E-town-guy said:
I brought up a similar thread earlier but still have a few questions.
ZG recommended the following betting scheme on a $10-100 table:
Avoid counts below -1
0 - $10
+1 - $25
+2 - $25-25
+3 - $50-50
+4 - $60-60
+5 - $75-75
This has worked quite nicely since switching from my previous betting scheme so thanks zg. Two questions though. You said to spread to two squares assuming you're not playing heads up against the dealer, so why would you bet differently if you were heads up and how would you bet differently? Lastly, I said originally to assume a hypothetical unlimited BR so why wouldn't a player at some point bet $100 and perhaps spread to more than 2 squares.
The above scheme requires a safety net of about $10k. Statistically, when playing heads up you make more per 100 hands staying with one spot - to calculate the correct size bet for 1 spot total the two hand bet and reduce by 33%. Except that on the last round of the shoe you can go to 3+ hands, basically doubling the one hand amount and dividing by three.
The reason for the apparent disparity is the effect that the extra hands have on card depletion - eating the plus deck too fast - better to play one hand heads up. This is why 'consolidation betting' works, which turns the traditional spred tactic on its head. (see excerpt below)
With a unlimited BR you would ideally bet the casino max on multiple spots as soon as you had any advantage, which is what the Uston/Francesco team would do in the 70s. zg
EXCERPT FROM ZENGRIFTER INTERVIEW -
You’ve pioneered an unusual betting scheme called the “Grifter’s Gambit.”
Can you describe this method?
Actually I didn’t pioneer the method, I revived it. It was first revealed as “Consolidation Betting” in Mason Malmuth’s Blackjack Essays, in 1985, with little fanfare. Malmuth advocated it as a form of apparent flat-betting for good single deck games. In 1998, George C. took a look at it after I requested he run a simulation. Initially he said it looked like “a stupid idea.” Then he simmed and refined it for quality 2-deck games and discovered it to be a powerful ploy, unknown to pit staffs and surveillance people.
Malmuth deserves the credit but George C refined it and respectfully dubbed it “Grifter’s Gambit,” presumably because I rescued it from obscurity and had him run the sims.
How does it work? Can you give an example?
Ok, let’s say I’m playing a quality two-deck game, heads-up: In minus and neutral counts I bet three hands of one unit each. This eats cards fast in order to speed things along and get to the plus-deck situations quicker. At modest plus-counts I bet three units on one spot. I increase to five units on one spot in moderate plus-counts. In higher counts I bet one spot of seven units. Playing one spot in plus-counts helps preserve the rich portions longer. Per 100 rounds - not hands - the sim showed a gain of four units - with an apparent spread of three to seven units - just barely more than a 1-2 spread!
For a good single deck game there can be a virtual flat-bet: in minus counts bet three spots of one unit, and in plus counts bet one spot of three or four units - this will yield a similar gain to a traditional 1-4 spread BUT with higher variance. However, because the minimum bet is 3 x 1 unit, the comps are much better. One other thing: you must be playing alone at the table if it’s single deck or with no more than one other at a double decker.
Have you tested this betting scheme? What were your findings?
Did you encounter any heat or scrutiny while using it?
I have applied variations of the technique on and off in quality single and double-deck games with absolutely no heat. Irrespective of my act, I think that the technique is pretty much off the counter-alert radar screen. I even allude to "my new system" while dealers and pit critters grimace in disdain as I chronically “wreck the flow of cards” after a favorable streak by ‘compulsively’ changing the number of hands being played.
A while back I utilized it for hours on-end and for several consecutive days at a prominent Strip resort, spreading from three hands of $50 to one hand of $350, while listening to pit and dealer accounts of an on-going “counter-purge.”
I’ve played this gambit with a green spread for many hours at the single deck tables of a downtown Vegas casino - one of the sweatiest and most suspicious casinos in Nevada, known for rapid and aggressive barrings of novice red chip counters. They loved my action. They’d instantly make my table $25 minimum when I requested it. Ultimately my cumulative play did me in.
All totaled, I put in over 25 hours there, spanning a few months. I was finally barred, but it wasn’t because they had any reservations about my betting. I simply over-played that joint.
At double-deck games I hesitate to include an estimate of just how many negative decks I might abandon in an hour - the sim assumed no exiting. I often appear to be “closing a big deal" and must run to the house phone or step back from the table frequently after an imaginary page or a pager or cell phone chirp. I complain excessively about the attorneys and associates needing me to hold their hand through every detail!
You mentioned higher variance. What kind of bankroll do you need to play a Grifter’s Gambit with an acceptable risk-of-ruin?
The double-deck sim showed a 22% risk-of-ruin with 500 units of bank. With 700 units it drops to 11%. At 1000 units it’s 5%, and you can reduce it to 1% with a 1500 unit bankroll. For a typical 20 hour trip there is a 17% chance of losing 250 units. Like I said, a higher risk-variance, but conversely better comps. George C.’s sim was run on Karel Janacek’s marvelous Statistical Blackjack Analyzer.
You pulled off a Grifter Gambit play at the Lakeside in Tahoe. That play is especially revealing as to the camouflage afforded by consolidation betting.
Yes. The small Lakeside Lodge had the best rules in Lake Tahoe in 2000 – a one deck game with double after split. The challenge was that being the best game in Tahoe, and a small joint to boot, The Lakeside gives tremendous scrutiny to large and/or unusual players.
I sat down at a $3 table - the only table open - with three other nickel players and bet 1-5 quarters in a non-count related progression for about 10 minutes, and then I asked the dealer if he thought the house would give me a quarter game. He called the pit manager, 'Augie,' over who warmly invited me to wait 10 minutes and they'd give me a game.
On my first hand at my $25 table I spread to three hands of $25, and the dealer informed me that "three hands require five times the minimum” - $125 each. I looked at Augie and he shrugged and said "three times $75 each - for him," at which I mock hesitated then increased to three hands of $75 and proceeded to lose all three hands and including a double-down. The count being slightly negative, I frowned at Augie and put out three bets of $75 and won all three. The count tanked further south and I increased my bets to three bets of $100, and I won again.
Now I was 'in like Flynn' - when the count was negative I would bet three times $75-$100, when the count was positive I would bet one hand of $300-$500, which was the house limit. About 15 minutes into the play a female approached and bet a single quarter - I frowned at the manager and reduced my bet to two hands of $50. She played a couple more hands and wandered off as Augie put a 'reserved' sign at my table and glowingly invited me to “... place any size bet per three hands, you now have a private game!"
Now my bets ranged from a low of three times $25 to a max of one hand of $500 or two bets of $375 or three times $300. In 45 minutes I was ahead $6000, at which point Augie came behind me and said, "I have bad news," and I'm thinking he's going to bar me. But instead he informs me that "upstairs has decided that you gotta bet $125 each at three hands.” Oh well "sucking me in" I replied wistfully, he says "sorry."
So now I shift my betting to three times $125 in negative counts and one hand of $500 in positive counts – winning three rounds of three times $125 in amazing succession. I happily call out to Augie, "its working, thanks!"
Exactly 60 minutes into the play I’m up $10k when Augie taps my shoulder and informs me that "we decline your further play." Smiling I wave half of my winnings in the form of ten $500 chips and taunt, "don’t you guys wanna to try to win half of it back?" "No!" The romance was over.
I managed to get a comped lunch from Augie before cashing out, the two remaining tables had a total 5 nickel players as I departed.
- END EXCERPT -
