Bet spreads

SlyPooch

Active Member
#1
Can anybody refer me to a good resource for bet spreads according to count....credible sources seem to be sparse..I found this in a book by Edwin Silberstang...

Minus...1 unit
+1...2 units
+2/+3....3 units
+4....4 units
+5...6 units
+6....6 units
+7.....8 units
+8.....10 units
+9 or above....12 units

And Wong has this on page 18 of Professional Blackjack for his benchmark rules which seem to be a lot more aggresive..

Minus...1 unit
+1.....2.5 units
+2....5 units
+3......7.5 units
+4 or more..10 units



I would also be curious to know if such a chart exists that says what % of the time a true count is negative vs. +1 vs. +4 or above, etc.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#2
SlyPooch said:
Can anybody refer me to a good resource for bet spreads according to count....credible sources seem to be sparse..I found this in a book by Edwin Silberstang...

Minus...1 unit
+1...2 units
+2/+3....3 units
+4....4 units
+5...6 units
+6....6 units
+7.....8 units
+8.....10 units
+9 or above....12 units

And Wong has this on page 18 of Professional Blackjack for his benchmark rules which seem to be a lot more aggresive..

Minus...1 unit
+1.....2.5 units
+2....5 units
+3......7.5 units
+4 or more..10 units



I would also be curious to know if such a chart exists that says what % of the time a true count is negative vs. +1 vs. +4 or above, etc.
At the risk of stepping on Don's toes, yes these charts (and many more) exist in Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3. Or you can generate this info plus much more using blackjack software. I strongly recommend Qfit blackjack software products.

As per Wong's betting ramp. This must be in a later edition than I originally read. I remember seeing benchmark rules and bet spread where Wong used $10 as his "unit" wager. $10 served as the minimum bet and bets were raised by this same $10 increment, which meant you weren't going to hit your max bet until TC +10 or +12, or even higher. I have commented on this a number of times over the years and received a challenge from Midwest Player about it. So if this more aggressive spread is in a later edition that I initially read, my overdue apologies to Stanford Wong.

This more aggressive spread is what is necessary to beat today's game IMO, incorporated with wonging out of at least the worst of the negative counts. A player could do pretty well tailoring their game to these two principals along with short sessions, as as not to show too much info in one session. ;)

I myself use an even more aggressive spread. In today's game a player should be 'max betting' by TC off +4 or so. Again, this is my opinion. Waiting any longer and those TC's occur too infrequently to do much good.
 
Last edited:

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#3
SlyPooch said:
Can anybody refer me to a good resource for bet spreads according to count....credible sources seem to be sparse..I found this in a book by Edwin Silberstang...

Minus...1 unit
+1...2 units
+2/+3....3 units
+4....4 units
+5...6 units
+6....6 units
+7.....8 units
+8.....10 units
+9 or above....12 units

And Wong has this on page 18 of Professional Blackjack for his benchmark rules which seem to be a lot more aggresive..

Minus...1 unit
+1.....2.5 units
+2....5 units
+3......7.5 units
+4 or more..10 units



I would also be curious to know if such a chart exists that says what % of the time a true count is negative vs. +1 vs. +4 or above, etc.
This is roughly based on Full Kelly Bet for 6D/8D games with RoR of 13.5%:

Hi-Lo users:
minus 1 unit
+1 4 units
+2 8 units
+3 12 units

Zen users (or other level 2)
minus 1 unit
+1 2 units
+2 4 units
+3 6 units
+4 8 units
+5 10 units
+6 12 units
 
Last edited:

SlyPooch

Active Member
#4
12 units seems like it would draw too much heat...i have also heard each true count point only gives 0.5% edge back to player and since some BJ games start more than -0.5%, seems logical to not increase until +2....how about this...

+1 or neutral/negative....1 unit
+2....2 units
+3....4 units
+4 or more...8 units
 

Dopple

Well-Known Member
#5
Kewl, I see growth as the premier issue once you have ROR under control. We sacrifice some ROR going to max at 4 but what does it do to our growth increasing EV would mean maximizing growth? True of False
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#6
Dopple said:
Kewl, I see growth as the premier issue once you have ROR under control. We sacrifice some ROR going to max at 4 but what does it do to our growth increasing EV would mean maximizing growth? True of False
True. I assumed it goes without saying that my comments are based on my own situation and where I am at, which is past the RoR "crisis" that many players face early on. Everyone is different as to where they are at, what their situation is and what their priorities are. That said my top priority now is longevity. I want to play for a few more years (at least). So maximizing EV isn't even my top priority, but yet obviously still very important. I like to think I am hitting a balance that works for me and my situation.

So obviously someone reading that doesn't have the bankroll to max bet at TC +4...shouldn't. You have to work within the RoR. But I do think it is important that players, especially newer players understand that for today's games, mostly shoe games with mediocre penetration, you have to get your max bet out earlier that what was the conventional wisdom of 20-30 years ago. You have to ramp up quicker and steeper and unfortunately that is going to expose you more when you drop back to smaller bets at the shuffle, after placing max bet or larger bets. It is all a balancing act.
 

SlyPooch

Active Member
#7
KewlJ said:
True. I assumed it goes without saying that my comments are based on my own situation and where I am at, which is past the RoR "crisis" that many players face early on. Everyone is different as to where they are at, what their situation is and what their priorities are. That said my top priority now is longevity. I want to play for a few more years (at least). So maximizing EV isn't even my top priority, but yet obviously still very important. I like to think I am hitting a balance that works for me and my situation.

So obviously someone reading that doesn't have the bankroll to max bet at TC +4...shouldn't. You have to work within the RoR. But I do think it is important that players, especially newer players understand that for today's games, mostly shoe games with mediocre penetration, you have to get your max bet out earlier that what was the conventional wisdom of 20-30 years ago. You have to ramp up quicker and steeper and unfortunately that is going to expose you more when you drop back to smaller bets at the shuffle, after placing max bet or larger bets. It is all a balancing act.
How much is ROR increased my max betting at +4 TC . does it double?
 

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#8
SlyPooch said:
How much is ROR increased my max betting at +4 TC . does it double?
Before you start talking about bet spreads and ROR it would be imperative to know just what the upfront house edge is, to begin with on the games you would be playing. How many decks you are playing against? What is the amount of your playing bank? What is the minimum bet? Better yet why don't buy Don's 3rd edition book.
 
Last edited:

BoSox

Well-Known Member
#10
SlyPooch said:
1.0.66% initial house edge
2. 6 decks
3. 500 unit bankroll
4. Book is on the way
5. Min bet $5

So does ROR double?
I do not know how you play or where is the cut card placed. If you play all hands in the shoe I think that is a big mistake. I would try to find ways to avoid playing as many negative counts as you can. Unless you are getting a really good cut placement with a good spread I would avoid playing that game unless I was only wonging. Although I do not play red chip play.
 

SlyPooch

Active Member
#11
BoSox said:
I do not know how you play or where is the cut card placed. If you play all hands in the shoe I think that is a big mistake. I would try to find ways to avoid playing as many negative counts as you can. Unless you are getting a really good cut placement with a good spread I would avoid playing that game unless I was only wonging. Although I do not play red chip play.
Im guessing my current RoR about 10-20%.... Right?
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#12
SlyPooch said:
Im guessing my current RoR about 10-20%.... Right?
Based on your post #1, your RoR is very low, maybe 2%, but your EV is very low, too. Your expected hourly earnings is probably $2 or $3 assuming you never tip the dealers.
 

Midwest Player

Well-Known Member
#14
BJgenius007 said:
Based on your post #1, your RoR is very low, maybe 2%, but your EV is very low, too. Your expected hourly earnings is probably $2 or $3 assuming you never tip the dealers.
How can you say his RoR is very low. He said he only has 500 units at $5 so his bankroll is only $2,500. His RoR is more like 40%.
 
Last edited:

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#16
SlyPooch said:
So its either 2% or 40% or 100%...hmm
Here's the thing...what you are asking doesn't really have a fixed answer. An optimal bet spread and ramp based on a fixed BR size, will be different for different games based on number of decks and rules. Even if you play all 6 deck games, they can be very different based on rules and specifically the initial house advantage that must be overcome. This is why serious players rely on software to easily figure optimal spreads and ramps and RoR and compromise positions.

Now because so many games are similar, for example, say a 6 deck game, H17, DAS, double on any 2 cards, re-split 3-4 times, no surrender, you (or others) can kind of come up with a generic type spread/ramp that offers a reasonable RoR, but unless you are providing the exact rules and conditions, it is just that...generic. I would rather encourage you and all new players to use software. And I recommend Qfit's products.
 

Midwest Player

Well-Known Member
#17
SlyPooch said:
So its either 2% or 40% or 100%...hmm
Here is example of a typical 6 deck game. An inexperienced player will make many errors, and will have a higher risk of ruin. As you can see risk of ruin is over 40% and win per hour is a little over $10. BJgenius007 numbers are way off. You can buy this software at Qfit.

1562480962727-png.9084
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#18
Midwest Player said:
Here is example of a typical 6 deck game. An inexperienced player will make many errors, and will have a higher risk of ruin. As you can see risk of ruin is over 40% and win per hour is a little over $10. BJgenius007 numbers are way off. You can buy this software at Qfit.

View attachment 9084
Your simulation bets $10 at TC +1, $35 at TC +2, $60 at TC +3. Thus it has high RoR of 42% and higher hourly return. The OP said he bets $10 at TC +1, $15 at TC +2, $15 at TC+3, $20 at TC +4. (He bet more at higher TC but for a shoe game, the impact is minimal because the frequency of TC +5 or higher is so rare.)
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#19
BJgenius007 said:
Your simulation bets $10 at TC +1, $35 at TC +2, $60 at TC +3. Thus it has high RoR of 42% and higher hourly return. The OP said he bets $10 at TC +1, $15 at TC +2, $15 at TC+3, $20 at TC +4. (He bet more at higher TC but for a shoe game, the impact is minimal because the frequency of TC +5 or higher is so rare.)
Without heavy wonging, like almost all negative counts, this probably isn't even a winning spread, hence.100% RoR. :rolleyes:

With the OP's original spread/ramp, you might as well through out everything above TC +5. Just happens too infrequently to add much. So he is really playing to a 1-6 spread. Maybe even less if it is a shoe game with less than 75% penetration.

THIS is what I was trying to impress upon when I said in today's games, a player really needs to get max bet out by TC of +4 or so.
 
Last edited:

SlyPooch

Active Member
#20
I appreciate the feedback. This is the type of information I am looking for but my proposed bet spread is

+1 or neutral/negative....1 unit
+2....2 units
+3....4 units
+4 or more...8 units

I didnt see that in sims
 
Top