Please critique my play

Zach Black · May 23, 2011

Quote from Amad 99

"And yes I always round bets down, if RC=7 and half the deck is gone, 7/2=TC3.5, i'm bump it down to 3. I've been spreading units from 1-6 based like this..."

Is the above right?

I thought with 1/2 deck remaining RC=7 the TC=14 ( 7/0.5=14)

I use hi lo and occasionaly get a hand in 2D with 1/2 deck remaining and will multipy the RC by 2. Is zen different?

21gunsalute · May 23, 2011

Zach Black said:

You may be on to something here. I missed that earlier. Could at least be part of the problem.

tthree · May 23, 2011

Zen true count

In zen the true count is also the true advantage. It is 1/4 of what you would expect. At zen TC 1 you have a 1% advantage. At TC 3 you have a 3% advantage.

Zach Black · May 23, 2011

I know with hi lo I would have my max bet out at +3 RC/+6 TC with a half deck left in a 2D game. I'm not sure about the conversion from hi lo to zen.

Maybe the OP isn't ramping the bet up fast enough.

tthree · May 23, 2011

I am pretty sure we are looking at a playing efficiency issue. It is more important than bet sizing in SINGLE DECK.

Amad99 · May 23, 2011

Zach Black said:

"With zen count the true edge is calculated by dividing the running count by the number of remaining decks, multiplied by 4. Deeper into the shoe the denominators get smaller. In SD you break the deck into 4 quarters. In the first quarter, your true edge is your running count divided by 4; in the second quarter, it's divided by 3; in the third quarter, divided by 2. And in the bottom quarter, your true edge is simply your running count, as a running count of +6 with a quarter deck or less remaining to be dealt would indicate a 6% raise in your advantage."

Black Belt in Blackjack: Arnold Snyder

tthree · May 23, 2011

Amad sorry if I incorrectly referred to you with the feminine pronoun. I think your name was registering as amanda. Maybe it was a different poster. I just realized this.

halibut · May 24, 2011

Amad, are you or are you not using playing indices: that is the question.

tthree · May 24, 2011

halibut said:

You may be right. I really think this is a playing efficiency problem. By the time you raise your bet in SD the possible outcomes of the hands are much more affected by card depletion than in shoe games.

Zach Black · May 24, 2011

Amad, I believe the bet spreads are not the cause of your losses.

But I think you game could be improved by increasing the rate of the bet ramp.

Please look at the lesson on this site for optimal bets per high low true count:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/blackjack-lesson-08.php

Since there is an 1/2% advantage at high low TC=1 (Zen TC =1/2) then you are betting less than the optimal as you ramp. By the time you get to zen TC=3 (3% advantage) you're betting half the optimal bet (x 6)

My estimates of EV of different spreads are:

1:6 spreads on Zen True Count result in a EV/100 hands of 1.3 units
(Bet 1 unit at Hi Low TC=2; 6 Units at a high low TC=12)

1:4 spread on the Hi Lo True Count Results in a EV/100 hands of 1.9 units (Bet 2 units at a Zen TC=1, 4 units at Zen TC=2.0 and above)

1:6 spread on the Hi Lo True Count Results in a EV/100 hands of 2.3 units
(Bet 2 units at a Zen TC=1, 6 units at Zen TC=3.0 and above)

It looks to me that a lower spread (1:4) ramping at a faster rate will result in a higher EV.

Amad99 · May 25, 2011

halibut said:

I'm using

16 v. x.. 0
13 v. 2 ..0
11 v. A.. 0
15 v X ..1
12 v. 2 & 3.. 1
10 v. 10 & A.. 1
Insurance.. 1
16 v. 9 ..+2
14 v X ..+3
15 v 9.. +4
16 v 8 .. +4
16 v 7... +5

I'm currently learning the (-) index numbers, but these are the ones I've been using. I feel like I win more when the count is (-) then I do when it is positive anyway...

Amad99 · May 25, 2011

Zach Black said:

Amad, I believe the bet spreads are not the cause of your losses.

But I think you game could be improved by increasing the rate of the bet ramp.

Please look at the lesson on this site for optimal bets per high low true count:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackjack-school/blackjack-lesson-08.php

Since there is an 1/2% advantage at high low TC=1 (Zen TC =1/2) then you are betting less than the optimal as you ramp. By the time you get to zen TC=3 (3% advantage) you're betting half the optimal bet (x 6)

My estimates of EV of different spreads are:

1:6 spreads on Zen True Count result in a EV/100 hands of 1.3 units
(Bet 1 unit at Hi Low TC=2; 6 Units at a high low TC=12)

1:4 spread on the Hi Lo True Count Results in a EV/100 hands of 1.9 units (Bet 2 units at a Zen TC=1, 4 units at Zen TC=2.0 and above)

1:6 spread on the Hi Lo True Count Results in a EV/100 hands of 2.3 units
(Bet 2 units at a Zen TC=1, 6 units at Zen TC=3.0 and above)

It looks to me that a lower spread (1:4) ramping at a faster rate will result in a higher EV.

I've been spreading like this:

TC=(-)0-1.. 1 unit
TC=2.. 2 units
TC=3.. 3 units
TC=4.. 4 units
TC=5.. 5 units
TC=6.. 6 units

How do you suggest I spread?

halibut · May 25, 2011

Amad99 said:

You can do fine with those indices. However, I suggest you add two important indices 9v2 & 9v7 before learning the negative ones.

Amad99 said:

With the above spread and the indices you are currently using, and assuming 65% pen, your EV is only 0.5%. Apparently you are spreading
too conservatively. CVCX suggests the following betting ramp:

TC<=0 .. 1
TC=1 .... 4
TC>=2 .. 6

It will triple your EV to 1.5% and RoR is 3.5% for a 500 unit BR.

BTW, the conservative spread doesn't explain the terrible downswing. The probability of being 300 units down or worse after 100 hours is only 0.6% under the conditions you have described.

Amad99 · May 25, 2011

halibut said:

Thanks for this informations, really helps. I was wondering about my spread and felt I was doing it wrong, because especially with the zen count and the denominator being multiplied by 4, it's rare to get a really high count unless you have really deep penetration and a big slug towards the bottom.

few questions: What if I wanted to spread 1-8? at TC>=3 could I bet 8? How would this affect my EV and RoR? A 1-8 spread in SD may be a little large,,, but I'm not worried about heat playing red chips. And would a 500 unit bankroll be sufficient?

Insurance index play is +1.. I'm confused about when exactly to take insurance. Do I only take insurance when I have BJ, if I have a good hand such as 20, when I have a decent DD hand such as a 6,4 or 8,3; or anytime an A pops up? Once the count was very high, I had max bet out, and I insured a Q6... hole card was a 9, I lost 1.5 X max bet... I still don't know if I made the right play.. Sure didn't feel right.

Lastly, Session bankroll... If overall BR is 500 units, is 100 units a good size for a SBR? Could it be smaller?

I feel that a big reason for my losses was perhaps some bad variance, but mainly honest mistakes and lack of experience... Just being new and trying to work it out. The units lost don't bother me much financially, of course it's frustrating, but I just hate to lose, it's like when you lose in sports or any game. My BR will be up and replenished soon enough. I've been legal to gamble for a very short time and I'm new to all of it, and I'm just trying to get settled into something that works for me and that I feel comfortable with. Thanks for the help.

halibut · May 25, 2011

Amad99 said:

TC<=0 ... 1
TC=1 ..... 4
TC>=2 ... 8

EV: 1.8% RoR: 5.0%

To maximize EV, you should always take insurance at +1 or higher. You should do otherwise considering risk or cover, but you don't need to care about it for a while.

The desirable size of SBR depends on the session length. For example, for a 2 hour session and 100 unit SBR, the session RoR is 4%. You must have at least 130 units to make it below 1%. Of course the longer you will play, the more money you will need.

As others suggested, reviewing your play and taking some time to practice before returning to the casino is a very good idea.

tthree · May 27, 2011

Risk averse indices

Amad I dont think the index for 10 v T mentioned is not a risk averse index. The risk averse index is +8 for HILO multiple deck rather than +4 for multiple deck shown by sims trying to start making the play when it ups your EV a smidgen. It has been shown thru computer sims that not only does the risk averse index greatly reduce variance making it far more likely to be in the black early but it also has a higher long run EV than the so called EV optimizing index. Not sure what the risk averse index is for SD.

There are about 10 indices that most players would see a 3% rise in overall EV if they switched to risk averse indices for all 10. This is because certain hand matchups have very slow rise in advantage after passing the "EV optimizing index". The volatility of doubling your money at risk for a tiny increase in advantage from these plays make it better to wait for a significant advantage only found at a much higher index. The risk averse indices allows a slight increase in bet levels which raise your long run expectation without raising your RoR.

The other thing that could cause you to give up advantage is rounding errors that cause you to use an index before it is actually exceeded. It has been shown that a BS player has a higher EV than an index player who makes this error routinely. The penalty for this error is so great it takes away your advantage and then some.

Please critique my play

Zach Black

Active Member

21gunsalute

Well-Known Member

tthree

Banned

Zach Black

Active Member

tthree

Banned

Amad99

Active Member

tthree

Banned

halibut

Active Member

tthree

Banned

Zach Black

Active Member

Amad99

Active Member

Amad99

Active Member

halibut

Active Member

Amad99

Active Member

halibut

Active Member

tthree

Banned