Raising bets early on

[rollem411]

I was in Barnes and Noble today and came across Kevin Blackwood's "Play backjack like the pros". Just skimmed through it to see what subjects he covered and saw something about increasing bets early on.

Let's just say you are playing an 8D game with 2 other players. The RC rises to +24 with 6D left to play giving your TC of +4. I usually just play it as a +4 count and bet my normal amount. He displayed a chart that had different betting schemes at different points in the shoe. I always thought, "the count is the count" and stick to it. Does anyone here play like this and not increase your bets to the full amount until half the shoe or more is complete?

I'm guessing this the same reasoning Snyder said not to place the LL bet in an 8D shoe until more than 2D are discarded.

[la_dee_daa]

i kinda go by this to waiting till the first couple decks are out in a 6 deck shoe. in a 6 decks shoe after 1 deck u can get a true count of 2-4 but in one deck and the next to may just maintain or go higher till the last couple decks left where the high count finally drops. There must be some math on this, i play that way but just because it seems like a better idea.

like say the true count is the same in both position at +4 would you be rather playing a double deck game with one deck left or a 6 deck game with 5 decks left, both with true count +4 just from a physcological view. I dont have the answear but for some unknown reason i wait till half the decks are played before i start my full bet spread.

[rollem411]

Originally Posted by la_dee_daa

i kinda go by this to waiting till the first couple decks are out in a 6 deck shoe. in a 6 decks shoe after 1 deck u can get a true count of 2-4 but in one deck and the next to may just maintain or go higher till the last couple decks left where the high count finally drops. There must be some math on this, i play that way but just because it seems like a better idea.

like say the true count is the same in both position at +4 would you be rather playing a double deck game with one deck left or a 6 deck game with 5 decks left, both with true count +4 just from a physcological view. I dont have the answear but for some unknown reason i wait till half the decks are played before i start my full bet spread.

Well I def. would want to play the DD game. I am thinking of switching up my game and waiting till half the shoe is completed to be a little more conservative. I know you say you aren't sure of the math involved in it, neither am I. Does anyone know if there is a long term positive or negative effect of playing this way as opposed to playing the count at any point?

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by rollem411

I was in Barnes and Noble today and came across Kevin Blackwood's "Play backjack like the pros". Just skimmed through it to see what subjects he covered and saw something about increasing bets early on.

Let's just say you are playing an 8D game with 2 other players. The RC rises to +24 with 6D left to play giving your TC of +4. I usually just play it as a +4 count and bet my normal amount. He displayed a chart that had different betting schemes at different points in the shoe. I always thought, "the count is the count" and stick to it. Does anyone here play like this and not increase your bets to the full amount until half the shoe or more is complete?

I'm guessing this the same reasoning Snyder said not to place the LL bet in an 8D shoe until more than 2D are discarded.

yeah well i have my thoughts on that. but i'm not sure what count your refering to above but what ever. what i think is your confidence may be a bit higher in the latter stages of the pack. but as Sonny pointed out to me a while back say you get a good count early on but you don't feel so confident since it's so early but go ahead and take a shot at it. these instances (good counts) are relatively rare to begin with and so you want to take advantage of them if they do present. and then to say the bets don't go so well and maybe the count keeps rising or stays the same well that just means you have another shot at it. it's all good lol. then think about it these crappy games we are faced with you just need to be a bit aggressive when the time comes to get anywhere. but i'll admitt i'm sometimes a bit conservative when it's early in the pack and kind of watching how things go. here's an interesting excerpt from the 'good ole book' once again lol :
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration2.htm

[rollem411]

Originally Posted by sagefr0g

yeah well i have my thoughts on that. but i'm not sure what count your refering to above but what ever. what i think is your confidence may be a bit higher in the latter stages of the pack. but as Sonny pointed out to me a while back say you get a good count early on but you don't feel so confident since it's so early but go ahead and take a shot at it. these instances (good counts) are relatively rare to begin with and so you want to take advantage of them if they do present. and then to say the bets don't go so well and maybe the count keeps rising or stays the same well that just means you have another shot at it. it's all good lol. then think about it these crappy games we are faced with you just need to be a bit aggressive when the time comes to get anywhere. but i'll admitt i'm sometimes a bit conservative when it's early in the pack and kind of watching how things go. here's an interesting excerpt from the 'good ole book' once again lol :
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration1.htm
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration2.htm

I think I'm going to start playing a more conservative game at fuller tables. I mean it sucks sitting at third base with a slightly TC of higher than 2 or 3 early on and than boom, 4 or 5 high cards are fired out to other people and I'm wishing I could take the bet back and adjust from there. I guess it's kinda like poker in a sense of knowing when to pick your spots. If you go heads up vs the dealer, I am going to increase early on, but at the full tables, maybe just sit back and increase slowly. I'm still wondering if there is a mathematical fact here that I am unaware of. I'm going to mess around with CVDATA and try to run a sim of the 2 scenarios and compare...I just haven't done this before because I am not too confident that I am inputing everything correctly, but I will post the results and maybe someone can confirm.

[EasyRhino]

I don't have PBLTP, so I can't refer to specifically what Blackwood was talking about.

Hower, the True Count is the True Count, dividing by decks remaining is how you compensate for much of the shoe remaining unplayed. If you have a high TC, BET INTO IT. That's just what you have to do. The high cards might come out early, they might not come out at all. They might come to you, they might go to others. It doesn't matter, BET INTO IT.

Playing at full tables does indeed suck. Not because the advantage at a high true count is any lower (it's the same). It's that since other people are eating lots of cards (good and bad), there's going to bigger swings in the count between rounds. This makes it harder to change your bets in small increments. If you bet according to the count, you're going to end up with some crazy bet jumps.

And this, specifically, is where a full table can cost you... cover (restraining your bet jumps) combined with crowds. Our good friend QFIT supplies the pictures:
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/cardcountingcover3.htm

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by rollem411

I think I'm going to start playing a more conservative game at fuller tables. I mean it sucks sitting at third base with a slightly TC of higher than 2 or 3 early on and than boom, 4 or 5 high cards are fired out to other people and I'm wishing I could take the bet back and adjust from there. I guess it's kinda like poker in a sense of knowing when to pick your spots. If you go heads up vs the dealer, I am going to increase early on, but at the full tables, maybe just sit back and increase slowly. I'm still wondering if there is a mathematical fact here that I am unaware of. I'm going to mess around with CVDATA and try to run a sim of the 2 scenarios and compare...I just haven't done this before because I am not too confident that I am inputing everything correctly, but I will post the results and maybe someone can confirm.

sure it's nice and better to be able to play heads up or not so crowded tables. that way you get more hands in and at more good counts. but wouldn't worry to much about your fellow table mates getting the cards your looking for. this is where the validity of the true count theorem comes to your rescue.
http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

I don't have PBLTP, so I can't refer to specifically what Blackwood was talking about.

Hower, the True Count is the True Count,

Not exactly. A TC +4 at 6D remain is not as good as TC+4 at 2D remaining.
But I advise everyone not to worry about it. zg

[EasyRhino]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Not exactly. A TC +4 at 6D remain is not as good as TC+4 at 2D remaining.

I agree. And it gets really crazy with 1D or less.

But I advise everyone not to worry about it. zg

I agree.

[rollem411]

Ok I just ran the sim with all factors being equal except the fact that I increased the bets slower at the first half of the shoe opposed to the last half. It actually showed a less $/hr win rate for the more conservative play so I am assuming the mathematics is for "play the count" no matter what stage, as zen. and ER have stated. Thanks for the replies though.

BTW, mostly a comment for SF, I tried posting the results of the sim in my message, but couldn't figure it out...I know you have posted your results so others can see the results first hand and my sim would be a lot more helpful if others could actually see the summary.