Betting Flat During Small TC

[vonQuux]

If one is worried about heat, what would be the effect of abandoning the low end of the bet ramp?

In other words, I saw some chart which showed the % of hands that would be spent at a given TC. I can't find it ATM but just to pull a number out of my ***, suppose that 1% of hands are spent at a TC of +6. Again, simply making up numbers here but perhaps 0.1% are spent at TC +8. So why not just bet flat until that rare TC becomes a reality, then bust out the 12x bet?

Clearly this is sub-optimal in a sense but it would seem to give the casino less time to "see you coming." If your bets are changing like clockwork with the count, this is a dead giveaway. But a player who plays correctly for ten hours at the table minimum, sees a nosebleed TC and bets large would be virtually indistinguishable from a customer who knows BS and decides to get a little reckless.

If one were losing, the bet could be covered with a completely convincing "it's all or nothing time" comment. If one were ahead, the play could be explained as "I'm playing with the casino's money." IMO that's a very stupid idea to actually hold but cover is cover.

TIA,
vQ

[moo321]

You're giving up too much EV in those more marginal high counts, and you're contributing to a very large variance. Change it to 50 units in +5 counts, and you may be on to something...

[vonQuux]

Originally Posted by moo321

You're giving up too much EV in those more marginal high counts, and you're contributing to a very large variance. Change it to 50 units in +5 counts, and you may be on to something...

Yeah, I'm not promoting that specific bet spread. I haven't studied any of the betting literature at all, I figure once I get to the point where counting and BS is down cold, then I can work on other necessary skills.

I'm just talking as a general tactic of not letting one's bet follow the count at all until a certain, fairly rare threshold has been reached. That way the pit has nothing to work with when you do raise your bets.

vQ

[EasyRhino]

A more common option is sticking with a conventional bet spread (where max bet is around +4 or +5), playing the shoe, betting the minimum, ramping conventionally, and then, when you finally hit a max bet of 12x or 20x or whatever, playing it out as long as the count warrants, then leaving.

This can make for some short sessions though.

[vonQuux]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

A more common option is sticking with a conventional bet spread (where max bet is around +4 or +5), playing the shoe, betting the minimum, ramping conventionally, and then, when you finally hit a max bet of 12x or 20x or whatever, playing it out as long as the count warrants, then leaving.

This can make for some short sessions though.

That sounds interesting.

By "playing it out as long as the count warrants," do you mean as long as the count stays at or above a level you'd normally play 12x at? Or do you mean as long as the TC remains positive? I'm guessing you mean the former.

vQ

[EasyRhino]

Probably as long as you have a TC where you'd have an elevated bet.

And if you're bailing at the end of that high count anyway, then I wouldn't have much problem dropping my bet if the count decreased (but was still at a bettable level).

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by vonQuux

…suppose that 1% of hands are spent at a TC of +6. Again, simply making up numbers here but perhaps 0.1% are spent at TC +8. So why not just bet flat until that rare TC becomes a reality, then bust out the 12x bet?

Because your advantage would be tiny. Also you would need to use an enormous spread in order to make up for the fact that you’re losing money 99% of the time. You would probably need something like a 1-60 spread just to break even and a 1-90 spread to have a decent advantage. You would be losing the majority of your advantage by ignoring the frequent “warm” counts and increasing your disadvantage by playing through all of the negative counts. You would be getting less big bets per hour so your win rate would be smaller and it would take longer for the fluctuations to smooth out. Can you imagine losing 42 units on 1 hand (insurance, a split and double) then having to wait another hour or more before you get the chance to win it back? It would feel even more frustrating when you knew that the count was still very high and very profitable but not high enough (like “only” +5) to make your max bet again even though you are likely to win money.

Originally Posted by vonQuux

Clearly this is sub-optimal in a sense but it would seem to give the casino less time to "see you coming."

The best way to avoid having the casino see you coming is to not play any negative hands. That way they don’t ever see your minimum bet. They only see your medium/max bets so your spread will look smaller than it would if you were flat betting the minimum 75% of the time then suddenly raising your bets to 12-20 times your minimum. Instead of using a 1-12 spread you are using a 2-12 spread since you are never making a 1-unit bet, which only looks like a 1-6 spread to the pit. You are also not “bleeding” any money during negative counts so your win rate will be bigger and your variance will be smaller.

-Sonny-

[vonQuux]

Originally Posted by Sonny

The best way to avoid having the casino see you coming is to not play any negative hands. That way they don’t ever see your minimum bet. They only see your medium/max bets so your spread will look smaller than it would if you were flat betting the minimum 75% of the time then suddenly raising your bets to 12-20 times your minimum. Instead of using a 1-12 spread you are using a 2-12 spread since you are never making a 1-unit bet, which only looks like a 1-6 spread to the pit. You are also not “bleeding” any money during negative counts so your win rate will be bigger and your variance will be smaller.

This sounds like good advice. Thanks.

Later on I'm going to write a quick script in PHP to sim a few runs but some quick back-of-napkin calculations indicates that my idea is really, really bad. =)

vQ

[BJApprentice21]

Von, from what I've been reading, the way we APers win is by pretty much bertting, and more importantly, Doubling Down appropriately at the proper TC, not by winning more hands than the house. You will lose more hands. When you increase your bet spread like your supposed to, your double down amounts are higher. DD's + a High TC = AP. The more you bet, the higher the DD's.

NOTE: you can still lose at a high TC, thats why your bets need to be spread right, so that you don't lose too much $$$ in case of bad variance.

So by not increasing your bet as the true count warrants, your not increasing your DDs, and it seems you wouldn't really be APing. Instead, DPing because your going to be losing hands to the house. Plus, that high of a count isn't really that common, so you'd be DP'ing quite a bit, and who knows if you'll even be able to recover while waiting for that high TC. Plus remember you can still lose playing a high TC. So, you'd better have a huge BR!

If you have that big BR, then you might be able to make up for all that DP'ing by placing insanely huge max bets when you finally get that TC your looking for (You might not be welcome back in the casino though). Also, remember that even though the count is high, theres still a possibility that you'll lose. So, by not having the proper BR for such a thing, you'd really be screwing yourself trying something like this. The variance would be more than likely to ruin you. My 2 cents

-Apprentice

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by BJApprentice21

NOTE: you can still lose at a high TC

This seems to be an underappreciated point. Not only can you still lose at high counts, but unless the count is something like +20, you will ALWAYS lose more than you win.

At a TC of 0, you're winning roughly 43% of the time and losing 49% of the time. At a TC of -5, you're winning 42.5% of the time and losing 49.5% of the time. At a TC of +5, you're winning 43.5% of the time and losing 48.5% of the time. This shift is enough to give you a big advantage, but you're never going to get a huge win percentage.