Grifter's Gambit

[Knox]

ZG, thanks for the suggestion, If I understand correctly you recommended 3 hands x 15 then 1x50-75-100-125 as I progress through my Kelly betting in positive counts.

I still like the idea of playing two hands as a risk reduction strategy. What does everyone think about this betting strategy:

3 x $15 negative and mild positive counts
2 x $35 this will be the KO key count for me
2 x $50
2 x $60
2 x $75 max bet at KO pivot point (where most all + count indices come into play)

I know the trade off in the plus counts is card depletion, but playing heads up on a DD game I would think that would not be a big concern.

 

[zengrifter]

I didn't see this post when I replied to your PM.

What you propose is just OK for some occasional variation from strict GGambit, but its not as optimal IF you are playing heads up. Heads up, stick to 1-hand large bets, except on the last round - then sling out 2-3 hands.

You'll need some other moves to, like Sklansky Gambit, and some psuedo progressions. zg

 

[Knox]

I looked up the Sklansky gambit and what do you know, I already do that! Not always for the max bet though, sometimes a medium sized one. Anyone know the effect on EV of this gambit? FYI, it entails placing a max bet off the top and letting it ride until you lose, unless of course the count dictates letting it ride even after a loss.

What is a pseudo progression? Does that mean doubling bets while the count is increasing while on a losing streak, up to your maximum bet? If so, that sounds like something I do a bit of also, just intuitively.

I also like the idea of opposition betting, where you can just vary your medium-sized bets somewhat randomly in low to moderate + counts. It's only in the extremes where it becomes critical to sit out or place a maximum bet.

 

[DMMx3]

Does this make sense as a variation (sort of) of GG?

I was comparing two different Betting Strategies and was quite surprised at the results:

Betting Strategy A:
TC Bet
<=1 1x2
2 2x2
3 4x2
4 6x2
5 12x2
6 16x2


Betting Strategy B:
TC Bet
<=1 1x1
2 2x2
3 4x2
4 6x2
5 12x2
6 16x2

The only difference is playing one hand of one unit in Strat B versus two hands of one unit in Strat A.

I was surprised by the difference in WRs.

Playing Heads Up with the dealer:
Strategy A: 5.5 units/100 hands
Strategy B: 4.0 units/100 hands

Playing at a Full table:
Strategy A: 4.9 units/100 hands
Strategy B: 4.4 units/100 hands

Can this example be explained in a similar way to Grifter's Gambit? Or am I missing something else in the explanation?