make money w/o spreading

I was thinking about different spreads that I could come up with and what ones would get the most money. I know that 1% of your br for a max bet is what many counters go by including me. I have a $10,000 br so I can afford a max bet of 100. Instead of spreading up to $100, I was thinking that it would be more benifical to only bet $100 dollars at all times, as long as the count is above +2. That way you wouldn't have to play at the 5 or 10 dollar tables. And you could play at less crowded tables, and I would assume that it would also be better for comps, and it would provide more cover because you aren't spreading your bets. Input from other members would be appriciated.

In theory that could work, however, you're not going to be playing that many hands and will arouse suspicion jumping in and out like that. Also, if you're playing higher limit tables, there is a greater likelihood of them being no midshoe entry, so you will be able to jump out, but not back in until the next shoe.

I didn't think about no mid-shoe entry while writing this, but I'm sure me or another member can come up with a solution for that problem. I guess you could aslo backcount lower limit tables and still have you $100 bets but that wouldn't be as ideal I don't think.

Check out Blackjack Attack, the "no spread" thing is addressed there. It can work, but you're not playing as many hands, and you don't get any risk-adjusted benefits from having your bets tailored precisely to the advantage at whatever the count is.

I read bj attack, but I thoght that it would be better for cover and for comps since you only have one bet being made at all times.

Thats valid, but not the best EV. If you are going to wong like that, just use a small spread 50-2x75 (1-3) and come in at +1. zg

It's not a bad method, with the caveats others have mentioned.

You can probably get away with it more easily if you're playing with a friend; just watch/hang out/drink with them most of the time, then dive in when you want.

I think there is a shortfall with your theory - namely that you have a high ROR.

Playing in such a manner, betting $100 at all times when TC is +2 or higher and not playing if TC is below +2 - then you essentially have a 100-unit bankroll - 100x100=$10k. Now true, you will have a slight advantage each time that you play but you do effectively only have 100 units - the downside would be a very high ROR.

I calculated a ROR in the region of 30-35% (if playing two hands) and 20-25% (if playing one hand).

The other downside is, as EasyRhino said, you are not tailoring your bets precisely, you would probably be overbetting at +2,+3 and underbetting at +5 and above.

So I would not recommend you use this approach.

Thanks for the input, after reading everyones comments this doesn't sound as good as when I first thought of it.

Squeeks

Don't give up so easy. You may not be so far off as you believe. There is more to this than what is on the surface, as spoken of here or even as to your thoughts.

We once employed a similar approach with team members on the same table. One teammate employed this technique. The game was very good in every way...and as I recall that team member did very well, but was also very skilled at Indice and all other AP skillz.

Keep an open mind.

CP

cp, I hope you didn't think that I was refering to card counting or other ap stuff, only that meathod of play I have alot of other spreads I can use.

I think it could very well be a way to play. I guess you'd have to decide the risks vs reward stuff for yourself lol.

I don't know what game you are thinking of etc but here's my idea of what I think Schlesinger was saying. Using by example Tables 9.1 and Table 10.51 for a 4.5/6 DAS S17 LS game.

Assume you could sit at a table and observe all hands played and bet when you want.

If you spread 1-12 and played-all hands you'd be spreading $15-$180 and making $35/hr. (max bet =1.8% of roll).
But then say you decide to spread 1-12 but only play hands at TC+1 and above. Now you could spread $43 to $516, make $60/hr. Max bet is now over 5% of roll.

But then maybe you decide to to spread just 1-2 but play only hands at TC+2 and above. Now you you can bet $125-$250 and still make $52/hr. Now even your min bet is over 1% of roll.

Or you decide to just flat bet at TC+2 or above. Then unit would change to ~$150 and so would your win/hr, down to $44/hr but, hey, you're flat-betting.

Or you do what you suggest bet $100 at all hands TC+1 and above. Maybe now you're making about the same/hr as you were spreading 1-12 playing all hands.

All of the above with the same risk to your $10K roll. Even though sometimes you had a 667 unit roll and sometimes a 67 unit roll. Even though sometimes you're only playing 1 hand in 4 or 1 hand in 6.

And I tried to give you hourly stuff above because you'd have to watch alot of hands and only play a few of them. The flip-side is in some of those scernarios, you might only have to play a few thousand physical rounds to reach N0 since you're making EV $3.50 per round even though you can only play 15 rounds an hour.

Anyway, it's just by way of general example to give an idea I guess of what could change and stuff to consider in general. Changing rules, pen, decks, etc obviously might likely change what you'd want to do, how you choose to bet your roll, etc.

I like that idea of taking advantage of a friend or two playing all hands at say adjoining tables and tapping/whatever them for your flat-bets.

What are friends for :grin:

yes ROR and cover are primary concern. one more important concern you need to worry about (or maybe you personally dont?) is getting to the long run. spreading even just 1-2 or 1-4 will cut that "long run", especially when playing so few hands per hour.