwould raise your bet to two units the next hand would be four units then the next hand would be two hands of four units and next would be two hands of six units and that's the top bet and each hand raises like this only if the tc is +2 or more. If the count is between +1 and +2 then keep the bet from the last round. If the count is between 0 and +1 then you also keep the bet out from last round unless you just lost two hands of six units then you should cut ack to two hands of three units and if the count is below 0 then cut your bet back by half if the bet you have out is bigger then one unit. Never cut bats back by more then 50%, use hi-lo, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the last hand. With this method you should win 2.28 units a hour, with a standard deveations of 48-49 units. You also throw in a couple of bs mistakes and this betting cover combined with bs mistake w
should allow you to play longer and win money at the same time. And my last question is how high of betting units do you guys think this
meathod would get away with undetector or without much heat at least. When Ian (author of the book) used $100 units. Responses always appreitiated.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by squeeks

I have latly been playing around with this strategy at home and I was wondering if anyone else uses of used this meathod in real play and how it worked out for you. This strategy is called the base in burning the tables in vegas, how it works is you start out betting one unit until the true count gets to +2 or higher then youwould raise your bet to two units the next hand would be four units then the next hand would be two hands of four units and next would be two hands of six units and that's the top bet and each hand raises like this only if the tc is +2 or more. If the count is between +1 and +2 then keep the bet from the last round. If the count is between 0 and +1 then you also keep the bet out from last round unless you just lost two hands of six units then you should cut ack to two hands of three units and if the count is below 0 then cut your bet back by half if the bet you have out is bigger then one unit. Never cut bats back by more then 50%, use hi-lo, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the last hand. With this method you should win 2.28 units a hour, with a standard deveations of 48-49 units. You also throw in a couple of bs mistakes and this betting cover combined with bs mistake w
should allow you to play longer and win money at the same time. And my last question is how high of betting units do you guys think this
meathod would get away with undetector or without much heat at least. When Ian (author of the book) used $100 units. Responses always appreitiated.

Its not a good gambit without a huge (2000u?) BR to weather the extreme variance it introduces.

There are other gambits that fare better: Sklansky Gambit, Grifter Gambit, Reid Gambit, Schlessinger Gambit, GeoC Gambit, Wong Gambit, etc. If all are combined artfully together it comprises the "gambit of gambits" and hard to follow upstairs without counter-catcher software and is more stable than the Anderson Gambit alone. zg

[kewljason]

so after 4 hands at a true count of +2 (hi-lo) you would have your max bet out of 2 x 6 units. then if the count dropped to between +1 and +2, where your advantage is very small if you still have one, you would continue to bet 2x 6 units. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you are way overbetting.

[squeeks]

I'm just following what it said in the book.

[RJT]

ZG's right - it increases variance hugely, but it does make you look far more like the average gambler. If you also follow IA's assessment of bankroll - aka 2000 units - you should be fine, but be prepared for huge swings.
Personally, i feel unless you are playing fairly large stakes, this sort of cover is too expensive and buys you very little.

RJT.

[squeeks]

Thanks for the input guys.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by RJT

this sort of cover is too expensive and buys you very little.

One thing to always keep in mind about cover plays is that you only need them when all of these conditions are true:

(1) Without the cover play, you would get more heat.
(2) With the cover play, you get less heat.
(3) The cost of the cover play is much less than the EV you're giving up.

If you're going to get the same amount of heat whether you cover or not, don't cover. If the cover play is expensive, you're almost certainly better not covering.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by RJT

ZG's right - it increases variance hugely, but it does make you look far more like the average gambler. If you also follow IA's assessment of bankroll - aka 2000 units - you should be fine, but be prepared for huge swings.RJT.

I don't get it.

"Increases variance hugely" compared to what? Whether you have a 5 unit roll or a 5000 unit roll your unit variance is the same per hand betting the same way, no? It cannot increase in units.

Oh, more units in roll decreases risk but not variance lol.

[EasyRhino]

I don't think Anderson/Wong did a slight disservice by not talking much about risk of ruin changes using the gambit. The calculations are all very EV centric. Which is fine, but the reason EV only drops slightly using the gambit is because there's so much overbetting going on at lowish counts.

I haven't run any exact numbers (I can't), so I don't know if it's 'suicidal' on a regular sized bankroll, or just dangerous. It would seem that deploying a full on Ultimate Gambit would with a mortal bankroll would require a drop in unit size (to reduce risk of ruin) large enough that it would decrease your EV so much that it might not be appealing.

I still think it's pretty darn clever, though.

[BlodiaInc]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Its not a good gambit without a huge (2000u?) BR to weather the extreme variance it introduces.

There are other gambits that fare better: Sklansky Gambit, Grifter Gambit, Reid Gambit, Schlessinger Gambit, GeoC Gambit, Wong Gambit, etc. If all are combined artfully together it comprises the "gambit of gambits" and hard to follow upstairs without counter-catcher software and is more stable than the Anderson Gambit alone. zg

Where can I learn about these gambits? I haev only read about the Grifter Gambit