Betting Method Questions From Burning The Tables

[Finn Dog]

Greetings,

I've read Burning The Tables In Las Vegas Volume II over several times but I still have some lingering questions about Ian Andersen's betting method.

I found this old thread http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=10754&highlight=burning+tables but it also left some unresolved issues.

Squeeks pointed out in his thread above that "you start out betting one unit until the true count gets to +2 or higher, then you would 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.

And 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 back 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 bets back by more then 50%, use hi-lo, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the last hand."

Do I have the following correct on how IA is explaining the use his betting method:

1. On page 69 (paragraph 3), IA says (after opening with one hand of two units on a shoe) "if I win the first hand and the running count is +2 or more, I chip up to three units."

Don't you think IA obviously meant a TC of +2 (and not a RC of +2), this has got to be a typo?

2. Assuming he did mean a TC of +2 (vs. a RC of +2), let's say the TC is only at +2 and you've just won a bet with two hands of two units--IA's gambit would then call to parlay up to two hands of four units.

Then say you win that hand (and the count is still only at TC +2), the way I'm reading his method is he would then go all the way up to two hands of six units--at a TC of only +2?

3. Finally, let's say you again win that 2 X 6 hand, and again, the TC is still only at +2. He says in the book anything past two hands of six units he chips up at that point--so he'd have two hands of seven units bet for the next hand--but do I have it right that he'd risk this many units as long as the TC is still only at +2?

If I do have all this right, I guess that's why he obviously recommends a 2000 unit BR before attempting this gambit (due to what must be some pretty heavy variance).

Best regards,

FD

 

[PrinceDragon]

You got everything right.

That's why using the U.G. you only have +.63% overall Advantage,and the 2000u BR requirement is the Min.

P.D.

 

[EasyRhino]

The Ultimate Gambit is kind of like a Red Army offensive from World War II. Terribly inefficient, but makes up for it with the sheer massive scale of the betting.

 

[Finn Dog]

You got everything right.

That's why using the U.G. you only have +.63% overall Advantage,and the 2000u BR requirement is the Min.

P.D.

Wow, has anyone ever had the guts to try this (over at least 500 hours to see if you approach the EV)? Sounds like bankroll suicide without 2000 units (at least).

Think I'll hit and run instead.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Wow, has anyone ever had the guts to try this? Sounds like bankroll suicide without 2000 units (at least).

Think I'll hit and run instead.

I run a similar system on single deck. What I'm doing is mixing two progressions; a positive progression in positive counts and a negative progression in negative counts, and a small flat bet in neutral counts (the most common kind). So from the perspective of the pit, they see me betting these progressions in all kinds of counts and it's unlikely they would figure it out without a computer. It increases the variance but not that badly and increases my effective spread from 1:4 to 1:5.

 

[johndoe]

Wow, has anyone ever had the guts to try this? Sounds like bankroll suicide without 2000 units (at least).

Think I'll hit and run instead.

Not the UG, since I'm not a black player, but his green chip techniques are also pretty good. I sometimes use them when I'm at a place with heat, or if I care about being invited back.

 

[Finn Dog]

Seems to me in the end that tying up 2000 units for a lower EV is rather inequitable; one could do something more equitable (and diversified) with the extra 1000 units instead: like invest it in the market, for example.

 

[Finn Dog]

You got everything right.
P.D.

I'm not so sure about that now--because I discovered an ambiguous reference to TC+3 (vs. TC +2) as an attack point past two hands of 6 units (perhaps).

It's on page 97 in the middle of the page. Admittedly, IA's writing style is a little vague (perhaps intentionally).

What I can't figure out is this: is he recommending TC +3 as strike point only past two hands of 6 units--or as a strike point from a base of "unknown" hands of "unknown" units leading up to two hands of 6 units?

That is, I can't figure out his distinction between TC +2 and TC +3 listed on page 97 (because all other references refer to TC +2).

Thanks for everyone's input thus far.

FD

 

[Mimosine]

Seems to me in the end that tying up 2000 units for a lower EV is rather inequitable; one could do something more equitable (and diversified) with the extra 1000 units instead: like invest it in the market, for example.

As far as EV goes, if you can make $100/hr at several shops or $200/hr at only one or two shops and only infrequently, what would you do? what if this was your livelihood? how would you play then?

as far as investing;
why not do both? there is no reason that 1000 of your units can't be in a money market, or some of that even in short term CDs, or even in Stocks!
Currently 1/3-1/2 of my BR is spread over some 6Mo CDs, a MMA, and a few index funds. it's a better solution than having all of it in a lovely 0.25% apr checking account.

 

[A.L.F.]

I'm not so sure about that now--because I discovered an ambiguous reference to TC+3 (vs. TC +2) as an attack point past two hands of 6 units (perhaps).

It's on page 97 in the middle of the page. Admittedly, IA's writing style is a little vague (perhaps intentionally).

What I can't figure out is this: is he recommending TC +3 as strike point only past two hands of 6 units--or as a strike point from a base of "unknown" hands of "unknown" units leading up to two hands of 6 units?

That is, I can't figure out his distinction between TC +2 and TC +3 listed on page 97 (because all other references refer to TC +2).

Thanks for everyone's input thus far.

FD

I went back and read page 97 and I see what you're saying (about the mention of TC +3 vs. +2 in Standford Wong's sim) and now I'm confused.

I always thought Ian Andersen only used TC +2 as the determining factor of when to raise his bets--and that the only determining factor of how he got to 12 or more units thereafter was only if he won successive hands (and the TC remained over +2)?

Can anyone shed some light on this?

As a side note, I've practiced this method on CVBJ and noted that with an initial strike point of TC +2 vs +1, you sure don't get as many bets on the table for one, and secondly, it's not that common that you win enough hands in a row to get up to 12 units or even up to 2 X 9 as he says. Therefore, I didn't really see the extreme variance in my limited practice (but perhaps I haven't played enough hands for an accurate sampling of course, but most of the time, it seemed I had a lot of small bets out because of the higher initial strike of TC +2). Am I missing something?

One suggestion: if your question can't be answered here, you might think about joining Green Chip and posing the question directly to Stanford Wong himself.

A.L.F.