Counting question.

[ScottH]

I've heard that the optimal bet is determined through counting. The higher the count, the bigger the bet. I just dont understand how you come up with the amount to bet. It seems to me that once the player has an edge determined by the count, that you should bet the maximum, so you're applying as much money as possible to your edge.

Of course the more you bet when the casino has the edge, you are losing money faster. So when you have the edge, shouldn't betting the max win money faster?

Thanks in advance for any replies!

 

[KenSmith]

If you have a huge bankroll, then betting the max whenever you have an edge might be fine. But for most of us, we must consider the risk of ruin, meaning the risk of losing our entire bankroll despite having an advantage.

Optimal bet sizing is an area that has been widely researched and discussed. "Kelly Betting" is what you're looking for. The general idea is that you bet a portion of your bankroll equivalent to your advantage on a particular hand.
(This is an over-simplification, which ignores variance.) Using this formula guarantees the your bankroll will grow as fast as possible.

If you have a 2% advantage on the next hand, the Kelly bet would be 2% of your bankroll, divided by the variance of the game. Most pros bet a fraction of Kelly, sacrificing some bankroll growth rate for a reduced risk of ruin.