Blackjack For Blood betting rsmp

[janetwhite]

I've been re-reading several of my old blackjack books and am especially intrigued by the betting ramps advocated by Bryce Carlson in Blackjack For Blood.
He goes against the grain of most authors by recommending a spread of just 1-4 in double-deck.
Does anybody think this would produce a satisfactory win-rate? I know he is using one of the best counts in the AOIi (with ace side-count) but my understanding is you should spread 1-6 or even 1-8 iin dd.
If I have read it correctly Carlson claims a win-rate of 100ph for a spread of 50-200. Is this possible?

 

[xengrifter]

BJFB advice on betting is wholly outdated...
... And it was even outdated when the book was first published.
... And while I'm at it I will also say that the Omega count itself is outdated.

If you have already made the effort to learn Omega and it's indices, you may keep those indices, but swap out the Ace and 9 tag values and give no further thought about side counting the aces.

 

[janetwhite]

Thanks for your reply xengrifter but you are only repeating what you have said in previous posts on the subject.
If you are going to say this outdated you must explain why you think it is and not state it as a fact. Other experts on this and other forums have stated that the AOII count (with an ace side-count) is one of the best there is for pitch games so I don't where you get the notion from that it is outdated.

 

[Playallin]

What is the best count to use for DD and shoe games?

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

I've been re-reading several of my old blackjack books and am especially intrigued by the betting ramps advocated by Bryce Carlson in Blackjack For Blood.
He goes against the grain of most authors by recommending a spread of just 1-4 in double-deck.
Does anybody think this would produce a satisfactory win-rate? I know he is using one of the best counts in the AOIi (with ace side-count) but my understanding is you should spread 1-6 or even 1-8 iin dd.
If I have read it correctly Carlson claims a win-rate of 100ph for a spread of 50-200. Is this possible?

Hi janetwhite,
As is often the case...it just depends. Can 1-4 spread on DD be profitable?
There are lots of different factors.
Are you playing all?
If not, are you wonging out of many minus EV hands?
How are the rules...good, bad?
What is penetration?
How many players at the table?
Are there side bets taking up much time?
How many hands per hour are you really getting?
And probably most important...what win rate are you happy with? Does like $10 per hour make you happy?

 

[gronbog]

Are you playing all?
If not, are you wonging out of many minus EV hands?

Wonging in DD games is not very practical due to the increased volatility of the true count compared to shoe games.

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

Wonging in DD games is not very practical due to the increased volatility of the true count compared to shoe games.

I only mentioned wonging out.
Whether in or out is very favorable. If you can get away with wonging in...even better.
Who says...you? That you can't wong in or out of a DD game?

 

[BJgenius007]

Wonging in DD games is not very practical due to the increased volatility of the true count compared to shoe games.

I have played with people who only play when TC is +1 or better at DD table. They just sat at the table and don't place the bet when TC is less than +1. After one hour, the pit boss still let him play. Not every casino is that good at catching AP even this one is given to them on a silver platter.

 

[xengrifter]

Thanks for your reply xengrifter but you are only repeating what you have said in previous posts on the subject.
If you are going to say this outdated you must explain why you think it is and not state it as a fact.

If you have read my previous comments on AOC, then you have seen my more detailed critique.

Simply stated ...
1. The AOC Ace neutral side count required system will only perform, in the real world, on par at best with ZEN. So if you use AOC effectively, you are working harder to achieve the same result.
2. The AOC published betting ramp was over simplified and inadequate even at the time of initial publication.
3. Ace neutral side-count systems were declared "obsolete" as far back as 1985 by the sainted Ken Uston.*
* See, Uston on BJ

Any further elaboration you can find in my past critiques, as you have indicated that you are familiar with all of that.

Do yourself a favor now and swap out the nine and Ace values and be done with it, and don't look back.

 

[gronbog]

I only mentioned wonging out.
Whether in or out is very favorable. If you can get away with wonging in...even better.
Who says...you? That you can't wong in or out of a DD game?

In my opinion, the exit point for wonging out occurs too frequently to make it practical in most casinos. Of course there will be exceptions.

 

[Counting_Is_Fun]

In my opinion, the exit point for wonging out occurs too frequently to make it practical in most casinos. Of course there will be exceptions.

Yes you're right it is volitile and frequent, but that doesn't mean you can't wong out here and there. Assuming your DD session is going to be say an hour or less...wong at least a couple times to escape those bad counts. One bathroom break, one pretend smoke break etc doesn't draw much heat in my experience. Escaping even just a few of those bad decks sure boosts that EV and really helps ROR etc.
But yes in DD you cannot be wonging out every time the count goes negative, if you expect to last.