Another Bet Spread Question..

A question for all those who are more knowledgeable than I am- I'm not sure exactly how much to bet in every situation. I use Hi-Lo with Ill 18..

Game- 6 deck, 75-85% pen, s17, double any 2, split aces once, DAS

Bankroll- 1500 units (can be replenished a little at a time)

Also, I try to wong out at counts below -1..Can someone help me with a good bet spread for this game and count, with a decent ROR?
Thanks!

I'm going to just post what CVCX shows for this so you can get some ideas to help you with what they consider optimal.

I'm a big fan of going to two hands at TC > 1 so here is that one.

TC 0 = 1 unit
TC 1 = 2 units
TC 2 = 2x 5 units
TC 3 = 2x 8 units

In the rules you provided and assuming worst penatration of 75% this system produces an RoR of 4.0%.

Now if you don't like the idea of 2 hands, here is another viable option.

TC 0 = 1 unit
TC 1 = 4 units
TC 2 = 8 units
TC 3 = 13 units
TC 4+ = 15 units

This produces an RoR of 8.1%

Now if you manage to wong out nearly all the time when its -1 or lower, your RoR considerably drops to under .5%. However, so does your hourly expectation by not doing the play all situation.

These are some serious spreads 1-15, but I like a little more aggressive spread. Do not take too much cover and give up a lot of your expectation.

If you want to tone down the spread a little, just adjust each of these setups as you feel necessary.

I still prefer the 2 hand one as it doesn't appear that your spreading as much as you are.

It's pretty much the same as this bet spread question:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=16414

Something seems a little off between these two, single hand comparisions to me in regards to the RoR when wonging out of negative counts.

AM has spread of 1-16, maxing @+4, BR 1250 units, No play @ -2 or less, and has a RoR of 9.4%

MartyAce has a similar spread of 1-15, maxing @ +4, slightly bigger BR of 1500 units, No plays slightly earlier @ -1 or less, and a RoR of under .5%

Seems the RoR differs greatly for these similar spreads, BRs, and playing situations.

Can't be right, as Wonging out doesn't decrease RoR all that much. All you save is the minimum bets when you Wong out, it's the big bets that kill you!

Changing the Wong-out point in my sim to -1 gives me a 8.5% RoR but reduces the win rate to 2.1 units/100 hands. This is all assuming no reentry to a shoe until the shuffle. Different methods of Wonging will yield different results.

Why does the win rate drop because you are playing less negative hands?


I've also always been confused about # units/100. Is that per 100 hands seen? some of which aren't played because of wongout point or per 100 hands played?

According to the numbers in this thread, I must be playing with a higher RoR that I originally thought, as my number aren't that different, 1-12 spread maxing @+4, no play @-1 and lower, 1600 unit roll. I'm going to have to study up on this and try to learn more about RoR as apparently I don't understand it as well as I thought.

Just to clarify so no one is confused...
If your wonging out at -1 and wonging back in at the same table at 0 it's impossible that the hourly win rate would decrease.... However if wonging out on a -1 count then changing tables, common sense will tell ya... the hourly win rate will be decreased if enough time passes in between.

This is exactly one of the reasons I stopped keeping track of results per hour. Playing short session and jumping around, wonging out ect makes it difficult. Plus playing at table with 4 players is greatly different from playing heads up.

So I keep track of my results by number of hands played (estimated to the best of my ability) In some cases when jumping around it may take 90 minutes maybe even 2 hours to play 100 hands, while in others I can sit and play heads up and get 100 hands in 1/2 hour, but regardless, a hundred hands is a hundred hands.

So when I come up with a number of units won/100 hands it is 100 hands that I actually played. I dont think the programs figure it that way. When you punch in the info and get a winrate of x units/100 hands, that is 100 hands seen, or which maybe you don't play 30 because of wong out points, so it's really x units per 70 hands played. Is this correct?

If you leave in too minor a negative count, and do nothing until the shuffle comes out, you play fewer negative counts but you also don't get to play if the count gets good again for that shoe. The right point becomes a function of number of decks and pen. If you're playing that way, the Wongout point has to be surprisingly low to get the win rate better than play all. The other options are to move to another table (which you can't always do, every place is not AC!) or to Wong in place, just sit there and not play, and a lot of players are unwilling to do that.

When I use per 100 hands, it's a substitute for "per hour" because only the guy playing knows how many hands he can get per hour so there's no point in trying to estimate it here. But it usually does mean per 100 hands dealt, playing them or not.

Yeah, I don't usually do to much table hoppin myself. If playing with other players and the count is negative but i'm winning i'll stay in.. I try and pick a wong out time in negative counts after dealer gets a blackjack or a couple good hands.. then I may sit out and telling the ploppies I think we need to change the flow of the cards. Although if I lose quite a bit in a negative count i'll still try and sit out for bit..at least as much as possible without it looking too suspicious.. giving the excuse that my spot on the table is cold..lost too many.. and need to wait it out.. If the count drops sharply low.. then on a losing hand... that's when i'll use the bathroom break and come back for the next shoe.. the next sharp drop I'll probably change tables.