Optimal Bet Size

Some posters have suggested a bet range of 1-16 or even 1-20 in a eight deck shoe game. I'm having a hard time understanding how that would be advisable.

According to Wong, you should bet less than one unit for each percentage advantage, and that your advantage is computed by taking 50% of your true count minus the house initial advantage.

Then, in order to justify a bet of 20 times the low bet you would have to have an true count of over 40. (TC40@50% less initial advantage)

He also states that to bet more than 2x your optimum bet will result in losing money in the long run.

Comments appreciated. MM

He made these statements before optimal betting theory.

Assuming you are adequately rolled, why would betting a lot of money at an advantage cause you to lose money?

It Relative

Usually "optimal bet" is a term used to describe the amount to bet in order to optimize the growth of your bankroll. This assumes that your goal is to make as much money in as short an amount of time as possible.

Another approach is to determine the optimal bet subject to a constraint. Possible constraints include:

• Risk of ruin
• Bankroll volatility
• Bet spread

My advice: determine your goals for playing, then determine your playing conditions, and then set your bet spread accordingly.

How to determine the right bet spread? Research books and the Internet, or use a software simulator.

Assume a limited bankroll of $10,000.

If you are playing red chip levels, you should be fine spreading 1-16.

You need to then consider the games that are available to you. One rule of thumb is that you should have, at a minimum, 100 times your maximum bet.

With $10K, your ideal situation would be to find a $5 game, then you could spread 1:15 or even higher (in shoe games) and still be within your bankroll.

If the minimum bet available is $10 or higher, you would need to limit your spread to stay within the guideline provided by the 100x rule of thumb. For example, in a $25 game, you could only spread 1:4, and this would probably not give you a sufficient advantage to play that game.

A 1-16 spread would yield a risk of ruin of ~10% with a $10 min bet. The RoR would be ~1% at $5, and ~24% at $15.

MountainMan can decide using the rough figures above as a guide. If his bankroll is easily replenishible, then higher-level red or even green chip play is OK. If $10K is a "lose it and I'm done" bankroll, then I would advise more conservative play.

just me maybe, i wouldn't be making no 1-16 or 1-20 spread until i had some miles under my belt.
the ten grand is yours though you can do what you want with it.

I was going to say that too, although when I advocate a conservative playing approach, people respond that I don't know what I'm doing.

A 1-16 spread at $10 minimums means that a player will likely see $5K+ swings in bankroll in a single session. That's pretty scary on a $10K non-replenishable bank.

But to each her own...

If your spread is too low, your risk is very high.

true, especially over the long haul, just i think over the short term at least a inexperienced AP needs to reign it in a bit.

A very good point...

There is an ROR "sweet spot" which varies based on conditions, but as an example, for a S17 DAS Sr 75%pen $10 game with a 10K BR, the ROR vs spread looks like:

1:1 100%
1:2 46%
1:4 6%
1:6 5%
1:8 6%
1:10 6%
1:12 9%
1:14 10%
1:16 11%
1:20 14%
1:30 22%

So a conservative player, seeking to minimize ROR, would spread ~1:6. An aggressive player, seeking to maximize BR growth, would spread as high as conditions and risk tolerance allow.

For that one set of circumstances.

You're using the wrong numbers. The point of using a bigger spread is not taking the same bankroll thats designed for 1-10 and spreading 1-20 with it. The point is using a smaller unit and spreading 1-20 (or, hopefully more like 1-30) with it.

So, with the $10k bank, instead of spreading $10-100 on a $10 table, you go to the $5 table and spread $5-100.

I made the $5 point earlier in the thread. The $10 example, was not "wrong" it was just an example. That said, I agree with you that a $5 table would be a better option here, if that is available.

Progress Report

Thanks to all who have shared their time and expertise with me. I'd like to share some results with you: I've been playing a two deck game with various penetration levels. Most often pen is 75% or better. Last night the dealer was three cards shy of running out of cards. I have won 12 of 15 sessions that were typically about 5 hours each. When I'm up $200 for the session I have quit for the session. Rules are S17, DAS, DD on any two cards & no surrender. Cards are dealt face up from a shoe with a manual shuffle. Sometimes able to play heads up, but most often 3-4 players. I use a count equivalent to Revere Point Count with no side count of aces or otherwise. A-X = -2,1,2,2,2,2,1,0,0,-2. I ran simulations on many count tags and feel the above is the best when ease of use and win rates are concerened. Index numbers were generated by CVData.

I have played blackjack for twenty five years, but only recently rekindled my playing interest. When I began playing I read Revere's "Playing Black Jack as a Business". I have played infrequently until more recently. I have only recently become aware of the quality issues of the game. I didn't know the difference between one game and the next. Black Jack was Black Jack.

The free online info available is truely amazing. To help understand the game and to qualify my risk and potential gain I have recently purchase Casino Verite software. The software is worth ten times the price! I have been able to refine my game and to analyse which count system is best for my game.

I have been playing very conservatively, mainly due to the fact that I am still learning about the game. My goal is to make enough to make it worth the time and expense of playing. I try to play $5 minimum, but will play $10 minimum if necessary. My bet spread is 1-15 now, more conservative at first. I now realize (with the help of the software) that my risk is actually higher if I don't spread enough.

The software has shown me that the eight deck games available to me are inferior to the two deck game. My recent 15 trip results have been extremely positive relative to what should be expected. I chalk that up to randomness or variance, not to superior skill. Up till now I have not deviated much from basic strategy due to not knowing the index numbers. I have also played some 8 deck shoe games with poor penetration.

I am more exicited and more confident about the prospects of future gain from playing Black Jack. My concern now is that I play in the same local casino which will eventually catch on to my play, especially since I am increasing my bets more. Last night the dealer called "checks play" twice during my play. I had a true count of 32 with two bets of $125 out.

I share this info not to boast, but as appreciation to those of you that have shared their thoughts and expertise. I understand the risks of the game and enjoy the challenges it presents. Thanks for all your help! MM

I definitely would have played the Power Ball Lotto on my way home as that is what you just experienced.

I once had a two deck game with a higher TC, it was unbelievable. The best part was that I won what seemed like every hand.

Understand, if ONLY the 3,4,5,& 6's were dealt out of a 2 deck shoe, your RC would be 4cardsx4suitsx2decksx2count=64 and the TC would be 64/((104-32)/52) =~ 46

from there, if ONLY the 2& 7's were dealt, your RC would increase to 2x4x2x1=16+64 = 80 and the TC would be 80/((104-32-16)/52) = 74 - this is the highest TC you could possibly get in this game as all of the small cards were dealt

From there, it's all 8's, 9's 10's and A's left and be sure to stop at the Lotto m/c on the way home :laugh: