Flat-betting only in high counts...

[Dyepaintball12]

So I was messing around with CVCX (just got it, love it) and I decided to see what would happen if you played but only flat bet on positive Counts.

Parameters:

6-deck, H17, DAS, LS
75% Pen

Playing $30 at counts of TC +1 and over

$/hr = $22.50
St. Dev = $286.04

Now that I think harder about this this is clearly Wonging, but since you're not raising your bet ever how would you get caught?

I picked $30 randomly but if you did $50 you would make $37.49 an hour.

No heat, pick up comps, and you make more than 5x Min Wage. And betting $50 a hand you could find better games than the one I listed!

Just a thought!

- Dye

 

[SleightOfHand]

So I was messing around with CVCX (just got it, love it) and I decided to see what would happen if you played but only flat bet on positive Counts.

Parameters:

6-deck, H17, DAS, LS
75% Pen

Playing $30 at counts of TC +1 and over

$/hr = $22.50
St. Dev = $286.04

Now that I think harder about this this is clearly Wonging, but since you're not raising your bet ever how would you get caught?

I picked $30 randomly but if you did $50 you would make $37.49 an hour.

No heat, pick up comps, and you make more than 5x Min Wage. And betting $50 a hand you could find better games than the one I listed!

Just a thought!

- Dye

All is well until they realize you are wonging out on neg counts!

 

[assume_R]

Yes, that is just using sub-optimal betting for cover. While it will probably enhance your longevity, just remember your bankroll isn't growing as fast as it could be.

 

[ArcticInferno]

This is something that I thought of myself.
Have you ever sat down on a fresh shoe and immediately high-value cards pour out and paint the table.
You don't care that the count nose-dives into the negative abyss, because you can easily Wong out.
Consider this strategy,...
Play two hands (or maybe even three hands) of double (or triple) units from the start of the shoe. You're theoretically playing at a disadvantage of -0.5%. However, since you'll capitalize on rare situations as illustrated above, and quickly Wong out, don't they even out in the long run? Or maybe even give you a slight edge,...
If the count doesn't nose-dive into the negative abyss early in the shoe, then play the rest of the shoe the "usual advantage" way.

 

[Nynefingers]

ArcticInferno

If you bet more money than necessary in negative EV situations in an effort to make more money on the occasions when you win, you will lose more money on the occasions when you lose as well. Betting bigger than necessary on -EV hands is the equivalent of lighting money on fire. There are other considerations, of course, that can impact your strategy. Obviously cover could be a factor, but I don't think that was the motivation for your idea.

 

[assume_R]

Play two hands (or maybe even three hands) of double (or triple) units from the start of the shoe. You're theoretically playing at a disadvantage of -0.5%. However, since you'll capitalize on rare situations as illustrated above, and quickly Wong out, don't they even out in the long run? Or maybe even give you a slight edge,...
If the count doesn't nose-dive into the negative abyss early in the shoe, then play the rest of the shoe the "usual advantage" way.

I know of several AP's who utilize this strategy. You're essentially "paying" to be allowed to bet those 3 hands in those shoes where the count increases. You're losing a few cents or dollars on the first few hands of the shoe before the count increases, and on the first few hands of the shoe before the count decreases enough for you to wong out.

The problem becomes if the count stays neutral for a little bit will you stay at those 3 hands? Every time you are not betting the minimum you can at -EV situations you are losing a little bit of $$. Is it worth it to you? Might be. If you are planning on utilizing a large spreading anyway, it might be worth it to be "allowed" to play those 3 hands later on in the shoe.

Also, something interesting to note is that in general the more $$ you are losing in -EV situations relative to the game at hand (such as playing multiple hands, not spreading too much, etc.), the sooner you have to place your max bet.

 

[tfg]

This is interesting. Am I thinking about this too simplistically but could you just flat bet as you suggested at the positive counts with more money and then instead of wonging just play the minimum bet in the negative counts?

With similar parameters as you laid out and a $10 minimum table, could you calculate the average $/hr if you flat bet $50 when the TC is above +1 and then just $10 when it's below or negative? I imagine it would take a decent bite out of the per hour results. The reason I bring this up is because at some places, it's just not practical to be wonging out every 10 minutes and moving from table to table. Sometimes it's difficult to get a spot as it is.

 

[sagefr0g]

i'm pretty sure one consideration one would want to make regarding such a tactic would be a comparison of risk of ruin with respect to the tactic in question and other perhaps more optimal betting scenarios such as being able to bet proportional to the advantage.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Naked With a Long NO

This is interesting. Am I thinking about this too simplistically but could you just flat bet as you suggested at the positive counts with more money and then instead of wonging just play the minimum bet in the negative counts?

With similar parameters as you laid out and a $10 minimum table, could you calculate the average $/hr if you flat bet $50 when the TC is above +1 and then just $10 when it's below or negative? I imagine it would take a decent bite out of the per hour results. The reason I bring this up is because at some places, it's just not practical to be wonging out every 10 minutes and moving from table to table. Sometimes it's difficult to get a spot as it is.

10,10,10,10,10,50,50,50,10,10,10

Seems easy to see a pattern, not much camoflauge and NO will go up a lot:joker::whip: