ALTERNATIVE BETTING, FOR MD. part 1of2

[jack.jackson]

I almost didnt post this because its probably more trouble than what it's worth. And that different betting strategies apply differently to different systems,however bet spreads are relatively the same in md.
Moreover just because i like it, dosent mean you'll share the same enthusiasm!
Awhile back, i was playing through hours of negative shoes when lightining struck. A thundering edge appeared out of nowhere, excited and confident, out came the max bets, only to be pounded into oblivian, after hours of patiently waiting. Dazed and confused,confused and dazed, it left me wondering what in mother mary just happened.
So let me be the first to tell you it's hard to pick yourself up after a massacre of this magnitude........Something had to give.
First i realized that your discrepancy in advantage is the same when we go from a deck to a deck1/2[-.24] as it is when we go from 2 decks[-.37] to 6 decks[-.61] Knowing this, i decided to put the six deck game into four color zones,the first two decks are the white zone,the second and third decks are the yellow zone, decks three through four is the blue zone, and finally the fourth deck[two decks remaining] is the red zone. In other words the money rounds. I even go as far to visualize strip-ed and colored discard trays in this colorful order, almost as if i was playing a game of candy land or something.
Tired of getting ran over in the first three of six decks even with high counts. Why couldnt we average a 1-10 unit spread, instead of a fixed one.
And more importantly, knowing how to sratigically place you bets in accordnance with your own kelly system, is key to your ultimate success when trying to beat these volatile games. To be continued........................

 

[ScottH]

I'm not sure that betting depending on where you are at in the shoe will give you any advantage. The expected true count remains the same throughout the entire shoe, so if you are not counting the first two decks are the same as the last two.

 

[RJT]

I was waiting to read the next part to see it this was just a 'bet more later in the shoe' idea. I wasn't clear on that point after i'd read the post.
If it is - as Scott points out - the average TC remains the same throughout. If you have a TC of +3 with one deck dealt out of the game you'll make on average the same amount you would make with the same TC with 5 decks dealt out. It's just that high TC's will occur more often later in the shoe.
This seems to be where this idea is heading - bet more later in the shoe where the high advantages occur more often. If this is the case, Jack's right about one thing, the further into the shoe you are the more volitile the game is. But alongside more high advantages, more high house advantages occur and this is where the stratagy falls down.
You've got to remember that high TC's early in the shoe mean that the RC has gone really high, so the proportion of high to low cards is the same as a high TC later in the shoe.

RJT.

 

[person1125]

Doesn't Schlesinger write about this in BJAttack. I believe he calls it the "Floating Advantage". I think basically he says that yes it does exist, but there is no way to use it or doesn't do much for you. Does this sound right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[RJT]

Floating advantage certainly does exist. Basically at different deapths of deal a TC can in certain circumstances not be indicitive of the actual advantage. This difference however is small. You could go to the lengths of memorizing where and when this happens, but the advantage gain would be miniscule.
Qfit would be able to go into a lot more detail about this.

RJT.

 

[jack.jackson]

alternative betting, for md. part 2 of 3

Just bare with me guys, this is bad as hell, i implore you to at least give it a chance, you wont be sorry. I knew those responses were coming. I also know that your gonna make more hands at the same true count with two decks remaining opposed to if there was four. But i cant say thats the basis for this technique. Yes, its no secret that were gonna have higher t.c near the end vs. the front. That's where 6 squared comes into play. Lets say for a moment that we were dealt down to the last card in a six deck game with unlimited bet spread. I can at least assure you this would be the optimal bet spreads you should use.IN essence, what im doing is not only am i raising my bets as the count rises im ALSO raisin my units in higher proportions as the count rises, and as the number of decks in play decreases in addition to our advantage rising slighty rising more and more, it keeps getting stronger and stronger the further in we go even at the same tc. Its less subtle than you think.
So here it is, 9 different bet srpeads from the first card[i;e] to the last card.
Provided no limit bankroll.1. The first two decks you only make a 1:6 spread max no matter how high the count.
2.At the POINT with four decks remaining we bump to 1:8 max spread
Note:notice the pattern of 2 units starts doubling.
3.At the point with THREE decks remaining we bump to a 1:10 unit max spread.
4.At the point of 2 1/2 decks remaining we bump to 1:12 unit max
5.AT the point of 2 decks remaining we bump to 1:16 max bet{nearing cut card] [however]
6. At the point of 1 1/2 decks remaining we bump to 1:24 max bet.
7. At the point of 1 deck remaining we bump to 1:40 unit max bet.
8.At the point of 1/2 deck remaining we bump to[16x2]1:72 max bet.
9. [Only for theory] With 0 decks remaining we bump to [32x2]1:136 unit max bet.
Notice how we started with a 1:6 spread and ending with 1:136 spread. just by doubling by 2 units at a time. And thats why i call it 6 squared. Furthermore if you add all the units together and divide by 9. We end up with you guessed it. Six squared. Theres all kinds of hidden math here.
I assure you my results[my game] are remarkable.No wonging or sand bagging required. But like i said its the betting strategy thats the tricky part.Knowing when to spread to two hands, knowing when to spread from two hands to one, when you should make an average bet or a max bet, or even just a bump on one hand, while changing unit proportions at the same time is key to your overall success. But like i said every betting strategy is different for each system. So what works for me may not work for you.
To be continued......................

 

[RJT]

Unless you have more to add to this, i can see where you're going.
What you are suggesting isn't in fact stronger by nature, it is simply stronger by larger bet spread.
The argument that the information you have on the remaining cards is stronger at the end of the deck is true, but this doesn't make a TC +3 weaker at one deck dealt out than at 5. The TC is an average of the number of extra high cards per deck. At the one deck dealt point you would need a RC of 15 and on average 3 extra high cards per deck. At five decks dealt you'd need a RC of +3 and on average 3 extra high cards per deck. The information is considederd stronger as the game get more volitile and can take more violent swings later on in the shoe, not because your actual workable advantage is any greater.
So there would be 2 problems with your strategy - 1 minor and 1 major.

Minor Problem

You would be under betting your advantage early in the shoe. Anytime a good count comes up (assuming your unit is sized correctly) you will be under betting the advantage you have. This i consider minor as high TC's occur less frequently at shallower depths of deal so will not occur too often.

Major Problem

If you try spreading your bets 1-40 (assuming a 5 deck dealt game) in most casinos when you are only placing your biggest bets right at the end of the shoe, you are going to draw attention and fast! Even if you are playing on the lower stakes tables, you'll get noticed with a spread as aggressive as this. Think about your lifespan and how quickly you'll burn places out with this sort of game.


RJT.

 

[jack.jackson]

Part 3 of 3

Before you Question the validity of this system. Would you mind checking out How True is Your True Count?
By Arnold Snyder w/ Dr. John Gwynn Jr.In blackjack forum and carefully analyzing the data there to verify that not only does our win rate excel because of higher bet's our advantage does as well.
Which is why this system improves our overall gain, contingent upon what system were using and how high the true count is. And since my system is geared between t.c +4 and t.c +8 i would probably benefit the most from this. But the logic remains the same for whatever system your using.
And the theoritical gain would far outweigh any theoritical loss from limiting our bet spread to 1:6 in the first two decks provided thats even the case at hand.Additionally you limit your bet spread to a 1:16 at 66% -75% deck penetration, and at 75% the 1:24 srpead is merely optional.
Even before i read this article I can strongly tell and feel the difference in the same t.c at different levels in the deck maybe it's just my system but i could defenitely tell there was a misfire somewhere. Last but not least this this system is geared perfectely to compensate for these discrencies.
And theres no way im going back to the plain jane.no way.
Come on rj, I need somebody to help me revolutionize this! How about it?:eyepatch:

 

[RJT]

I understand your frustrations and i'm familiar with the 'How True is your True Count' article. However this theory has been throughly explored by Don Schlesinger and Norm Wattenberg in 'Blackjack Attack' and has been shown to have very little impact on your long term results. It's referred to - as i think was mentioned earlier - as "floating advantage".
Using very aggressive bet spreads like this will substancially increase you take at the end of the day and i'm not saying that this system won't do that. I am saying that it's just going to be more mental strain with slightly less gain using different unit sizes and bet spreads than just increasing your bet spread for the whole shoe.
Don't take what i said before as a wall. I regularly use a 1-15 bet spread with no heat what-so-ever on 6D games. I'm playing with the idea of pushing to a 1-20, just to see if i can find a heat breaking point in the venues i'm playing. Given this is all at low stakes and if i was playing higher, i'm sure i would draw attention.
Unfortunately, whilst i can see why you are looking for a more conservative betting scheme that will still get you the money, losing big bets on high counts is just a fact of life when it comes to blackjack. It will happen when you have the money out irregardless of whether you are at the beginning or end of the shoe. I myself have just seen the breaking winning session this weekend after several weeks of losing. It's hard to watch all of your 20's beaten by 21 (made of small cards that shouldn't be there lol) and have the big money out only to watch every hand at the table except the 2 your playing get those lush money cards.
At the end of the day if you want to increase your advantage you need to look to some of the advanced techniques and if you are looking to decrease your varience (which i suspect is your real goal) you should perhaps look into CE adjusted indicies and failing that prayer :laugh:

RJT.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Doesn't Schlesinger write about this in BJAttack. I believe he calls it the "Floating Advantage". I think basically he says that yes it does exist, but there is no way to use it or doesn't do much for you. Does this sound right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

One useful thing about the floating advantage is that it ever-so-slightly helps adjust your bets if you are using an unbalanced system. The unbalanced systems get you overbetting towards the end of a shoe, especially a deeply-dealt shoe. The fact that your advantage is increasing towards the end of the shoe helps negate this, but not enough to completely overcome this problem of overbetting.

 

[ScottH]

Before you Question the validity of this system. Would you mind checking out How True is Your True Count?
By Arnold Snyder w/ Dr. John Gwynn Jr.In blackjack forum and carefully analyzing the data there to verify that not only does our win rate excel because of higher bet's our advantage does as well.
Which is why this system improves our overall gain, contingent upon what system were using and how high the true count is. And since my system is geared between t.c +4 and t.c +8 i would probably benefit the most from this. But the logic remains the same for whatever system your using.
And the theoritical gain would far outweigh any theoritical loss from limiting our bet spread to 1:6 in the first two decks provided thats even the case at hand.Additionally you limit your bet spread to a 1:16 at 66% -75% deck penetration, and at 75% the 1:24 srpead is merely optional.
Even before i read this article I can strongly tell and feel the difference in the same t.c at different levels in the deck maybe it's just my system but i could defenitely tell there was a misfire somewhere. Last but not least this this system is geared perfectely to compensate for these discrencies.
And theres no way im going back to the plain jane.no way.
Come on rj, I need somebody to help me revolutionize this! How about it?:eyepatch:

Why don't you simulate your system for a few million hands and show us how it does. I'm still not "buying" this strategy, I would like to see how it fares on a big simulation.

 

[EasyRhino]

jack, as others have mentioned it, I recommend reading the floating advantage section in blackjack attack. It's very interesting, a purely theoretical sense.

Two hights from is:

1) Yes, the advantage increases, with the same true count, deep in a shoe. For instance, a 6d shoe with 1D remaining has about the same house edge at TC 0 as a regular 1D game. So that's a good couple tenths of a percent right there.

This phenomenon only gets really strong in stupendously deep penetrations though. Under 1 deck in a shoe game, and especially down around half a deck.

2) The effect of the advantage, even a "strong" one, was modest. The optimally computed betting for a 6D game on its last deck would only have you "shifting" your bet ramp down by one true count. (instead of betting 1 unit at TC+1, bet 2 units, etc.)

It seems that your system would be overbetting the advantage by several magnitudes.

 

[ScottH]

Is there such a thing as "floating disadvantage"? Where negative counts get worse as you go deeper into the shoe? That would seem to negate the floating advantage, which isnt very significant already. Just an idea.

 

[jack.jackson]

jack, as others have mentioned it, I recommend reading the floating advantage section in blackjack attack. It's very interesting, a purely theoretical sense.

Two hights from is:

1) Yes, the advantage increases, with the same true count, deep in a shoe. For instance, a 6d shoe with 1D remaining has about the same house edge at TC 0 as a regular 1D game. So that's a good couple tenths of a percent right there.

This phenomenon only gets really strong in stupendously deep penetrations though. Under 1 deck in a shoe game, and especially down around half a deck.

2) The effect of the advantage, even a "strong" one, was modest. The optimally computed betting for a 6D game on its last deck would only have you "shifting" your bet ramp down by one true count. (instead of betting 1 unit at TC+1, bet 2 units, etc.)

It seems that your system would be overbetting the advantage by several magnitudes.

The way i see it, as arnold snyder puts it, the phenomena starts at the point of four decks remaining. Which is when im using a 1:8 spread. At the point of three decks remaining the phenonema is already in full effect which is the point i switch to a 1:10. Now i know that a t.c of +1 doesnt amount to much especially at this point. But a t.c of +4 will be magnified by x4. Invoking the justification of a 25$ bet, opposed to the 20$ bet on the 1:8 unit spread.
Or making two 25$[2hands] at +6. Instead of 20$and 20$. Note that if im making a max bet of 40$and40$[1:8/u] @t.c of +8 or higher that it is in my true belief that IF in the next hand dealt will be dealt from 3 decks or less point[1:10 prevails] and the t.c still remains @+8 or higher. Where i might add makes the floating even stronger. Will in fact, justify the action of placing 10 more dollars on each hand of *40/40+10+10=50/50 or the 1:10. You must realize however that had i been making an average bet 20/20 in this situation of the same scenario. Win or lose my next bet would only be 40/40 NOT 50/50. And if my bet was only 20$ in the above scenario. My next bet would only be 20/20 NOT50/50, even if it was high enough to justify a max bet[+8]. And if my bet was 10$ 1/u] and again the next round to be played was at three decks or less and count jumps to +8 im not going to go straight to 50/50 but instead 25$. In the first scenario * had the t.c fallen to +4 i would of descended to the 2.5 unit bet[25$.
Pleasenote:that i make avg. bet's +6 and max bets +8
The above examples are the 1:8 to 1:10 unit range but covers the basis of my betting strategys.
My average bet for the 1:16 unit range[2 decksor less]is 40/40, the same as my max bet is in 1:8 unit range[4 decks or less] 40/40. Provided that this is true.Without even running a sim your advantage in gain will be anywhere from +.16 to+.36 Unless im sadly mistaken.Which is a noble possibility.
Since im fairly new at computers. Could you or somebody post a thread in the main menu about getting started on simulations. This would be beneficial to me and others as well. Let me hear it EZ.

 

[EasyRhino]

Is there such a thing as "floating disadvantage"? Where negative counts get worse as you go deeper into the shoe? That would seem to negate the floating advantage, which isnt very significant already. Just an idea.

In BJA, Schlesinger mentions the floating advantage's dark side: the house edge across all conceivable counts remains the same at any level of penetration. So, when deeply penetrated, a TC of 0 or +1 yields a larger than usual player advantage, very high TCs actually don't impart as much of an advantage as you'd think, and very low TCs are absolutely catastrophic. I think the citation was Griffin's Theory of Blackjack, which I haven't had the guts or brains to read yet.

jack, I'll be honest with you, I don't think I understand your system, or the theory behind it. Do you have a link the the BJF thing that you mentioned when developing this?

 

[sagefr0g]

......
jack, I'll be honest with you, I don't think I understand your system, or the theory behind it. Do you have a link the the BJF thing that you mentioned when developing this?

i think this is the article jack is referring too:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/howtrueisyourtruecount.html

 

[person1125]

jack,

i think i am starting to understand what you are trying to say, but sounds like a fair amount of work. i guess for me the gains wouldn't be worth it right now, but since you are already using this I would say keep using it and see what happens.

by the way how long have you been using this for and have you noticed differences in your winnings say now as opposed to before you used this?

 

[EasyRhino]

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/howtrueisyourtruecount.html[/url]

Okay, interesting. While that article was written in 1982 for games that don't exist anymore, it sounds like it's talking about floating advantage, all right.

Unfortunately, the tables in that article generally seem to be talking about cumulative advantage, so they don't really help for bet sizing. For that, you'd want your percent advantage at that moment.

 

[jack.jackson]

Okay, interesting. While that article was written in 1982 for games that don't exist anymore, it sounds like it's talking about floating advantage, all right.

Unfortunately, the tables in that article generally seem to be talking about cumulative advantage, so they don't really help for bet sizing. For that, you'd want your percent advantage at that moment.

Since i use betting indices for betting. I believe these/my indices already compensate for the discrepency[floating advantage] and that my extra advantage merely comes from higher bet spreads, that averages 1:10.4 is as follows 1:6, 1:8, 1:10,1:12,1:16

Secondly, when using true counts for betting the floating advantage still exists regardless of rules in play.Cards are cards. Therefore i still believe that counters that use t.c for betting can/could gain a slight additional advantage,like the ones who uses betting indices, already enjoy the luxury of having.

To say the least even though i use betting indices. I will continue to use this method at least for right now, since im not playing for real money i'll see how it fare's over the next 100 hours. though i i have nothin to compare it to, I will know the difference. Give it a try, who knows you might like it.

 

[Brock Windsor]

Provided that this is true.Without even running a sim your advantage in gain will be anywhere from +.16 to+.36 Unless im sadly mistaken.Which is a noble possibility.

It seems you're noticing the change in house edge of going from a 6 deck game (0.4% off the top, DOA, DAS) to a two deck game (0.19% off the top same rules). With 2 decks remaining you could increase your bet by approximately the amount you would increase it during an increase of 0.5 points of TC, but I hypothesise any more would be overbetting. So you could spread 1:8 at the start of a shoe and 1:8.5 during the last two decks
BW