Why does not varying your bets work?

[ArcticInferno]

Ian Anderson (p. 209) describes a technique where you don’t vary your bets at all.
You start out with two enormous bets and continue to play until the TC drops below -1, at which point you pull out.
I guess you can consider pulling out as dropping your bet to zero, which is sort of like varying your bets.
But my point is,... why does such technique even work? What’s the logical explanation?
If such bold technique works, then how about doubling your bets at TC of +1?
You would start out with two bets and pull out at TC of -1, and double the bets at TC of +1.
In theory, such technique should work better. Right?
The casino would see someone always playing two hands and intermittently doubling the bets.
Surely, they wouldn’t suspect anything,...
If such strategy works, then why do we need 1:4 or 1:8 bet spreads?
I’m very tempted to try such technique, but I would like some input from the veterans before I embark on such uncharted territories.

 

[BrianCP]

The spreads with ramps are generally designed for optimal % return on money bet with a safe RoR, but these systems do not maximize actual dollars earned as the lower percentage with a higher bet does overtake the dollar value of a high percentage at a lower bet.

The KO rookie betting system is a good example of having two bets, minimum, and whatever maximum you can bet when the deck is favored toward you. You don't get as much of a percentage of your total dollars wagered back, but your significantly higher average wager still results in a greater net profit (albeit with a higher RoR).

This article helped me understand why this works somewhat: http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/Leibkelly.htm

It doesn't specifically address this topic, but it still added to my understanding of why bet spreads and ramps are in place generally speaking, and why flat betting the top of your spread with an advantage and min betting when you don't works despite the lack of optimum ROI.

 

[Southpaw]

The reason one has to vary their bets (when playing all) is that on most hands there will be a negative expectation. Therefore you must bet higher on the positive expectation hands to make up for the countless hands you played at negative expectation.

I read the book and remember this case, but is the player entering at the shuffle or at TC of +1? One might have a small return with this strategy if they are entering at the shuffle, but if he is entering at TC = 1, then he wouldn't even need to vary his bets at all.

Per Don Schlesinger's BJA3, it is well-known that when wonging heavily, spreading does not help out all that much. If I recall, one can get 50-70% of the return using his specified backcounting strategy while flat-betting in comparison to if he were to be spreading 1-12 with the same strategy. However, his units would not be the same with each case, and that is the key to the puzzle. He would be using a much higher unit size when flat-betting, all while at the same RoR.

Spaw

 

[ArcticInferno]

I read the book and remember this case, but is the player entering at the shuffle or at TC of +1?

The player enters at shuffle.
Bets two hands of $10k each, for total of $20k per round.
Plays alone (obviously).
Pulls out at TC of -1.
Never varies the bets.

 

[johndoe]

The player enters at shuffle.
Bets two hands of $10k each, for total of $20k per round.
Plays alone (obviously).
Pulls out at TC of -1.
Never varies the bets.

It can certainly work, but with enormous variance. You'd better have a ridiculous bankroll.

Basically, you're betting across a distribution of advantages ranging from (loosely) -.5% to 2.5%+. You'll be playing somewhat more hands at an advantage than at a disadvantage, so you're ahead overall.

There are plenty of more practical options. Interesting idea though.

 

[moo321]

You're better off back-counting and flat betting.

 

[ArcticInferno]

You're better off back-counting and flat betting.

Can you imagine back counting and then sitting down with a $20k wager?
LOL!

 

[EmeraldCityBJ]

Ian Anderson (p. 209) describes a technique where you don’t vary your bets at all.
You start out with two enormous bets and continue to play until the TC drops below -1, at which point you pull out.

I'm guessing that the underlying goal of this system is to play something close to a break-even game, and to derive all your EV from comps. It is really only applicable for high stakes where the comps earned actually have some real value.

 

[ArcticInferno]

I'm guessing that the underlying goal of this system is to play something close to a break-even game, and to derive all your EV from comps. It is really only applicable for high stakes where the comps earned actually have some real value.

Here’s a quote from the book.
“This player has racked up an extraordinary lifetime win of more than $7 million!”

By the way, you obviously haven’t read Burning the Tables in Las Vegas.
His book ranks waaay up there along with Standford Wong, Arnold Snyder, Peter Griffin, Don Schlesinger, etc.

 

[Sucker]

I'm guessing that the underlying goal of this system is to play something close to a break-even game, and to derive all your EV from comps. It is really only applicable for high stakes where the comps earned actually have some real value.

I have a good friend who has been very successful for several decades at this exact same strategy; and he was using it LONG before Andersons' book came out.

That's one problem I have with almost all, if not ALL blackjack authors. Someone gives them some information in confidence, and the next thing you know; it ends up in print. And THEN; the author somehow gets credit for it, as though HE thought it up all by himself. There's even ONE author who not only tries to take credit for inventing "back-counting", he even has the nerve to NAME it after himself! :laugh:

 

[blackjack avenger]

Run a Sim

A sim will answer many of the questions.

If one is going to play a lot of negative hands then the rules of the game become very important.

It's a subjective decision. Is the camo worth the loss in ev? Does one think they will make a profit with comps? How much are comps worth?

The reason flat bet near play all is such effective camo is because it's very hard to win.

good cards
:joker::whip:

 

[ArcticInferno]

I have a good friend who has been very successful for several decades at this exact same strategy; and he was using it LONG before Andersons' book came out.

That's one problem I have with almost all, if not ALL blackjack authors. Someone gives them some information in confidence, and the next thing you know; it ends up in print. And THEN; the author somehow gets credit for it, as though HE thought it up all by himself. There's even ONE author who not only tries to take credit for inventing "back-counting", he even has the nerve to NAME it after himself! :laugh:

Sucker, Ian Anderson doesn’t try to take credit for that strategy.
He simply described a strategy that someone else used.
By the way, if you knew about this, why aren’t *you* using it?
Or are you?

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Ian Anderson (p. 209) describes a technique where you don’t vary your bets at all.
You start out with two enormous bets and continue to play until the TC drops below -1, at which point you pull out.
I guess you can consider pulling out as dropping your bet to zero, which is sort of like varying your bets.
But my point is,... why does such technique even work? What’s the logical explanation?
If such bold technique works, then how about doubling your bets at TC of +1?
You would start out with two bets and pull out at TC of -1, and double the bets at TC of +1.
In theory, such technique should work better. Right?
The casino would see someone always playing two hands and intermittently doubling the bets.
Surely, they wouldn’t suspect anything,...
If such strategy works, then why do we need 1:4 or 1:8 bet spreads?
I’m very tempted to try such technique, but I would like some input from the veterans before I embark on such uncharted territories.

We need big spreads because we want to make more than 0.1 units per hour. This is a technique used by guys with very large bankrolls, in high limit games, where they would have trouble getting their bets down any other way. There is a big difference between spreading $10-$200 and spreading $1000-$20000. We low rollers can get away with so much more, in these respects.

 

[Southpaw]

His book ranks waaay up there along with Standford Wong, Arnold Snyder, Peter Griffin, Don Schlesinger, etc.

His book may be very popular, but I think it earns its credibility not from discussing the strategies he outlines, but from providing a lot of interesting ideas about the nature of cover and how casino personnel think.

I really think the reader has to take what he says with a grain of salt when it comes to some of the strategies he describes such as this one, as his conversations tend to be very EV-focused, and the statistics usually assume the player is playing heads-up (when cover is least costly).

However, there is one strategy I really liked; The crazy-surrender strategy.

Spaw

 

[ArcticInferno]

His book may be very popular, but I think it earns its credibility not from discussing the strategies he outlines, but from providing a lot of interesting ideas about the nature of cover and how casino personnel think.

I really think the reader has to take what he says with a grain of salt when it comes to some of the strategies he describes such as this one, as his conversations tend to be very EV-focused, and the statistics usually assume the player is playing heads-up (when cover is least costly).

However, there is one strategy I really liked; The crazy-surrender strategy.

Spaw

You're right. Ian Anderson describes the "black art" of blackjack, rather than the
technical aspects.
Anderson correctly states that a sharp technical proficiency is useless if there’s no
place to apply your trade.

I was chased out into the parking lot at Sands in Bethlehem PA by the head of the
security. She shouted “Give me your drivers license, now!” as bystander stared and
wondered what I could’ve done. As she followed me, she shouted “We have your photo.
You can’t come back here!” In the garage, one of the security guards stood in front of
my car to prevent me from leaving, so that she can read off my license plate into the
walkie talkie.
I had won about $7k in the high limit room that day. I can never return to Sands,
so was it worth it?

 

[zengrifter]

If such strategy works, then why do we need 1:4 or 1:8 bet spreads?

That is known as the GeoC gambit, in 2D. Or in 1D the Sklansky Gambit.
It doesn't work nearly as well as a spread. It is highly dependent on good game conditions.
It does not work as well as flat-bet wonging, either.
it should be reserved for OTT betting after a strong run in a previous deck/shoe. zg

 

[tedsuxs]

You're right. Ian Anderson describes the "black art" of blackjack, rather than the
technical aspects.
Anderson correctly states that a sharp technical proficiency is useless if there’s no
place to apply your trade.

I was chased out into the parking lot at Sands in Bethlehem PA by the head of the
security. She shouted “Give me your drivers license, now!” as bystander stared and
wondered what I could’ve done. As she followed me, she shouted “We have your photo.
You can’t come back here!” In the garage, one of the security guards stood in front of
my car to prevent me from leaving, so that she can read off my license plate into the
walkie talkie.
I had won about $7k in the high limit room that day. I can never return to Sands,
so was it worth it?

Thats awsome story haha! And unless that casino is super close to where you live with good conditions, it was worth it Imo.
Or if it was huge chain casino obvy not worth it .

 

[moo321]

You're right. Ian Anderson describes the "black art" of blackjack, rather than the
technical aspects.
Anderson correctly states that a sharp technical proficiency is useless if there’s no
place to apply your trade.

I was chased out into the parking lot at Sands in Bethlehem PA by the head of the
security. She shouted “Give me your drivers license, now!” as bystander stared and
wondered what I could’ve done. As she followed me, she shouted “We have your photo.
You can’t come back here!” In the garage, one of the security guards stood in front of
my car to prevent me from leaving, so that she can read off my license plate into the
walkie talkie.
I had won about $7k in the high limit room that day. I can never return to Sands,
so was it worth it?

I would have considered getting physcial with the security guard if I thought I could take him at this point. I definitely would have considered a citizens arrest and involved law enforcement. That's preventing egress. I would certainly sue in civil court.

 

[BrianCP]

I would have considered getting physcial with the security guard if I thought I could take him at this point. I definitely would have considered a citizens arrest and involved law enforcement. That's preventing egress. I would certainly sue in civil court.

I agree, that is when I pull out my phone and call the cops. Casinos have their own business rules, but preventing someone who didn't do anything wrong from getting in their vehicle is police time.

I of course would've gotten physical as well, but I wouldn't have driven away after doing that of course.

 

[moo321]

I agree, that is when I pull out my phone and call the cops. Casinos have their own business rules, but preventing someone who didn't do anything wrong from getting in their vehicle is police time.

I of course would've gotten physical as well, but I wouldn't have driven away after doing that of course.

This could be a good time to set up an incident, too, especially if there are no cameras and there are onlookers. "Please let me go!" Followed by walking into the guard, followed by grabbing face and screaming "Stop hitting me! Oh my God, why are you hitting me! Call the police!"