Betting with your Advantage

[assume_R]

In a hypothetical scenario with no heat, you would bet proportional to your advantage at all times, correct?

But to have an extraordinary advantage of 10% (TC = 20) might happen only 1 out of a million hands or something (don't know the exact #). Yet you're suppose to bet about 10% of your bankroll. What if you happen to lose that time? The standard error is very high for that count. On average, you wouldn't even have a chance to make that 10% back for a long time. So is that a reason to cut off your spread and not bet proportional to your advantage? This way you're not putting too much at risk during infrequent counts?

 

[Meistro]

A tangential question :

Kelly betting says you are supposed to bet your advantage as a percentage of your roll, perhaps multiplied by .7 to account for the fact that blackjack is not exactly an even money game. Yet we are also cautioned to set our max bets at 1% of our bankrolls. Which is it?

 

[FLASH1296]

The ROR for Kelly is 13.5%
½ Kelly is a tiny fraction of that
¼ kelly feels right to me,
but risk is subjective.

 

[Sucker]

A tangential question :

Kelly betting says you are supposed to bet your advantage as a percentage of your roll, perhaps multiplied by .7 to account for the fact that blackjack is not exactly an even money game. Yet we are also cautioned to set our max bets at 1% of our bankrolls. Which is it?

Because of the fact that blackjack is not an even money game, it is DEFINITELY incorrect to bet full Kelly. In a hypothetical setting with no heat and NO table maximum, if you bet full Kelly you will have a 100% chance of going broke at some time in the future. 0.7 Kelly sounds about right, and probably IS the fastest way to maximize your BR with the least risk of ruin.

That said, I would personally have to agree with all of Flashs' statements. Quarter Kelly might get the money a little slower, but it'll sure save a lot of heartbreak along the way. As most of us know, this game can get very brutal at times.

I would be interested in knowing WHO it is that cautions us to set our max bet at 1% of our bankroll. This is absolutely ridiculous. Unless his point was taken out of context or something, I would argue against this until the end of time.

 

[kewljason]

I would be interested in knowing WHO it is that cautions us to set our max bet at 1% of our bankroll. This is absolutely ridiculous. Unless his point was taken out of context or something, I would argue against this until the end of time.

I don't think the 1 percent rule is that far out of line. Many people place their max bet somewhere in the neighborhood of +4 TC, when you have roughly a 2% advantage, game dependant. By betting 1% of BR, you are roughly playing half kelly. I personally play less than this, as many fulltime players do. In my case my bankroll is completely non-replenishible and unforetunately being still relatively young and still climbing the blackjack ladder, my Bankroll represents most of my wealth. I don't have much savings or equity in my home to fall back on, so being ultra conservative in kelly fractional betting is imperative to someone like me.

I am not sure where I first saw the 1 percent rule. I know Kevin Blackwood, mentions in his book. I think the general idea was to get the point across of just how big a BR you really need to play this game, which is probably the most understood point for new players.

 

[assume_R]

Limiting one's spread

So I guess the real question is:

Is there a consensus to limit one's maximum bet regardless of high how the advantage gets?

For example, I see in CVCX that while the Win/Hour and SCORE always increases as you increase your spread, after a certain point (maybe around 18-1), the RoR also does start to increase as you increase the spread.

 

[muppet]

So I guess the real question is:

Is there a consensus to limit one's maximum bet regardless of high how the advantage gets?

For example, I see in CVCX that while the Win/Hour and SCORE always increases as you increase your spread, after a certain point (maybe around 18-1), the RoR also does start to increase as you increase the spread.

i would think the answer to that would be 'no'

 

[Sucker]

There definitely is NOT a consensus, but that does not mean that there is NOT a CORRECT answer.

To limit your max bet to 1% of your BR is not only WRONG, it's RIDICULOUS. It's what's known as "leaving money on the table".Try telling any ace tracker on the planet that he shouldn't be betting more than 1% of his bankroll. Try telling it to someone who's sequencing, and has just identified a situation where he's a 3:1 favorite. Or a poker player who's staring at a hand with aces full.

Oh, well...... Believe it if you wish. It's YOUR loss.

 

[assume_R]

Oh, well...... Believe it if you wish. It's YOUR loss.

No, I don't necessarily believe it, I am simply asking for advice on something I don't know, and from your previous posts I definitely respect your opinion, Sucker. Thank you.

 

[psyduck]

I like to think this way: when you have 10% advantage and bet 10%*BR and lose, your loss is equivalent to your losing 10 hands of 1%*BR bets when you have 1% advantage. Or you need to win 10 hands of 1% advantage to recover the loss. Am I making sense?

 

[assume_R]

I like to think this way: when you have 10% advantage and bet 10%*BR and lose, your loss is equivalent to your losing 10 hands of 1%*BR bets when you have 1% advantage. Or you need to win 10 hands of 1% advantage to recover the loss. Am I making sense?

Yes, most definitely. I was simply wondering being as realistic variance (in terms of standard error) are so high for those situations.