if you sure next card is an Ace , how much u bet ?

[Automatic Monkey]

...I've never seen any real-world situation where the answer was anything other than "Bet whatever you can get away with," which may be why ZG steered the thread towards the theoretical Kelly answer.

The only time I've ever had a 100% known ace was an incident where I blew on a mishandled card to reveal it, and had to backline a civilian to take advantage of it. In that case I had to guess at the likelihood of the civilian either misplaying the hand or trying some extortion, or a huge bet drawing attention to my dirty trick, so keeping the bet lower than outrageous appeared to be the best play. Fortunately I got the natural so there was no chance for an incident.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Not entirely on topic, but the one time I put a huge bet out on a known ace, the dealer got blackjack. Of course the count was below the insurance index so I declined.

 

[stophon]

So if you are 50% sure the next card is an ace, would you bet 21% of your bankroll or 26%

 

[Pro21]

So if you are 50% sure the next card is an ace, would you bet 21% of your bankroll or 26%

I would bet table max.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

So if you are 50% sure the next card is an ace, would you bet 21% of your bankroll or 26%

Neither. If you are 50% sure the next card is an ace, you are also 50% sure the next card is not an ace, and if the next card is not an ace your average advantage is around -4.7%, so with your 50% ace your advantage is 23%. Divide out that finagling factor of 1.3, and I get a bankroll fraction around 18% for full Kelly, give or take a percent or so. I'd bet a little less than that.

 

[Kenneth]

Now I don't have Exhibit CAA but that 42% seems awfully high. Sure you have a 51% advantage but two bad beats and you now only have 16% of your bankroll left. Seems like thats a lot of risk to have even though you have a 51% advantage.

I think you might benefit from considering the fact that percentages are relative values.

ex.) Losing 20% of br leaves the player 80% of the original br. Losing additional 20% of the post-loss br leaves this unfortunate player with 64% of the original br instead of 60% of the original br.

 

[1357111317]

I think you might benefit from considering the fact that percentages are relative values.

ex.) Losing 20% of br leaves the player 80% of the original br. Losing additional 20% of the post-loss br leaves this unfortunate player with 64% of the original br instead of 60% of the original br.

Good point. I was also considereing a double though Although with 42% of your bankroll on the table I think Basic stratagy would go out the window as mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[Kenneth]

Good point. I was also considereing a double though Although with 42% of your bankroll on the table I think Basic stratagy would go out the window as mentioned earlier in this thread.

It would be interesting to compute the advantage of having an ace without the potential gain from DD and splits. Aside from non-stake-increasing strategy, I think what would work most "optimally" may be a sort of personalized CE with regard to how much, according to one's br, would cause a heartbreaking loss. The size of bankroll seems worth noting as well; having a small initial br may devastate a ripe future opportunity by diminishing too much.

ex.) Disregarding all table conditions for the sake of simplicity; with absolute certainty of the ace, betting one hand of continuously-adjusting 40% of the initial br of $6,000, and losing 6 consecutive ace hands would bring this unfortunate player to tears with about $279.94.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

It would be interesting to compute the advantage of having an ace without the potential gain from DD and splits. Aside from non-stake-increasing strategy, I think what would work most "optimally" may be a sort of personalized CE with regard to how much, according to one's br, would cause a heartbreaking loss. The size of bankroll seems worth noting as well; having a small initial br may devastate a ripe future opportunity by diminishing too much.

ex.) Disregarding all table conditions for the sake of simplicity; with absolute certainty of the ace, betting one hand of continuously-adjusting 40% of the initial br of $6,000, and losing 6 consecutive ace hands would bring this unfortunate player to tears with about $279.94.

Aside from A6 and A7 soft doubling does not give you much of an advantage relative to the added variance, and what's worse is on some of those plays the advantage goes up little to nothing as the count (and your bet) increases. The worst are hands like A4 and A5 where the small cards you need to improve your hand are gone when you have a lot of money out. Splitting aces is a little bit of a happier proposition.

 

[Cardcounter]

first card is an ace!

The only way that you can know that the next card is an ace is by getting a first card is an ace coupon. On these coupons bets are heavily restricted the most I was allowed to bet on a hand with an ace coupon was $25 this was well within my budget and I bet the max. If they allowed me too I would bet the table max of $500 and get at least $2,000 behind me to be able to split 3 times. I only have $8,000 in cash in the bank and about $32,000 in assets and I would be willing to put up that kind of money if I had a first card is an ace coupon. If I was pretty sure that the next card was an ace and I was on first base I would put up $100-$200 depending upon my bankroll.

 

[zengrifter]

zengrifter, your 45% figure is high. why spout approximations, when the exact answer is available, or haven't you yet received your pdfed copy of CAA?.

Wasn't the exact figure available prior to Grosjean?
Anyway, I'm quoting 40% from here on. zg

 

[BJTiger]

The only way that you can know that the next card is an ace is by getting a first card is an ace coupon.

Really?

Care to bet on that?

Once a month I get a bet where I am 100% sure the card is an ace.

 

[zengrifter]

There are a number of ways to know for sure. zg