Oh crap, I can increase my bets, *now what?!*

As mentioned at the end of my navel-gazing diary, several months' worth of online winnings have fattened my bankroll.

Up till now, my brick and mortar bankroll peaked at $3000. I usually played shoe games, and my bet spread was $5-$50 if available, and probably $10-$50 most of the time. This managed to combine a moderately high risk of ruin with a virtually nonexistant playing edge.

Now, my bankroll is about $9000, and I think it's time to kick it up a notch.

In my mind, I don't predict a dramatic change, but a simple increase of max bet up to $90-$100. And I'll still try to stay at the same tables, so we're looking at $5-$100 spreading, or $10-100 spreads. I think the upside here is I'll be playing a less marginal game, even though the 10x spread is still considered suboptimal.

In marginal cases (mainly crowds), I could play at $15 tables, but I would expect $25 tables (even a good double deck game?) to be out of my reach except when wonging hard.

A simple RoR calculation at qfit's site indicates that this is still a fairly conservative idea. So what else should I take into consideration? $100 is still a lot of cash for a cheapskate like me to bet per hand, so jitters might make me knock over chips the first few times.

Should I expect any level of heat? I've had none with $5/$10-$50 at local Socal Indian joints, and I don't expect much notice, but I'm worried of crossing over a threshold and not knowing it until it's too late. Also, some of my sessions would be quite long, maybe 3-5 hours. Not sure if I can get away with this when I have a mathematically profitable spread?

Also, one of my favorite joints is a little bit low-roller ($500 table maxes). I've seen "checks play" called out with $100 bets on the table, so I will probably have to push on them very slowly (think of boiling a lobster) and might lean towards 2x$50 or 2x$75, to get them acclimated.

But still, I think I'm missing something?
- How much cash should I have for a reasonable session buy-in? I've been successful with $700 with the old spread, although it's been close a few times.
- When I win a few big hands, and want to rathole chips, should I stick with the greens and leave the blacks on the table?
- When fr0g increased his spread, he entered a nasty bad luck streak. is this how most card players begin their downfall? Am I doomed?

been there done that

heh, heh this post hit a bulls eye with me.
i'm not totally sure what happened to me. some of what i do know is as follows:
played tired and didn't even realize it.
the reality of what an increase in max bet and greater spread really is escaped me at first. more money on the table can mean greater variance, i was intellectually prepared for that but not emotionally prepared. i hate to admitt it but that lead to some steaming and some other irrational play.
realize it's not just the max bet that is greater but the lower advantage bets also. well sort of.... what i came to realize was that my original spread and max bet (that being 1:8) was appropriate for me at the true counts that were presenting, but i was putting out higher bets at each tc level that were not appropriate for my bankroll when i went to the 1:10 spread. i should have waited for a higher tc to introduce my max bet of ten units. but anyway you need to consider that with your higher level of betting that you will have splits and double downs for which you will be matching that max bet or higher bet. so the increase in money on the table is really much greater than one would at first think.
so yeah i for one was spooked by going with a higher max and spread. not enough to give up just enough to go back to the drawing board and try and make sure i have a viable game plan. one thing i've determined is that i've been allowing myself to play in too many negative ev situations. this realiztion is going to translate into much more table hopping when i start playing again.
where i play wonging in is only possible to a very limited extent but wonging out is no problem. my current thinking has me believing that i should wong out far more often than i have in the past. previously i'd never wong out until at least two decks had been dealt out even if the true count was minus one or two. now my thinking is (and this may be contraversial) that i'll probably wong out much earlier in most instances. example: lets say i start off a fresh shoe. i win the first hand. that's five dollars i just realized in about five minutes or less. but let us say that in the process the true count reached minus one or close. say there are three other players at the table. well if i stay and play i'm not just playing against the original house advantage but also now the disadvantage presented by the negative true count. that's playing a bad game after having won five dollars. my thought is that one needs to respect the value of that five dollars won. thats in reality a lot of money for just two minutes effort. why risk it in a bad game? so my thought is get up and try another table. yeah you still got the house advantage against you but not the house advantage with the disadvantage of the minus one true count tacked on. my thinking is that if i lose money ok but at least let it happen when the ev is positive not negative. it's true that going into another fresh shoe is a negative ev tact but if you can't wong in it is the lowest disadvantage that you can achieve regarding this scenerio.
same tactic is planned if i lose five dollars instead of win. if that true goes negative i'm moving on. you figure your only going to find on average one shoe in five that presents a true count worthy of betting into so on average this tactic will only cause me to miss a further advantage one out of five times. but if the advantage presents early on then i should be able to nail the ev if not the money. besides with the tables mostly being crowded the penetration factor makes staying hardly worth while if the higher tc doesn't present early on anyway.
well that's for relatively crowded tables. now if i get one on one with the dealer i figure i'll hang in there a bit longer.
as far as heat goes with the higher max and spread. i did notice the pit taking more interest in me but i don't believe it was the kind of heat to be feared.
if you go with the $100 max bet i believe you'll need at least about double the seven hundred dollars you normally carry.

You've got some excellent thoughts in there. Here's my take on it all.

Lots of vistas open up for you when you are able to increase your minimum bet. You make a really big jump when you are able to play at a $25 minimum table. You can always find one of those, and usually one with decent rules. In the East Coast environment, you'd really better be prepared to play $25 min unless you want to play 4AM Wednesday morning, and maybe not even then.

Being you're an employed guy and your bankroll is theoretical rather than finite, I'd recommend trying a $25-$200 spread, playing for longer periods and less often (to reduce travel expenses) and playing only good games. For a shoe player, that is synonymous with playing games with late surrender. Surrender can turn a short bank into a barely passable one. There are a few such games near you.

Playing a spread like that, you are going to want to get very good at getting out of bad counts. You don't want to be betting $25 on a hand with a 2% house edge do you? I know you're a KO player, so your best options for becoming a Wongout artist are either learning one of the true-counted variants of KO, or switching to High-Low or some other balanced count where you are playing the same way in 6D or 8D games, and the true count means the same thing at all different parts of the shoe.

And congratulations on getting your money back!

Don't forget your cover! You have to be really tricky to hide your skill consistently playing sessions of that length. If you play "perfect" you wont last long. You'll have to pull out some cover, especially if you're using a generous spread.

One gem I just thought of:

Order a virgin Bloody Mary. It LOOKS exactly like the alcoholic variety (celery stalk, salted glass)-- and you can play up the intoxicating effects-- but you'll be nice and clear. It's one of the few "virgin" drinks looks unmistakably LIKE it's hard counterpart.

Plus tomato juice is +EV. =)

If your BR is 9k I would stick with a 5 dollar table. Keep building it up.

Can you point me to any links (or books) with info about True KO?
Thanks

This is what I love about Scott...you sound like you've been doing this all your life!

good luck

Knockout Blackjack...can't remember the authors, but it is short and pretty much to the point. Good book

good luck

I have that book, but that only covers "regular" KO. True KO refers to converting the RC to a TC, not covered in the book. I've looked for information on who developed it and where it is documented, but no luck so far.

Well, to me, when evaluating wong-out, the minimum bet is ignored the goal is to weigh the odds of the count "going anywhere" later in the deck, with enough time to get in some good bets, relative to the time you'll need to burn min bets to get there. Leaving on TC -1 is I guess a pretty common tactic if you're wonging hard, but I'm not sure if that means that the table wouldn't be worth observing for a possible wong-back, rather than switching to a fresh table where the TC is zero.

I think my point was, it is probably better to ignore the results of your waiting bets, but spend time focusing on future prospects (that's the hard part, anyway).


Quadrupling my max bet? Eep. Farting around on qfit's site (remember, me no good at math) indicates that would change RoR from around 1.6% to around 16%. Excellent wonging would probably reduce that, but still, eep. Problem with my bankroll is that if I do lose it, I'm not willing or able to replenish it to the same point rapidly. And with online gambling drying up, I'd probably be reduced back to low-roller status permanently. So there is still a pretty high level of risk-aversion going on.

However, it does have a certain appeal, especially at one local joint I often visit, but rarely play at. 8D shoes with a $25 min. I could probably backcount for a few shoes and then go in for the mother of all wongs, and then go home.

On the upside, I got 6 shops with late surrender within an hour's drive.

If I suddenly wake up with a thirst for more risk, would $25-$200 make sense in a play all situation in a good doubledeck game?

IsTrue KO actually documented somewhere? I've also only seen it mentioned, never explained.

yeah i knew that placing any emphasis on valuing a five dollar win would raise eyebrows. to be honest i'm still intrigued with the Parrondo Paradox thing. not that i see a way to make it work but it's always in the back of my mind. burning waiting bets is a legitimate approach, i just have an aversion to it. i'm shooting for the long term glory but living in the short term i can't seem to escape the psychological need to experience some relatively immeadiate feel good experience. but i'm willing to settle for racking up positive ev. thats why the aggressive wong out thoughts.
i guess i'm like the little kid who is afraid to go to sleep alone at night. whose parents tell him that God is allways with him, not to worry. the kids response is yeah but i want somebody here with me thats got some skin on them. :joker:

Here's a different spin

1) Shouldn't be a problem. Even though it's winding down, I've got enough money glacially moving its way through the casinos and e-wallets that it will eventually end up in my pocket.

2) Is intriguing, and I really like the idea of upgrading to the chips of the bourgeosie oppressor. But, I honestly don't think it's likely for two reasons:
a) From a professional/investment standpoint, I have little to offer an investor or team.
b) From a friend standpoint, I don't want to risk my friend's money on my endeavors (nor would I want to financially back any of my chucklehead friends)

But man, those green chips sure do sound perdy. That's why I was wondering if a 1-4/5 spread would be worthwhile if I had a decent doubledeck games, just so I'd feel high-class.

Not really. You end up having to play a 1-8 spread in DD games too, because Wonging is not as practicable.

The 16% RoR you described for the $25-$200 game is pretty close to full Kelly which is 13.5%. Not an unreasonable place to be playing. Being it is highly unlikely you will lose all of your BR at once, maybe give that spread a chance in a good game, and if your bankroll declines precipitously, you can readjust it. Chances are it will not decrease, but increase, and a few hundred dollars earnings per session will be the norm. You're better off Wonging or even backcounting a good game than playing a lousy one just to keep your bets low.

Well, I finally got a chance to try out my new spread this weekend. I stuck with the $100 max bet, I didn't want to go too far too fast.

I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't start freaking out when placing the larger bets. To a certain extent, they really just feel like play chips, don't they?

I did have two mechanical problems with the spread:

1) I probably had insufficient buy-in. $100 is great for killing time with $5 or $10 waiting bets, but if the count spikes suddenly, there's a real risk of not having enough money on the table to support a bet, and digging into the wallet to make a bet when I still have a lot of chips left seems suspicious. Because of this, I guess should probably buy in $200, with a mix of greens and reds. Well, that or just backcount and wong in, which would be ideal.

2) Sometimes it took work to figure out which combination of chips I needed to bet. I mean, times like having two hands, each with 2 greens and 2 reds, is kind of a lot to handle dexterity-wise, especially if doubledowns or BJ's happen, or if the dealers start coloring you up as part of the payout. I felt like a klutz.

The stretch where I got to just bet a single black chip was much simpler

Sounds like you are having a great time EasyRhino! I would suggest a few things if I may.

Buy in for 50 units at the cage, say please and smile really big if they tell you to buy in at the table. Tell them its a surprise for your mom or something.

You should be on automatic with your bet, before the dealer has collected all of the cards, you should have your next bet ready to go. No telling when you will have to make a b-line for the exit.

I think it is great that you are in no rush to play at the 25min tables, playing half a unit when the count dictates will save your bottom... line

Do some math before you head out on your next winning session. Look at your BR and see what you can do at a .5 kelly with a 6/1 spread.

Wish you well, and hope the cards keep falling your way.

Easy -- Practically speaking, I think you should be able to play $10-to-$100. A good rule of thumb is to have 12 max bets in your pocket at the start of each day.

Mr. Renzey, thanks for the thumbrule. Nice to know that I wasn't woefully underfunded on my weekend (although, to me honest, I'd rather walk into a casino with far too much cash in my pocket than not enough).

Just curious... so then what? Just walk up to the table, and drop it all on the felt? Or do you, as needed, fish chips out of your pocket like you have a chip-factory hidden inside? Seems fishy to me. In fact, the one person I can remember pulling a lot of chips out of his pocket was, in fact, counting cards.

Yes, and I did start trying harder to determine what my next bet would be even as the hand is playing out. Biggest problem was the lag between my decision, and actually manipulating the chips to the desired amount. I even started "pre-positioning" bets of the desired amount as the hand was playing out. But it was still slow.

I've established to my own satisfaction that I don't know what a "unit" is, and just continue along in my unfrozen caveman ways. It seems that when other people describe a 1-6 spread, they end up with a 12x diff between smallest and largest bets. Which do you mean? If you're talking about dropping my max bet to $60, or increasing my usual min bet to $18, well, F*** that. There's no profit to be had in the shoe games around these parts with that spread (and I know, because I've been using it for six months)

However, I'm already mentally planning, if I go on a losing streak soon, to resize my betting after each loss. Wouldn't continual downward revision of bets as a bankroll declines from, say $10k to $5k, result in a much smaller ROR than what a basic calculation at the $10k bankroll would imply?

Where did the "266" figure come from? What does it represent? Why "266"?