"Grifter Gambit" for 6D Shoes

For those unfamiliar with the Grifter Gambit, i refer you to an interview with ZG, well worth the whole read here:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/ZGInterview.pdf

From the interview:
Quote:
You’ve pioneered an unusual betting scheme called the “Grifter’s Gambit.”
Can you describe this method?

Actually I didn’t pioneer the method, I revived it. It was first revealed as “Consolidation Betting” in
Mason Malmuth’s Blackjack Essays, in 1985, with little fanfare. Malmuth advocated it as a form of
apparent flat-betting for good single deck games. In 1998, George C. took a look at it after I
requested he run a simulation. Initially he said it looked like “a stupid idea.” Then he simmed and
refined it for quality 2-deck games and discovered it to be a powerful ploy, unknown to pit staffs
and surveillance people.
Malmuth deserves the credit but George C refined it and respectfully dubbed it “Grifter’s Gambit,”
presumably because I rescued it from obscurity and had him run the sims.

How does it work? Can you give an example?

Ok, let’s say I’m playing a quality two-deck game, heads-up: In minus and neutral counts I bet
three hands of one unit each. This eats cards fast in order to speed things along and get to the
plus-deck situations quicker. At modest plus-counts I bet three units on one spot. I increase to
five units on one spot in moderate plus-counts. In higher counts I bet one spot of seven units.
Playing one spot in plus-counts helps preserve the rich portions longer. Per 100 rounds - not
hands - the sim showed a gain of four units - with an apparent spread of three to seven units - just
barely more than a 1-2 spread!
For a good single deck game there can be a virtual flat-bet: in minus counts bet three spots of one
unit, and in plus counts bet one spot of three or four units - this will yield a similar gain to a
traditional 1-4 spread BUT with higher variance. However, because the minimum bet is 3 x 1 unit,
the comps are much better. One other thing: you must be playing alone at the table if it’s single
deck or with no more than one other at a double decker.
/End Quote

There was a recent discussion here: http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=6049

about playing multiple hands in a heads up (assume 6D) game. conventional wisdom that i have read suggests to play only 1 hand in this situation regardless of count. well, if you're adequately bankrolled, and equally crazy, could a multihand (neg count) to single hand (pos count) gambit work against a 6D shoe, with the assumption that you could wong out of bad shoes?

patiently waiting for a zg response,
M.

Mimosine said:

about playing multiple hands in a heads up (assume 6D) game. conventional wisdom that i have read suggests to play only 1 hand in this situation regardless of count. well, if you're adequately bankrolled, and equally crazy, could a multihand (neg count) to single hand (pos count) gambit work against a 6D shoe, with the assumption that you could wong out of bad shoes?

Click to expand...

I'm sure it could.

After all, take a 4.5/6 S17,DAS, LS game spreading 1-12 entering at TC+1 with a $43 unit and a 10,000 roll winning $59.91/hr.

Take the same game and enter at TC+2 but only spread 1-2. Sure ur unit would increase to $116 and ur win rate would drop to $52.70/hr. But there u r playing with the same ROR and winning 88% of what u would spreading 1-12 while only spreading 1-2 with the same roll.

Take it one step further and enter the same game with a flat-bet! Ur unit would increase to $152 and ur win rate would drop to $43.94, 73% of the 1-12 spread. But u r FLAT-BETTING! All with the same ROR and $10K roll.

Increase your roll to $33K, enter at TC+2 with a flat-bet $500 unit, win $145/hr with the same ROR.

So, while I don't know the cost of min flat-bets waiting for the TC+2, I'm pretty sure u'd still make money but then u'd look like ur spreading 100-1 as opposed to just entering in the first place.

But I think the principle is the same.

I've used it for 6D, typically heads-up - whereas with 1D themin bets are 3x1u and the max bets are 1x3-5u, and with 2D the min bets are 3x1u and the max bets are 1x7-10u, with 6D I've used 3x1u and 1x12-20u... AND exiting when the count drops below -3 (ZEN).

A substantial analysis of a variation of this concept was explored by Dan Pronovost in the June 2004 issue of BJ Insider. zg

------------------
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF
HENRY TAMBURIN / BJ INSIDER

Inverse Hand Spreading/"The Grifter's Gambit"

By Dan Pronovost
June 2004 issue of BJ Insider

Introduction

Dan Pronovost is the owner and president of DeepNet Technologies, makers of a wide range of blackjack training products and software. Their web site is: www.HandheldBlackjack.com, and all products are available for free trial download. Dan is the creator of the new card counting system Speed Count, which is being taught in the Golden Touch Blackjack courses by Henry Tamburin and Frank Scoblete: www.GoldenTouchBlackjack.com. Check out the great feedback from students in the first two GTB courses: http://bjinsider.com/gtb_course_feedback.shtml.

Inverse Hand Spreading

In last month's May BJI newsletter, LV Pro interviewed "The Grifter" (http://www.bjinsider.com/newsletter_52_grift.shtml). In the interview, The Grifter talks about an interesting card counter's technique called the "Grifter’s Gambit" (honorably titled after the creator). The strategy refers to flipping the normal card counter's strategy of spreading to more hands as the count becomes advantageous for the player, and instead playing less hands. In the Gambit method, you start by playing three small bet hands by default, and reduce to one much larger bet hand as the count increases. This method can be applied to any card counting system.

I was intrigued by the Grifter's Gambit, and decided to run my own simulations using Blackjack Audit, my company's own professional blackjack simulator (www.HandheldBlackjack.com/bjaudit.html). While Grifter provided excellent background and information about his method, I wanted to see more analysis. My simulations show that this method indeed works as the Grifter documents, but there are many practical caveats counters should be aware of before throwing this technique in their bag of tricks!

How does it work?

As all counters know, the basic principle of card counting systems is to track the player's advantage (and disadvantage) over the casino, and simply bet more when the odds are in your favor and less otherwise. All winning card counting systems can be boiled down to this simply principle, regardless of the method they use to track the player's advantage.

A common method of getting more bets out when the advantage is very high in the player's favor is to play more than one hand with a large bet. Since this is commonly known as hand spreading, we'll refer to the Grifter's Gambit as inverse hand spreading.

To understand inverse hand spreading, let's look at the High-Low count system, and a typical setup in a common six-deck game:

·Game: 6 deck
·Unit bet size: $15
·Count system: High-Low, playing only one hand
·Bet spread:
·true count (TC) < 1: $15 (1 unit)
·TC >= 1, TC < 2: $30 (2 units)
·TC >= 2, TC < 3: $60 (4 units)
·TC >= 3: $120 (8 units)

To establish the right inverse hand spread, we need to determine our bets and hands so that the total amount bet at each true count is the same as the above setup. Done this way, we should end up with similar variation and risk (a factor of the standard deviation) in each game, with comparable results. Assuming we want to start with three hands, we can use the following inverse spread:

·Game: 6 deck
·Unit bet size: $5
·Count system: High-Low, playing three to one hands as the count increases
·Equivalent inverse hand spread:
·true count (TC) < 1: three hands of $5=$15 (3 hands of 1 unit)
·TC >= 1, TC < 2: three hands of $10=$30 (3 hands of 2 units)
·TC >= 2, TC < 3: two hands of $30=$60 (2 hands of 6 units)
·TC >= 3: one hand of $120 (1 hand of 24 units)

With this setup, we are betting the same total amount at each true count level. Notice that we had to use a unit bet size in the single-hand game that is three times larger than the inverse spread unit bet size. This is a requirement if you are trying to match the performance metrics between the two systems. It also makes clear that inverse hand spreading requires players to have an equivalent unit bet size three times higher than the table minimum. For example, if you are a $10 player playing at $10 tables, then using an equivalent inverse spread is not possible without tripling your bankroll risk. Inverse hand spreading is not suitable for players whose unit bet size is at or near table minimums.

Let's apply the same approach to a two deck game:

·Game: 2 deck
·Unit bet size: $15
·Count system: High-Low, playing only one hand
·Bet spread:
·true count (TC) < 1: $15 (1 unit)
·TC >= 1, TC < 2: $30 (2 units)
·TC >= 2: $60 (4 units)
Here is the equivalent 2 deck inverse betting setup:
·Game: 2 deck
·Unit bet size: $5
·Count system: High-Low, playing three to one hands as the count increases
·Equivalent inverse hand spread:
·true count (TC) < 1: three hands of $5=$15 (3 hands of 1 unit)
·TC >= 1, TC < 2: two hands of $15=$30 (2 hands of 3 units)
·TC >= 2: one hand of $60 (1 hand of 12 units)

Performance comparison

Now that we have determined equivalent inverse bet spreads, we can run simulations in Blackjack Audit and compare the results. We simulated two classic games, using 100 million rounds of blackjack for each simulation:

·Two deck game: DAS, H17, 2/3 penetration, one player, High-Low count system, 100 million simulation rounds.

·Six deck game: DAS, S17, 3/4 penetration, one player, High-Low count system, 100 million simulation rounds.

Tables 1 and 2 show the expectation percentage (total of all earnings/divided by total of all bets), standard deviation in dollars per round, the average bet size in dollars per round, and win rate per hour in dollars assuming 100 rounds of blackjack an hour. The full High-Low count system was used for tables 1 and 2, including all matching play indices as published in Stanford Wong's "Professional Blackjack". The first Risk of Ruin row shows the bankroll required to have no more than a 5% chance of losing that sum in an eight hour trip or session (assuming 100 rounds an hour). The second ROR line shows the bankroll required for a 5% chance of losing that sum given an infinite number of blackjack rounds. Red differences indicate a less favorable entry for inverse spreading, while black differences are improvements.

6 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 1: 6-deck simulation results with the High-Low count system including play indices
Although there is a modest increase in the standard deviation and short-term risk of ruin, the win rate nearly doubles in a six deck game using an equivalent inverse bet spread with the full High-Low count system. Notice that the 5% lifetime ROR actually goes down, despite the higher standard deviation. This is due to the fact that our higher earning potential per round tempers the long-term risk, despite the increased short-term volatility.

2 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 2: 2-deck simulation results with the High-Low count system including play indices
We see the same trends in the two-deck game, with an 84% increase in win rate compared to 88% in the six-deck game. The increase in short term ROR is very small (3.8%), with a substantial 1/3 improvement in the long-term lifetime risk of ruin.

>>>CONTINUED>>>

>>>CONTINUED>>>

Normalizing the comparison with an adjusted inverse spread

One problem with the above comparisons is that the standard deviations are significantly different (about 9% for double deck and 16% for 6 deck). An 'apples to apples' comparison of the win rates for two systems is only fair if both methods introduce the same level of risk per round. Although we chose the inverse bet spread amounts to match the true count bet sizes for the basic method, there is no reason we can't further 'tweak' the inverse spread to yield closer standard deviations. To do this, we lowered the inverse bet spreads as follows (the per hand bets are shown). Note that this is not a bet spread we would recommend you play: we adjusted the spreads solely for the purposes of generating a more fair statistical comparison. You may notice that the maximum bet (or bet ramp) is not the same as the prior inverse bet spread. The maximum bet was lowered to achieve comparable standard deviations.

True count
<1
TC >= 1, TC < 2
TC >= 2, TC < 3
TC >= 3

Table 3: Adjusted inverse bet spread with lower betting ramp
Using the adjusted inverse bet spread, we see the following results:

6 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 5: 6-deck simulation results with adjusted inverse spread and full High-Low

2 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 6: 2-deck simulation results with adjusted inverse spread and full High-Low

In both games, we've adjusted the bet spreads so that the standard deviations are within two percent, allowing a very fair comparison of the win rates. As such we see a 50% improvement in the win rates, with reductions in the risk of ruin all round. The data clearly shows that inverse bet spreading will earn you more money per hour with less risk as a blackjack card counter, compared to betting the equivalent game with only one betting spot.

Inverse spreading without play indices

Few card counters employ the full High-Low count system with all play indices. Does the value of hand spreading depend on the complexity of the count system? The following tables show the performance comparison against High-Low without play indices (i.e. using the true count to vary bets and take insurance only), using the original calculated inverse bet ramp:

6 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 7: 6-deck simulation results using the High-Low count system without play indices

2 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 8: 2-deck simulation results using the High-Low count system without play indices

Incredibly, the inverse bet spreading is even more effective without play indices: we see slightly over 100% increase in win rate with nearly identical modest increases in short-term risk (compared to High-Low with play indices). Clearly, the statistics show that inverse bet spreading is a winning strategy, at least on paper!
>>>CONTINUED>>>

>>>CONTINUED>>>

Why does inverse spreading perform so well?

In LV Pro's interview, The Grifter notes that inverse spreading "eats cards fast in order to speed things along and get to the plus deck situations quicker". With inverse spreading at low counts, we will be playing three hands for the equivalent and same bet with one hand betting normally, so Grifter's observation is very true. But when the count is very high and we are playing alone against the dealer, it should be noted that inverse spreading will result in a few less player hands dealt out compared to traditional aggressive three-hand spreading. When hand spreading to three hands at high count (and playing alone against the dealer), the player will receive three hands in row to the dealer's one hand. With inverse spreading, there will be one dealer hand for each player's hand at high counts.

He also point out, "One other thing: you must be playing alone at the table if it’s single deck or with no more than one other at a double decker." While all these statements seems rational and correct, let's see what happens in the simulations using four players instead of one. For this test, we'll use the full High-Low count system including play indices.

6 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll

Table 9: 6-deck simulation results using full High-Low with four players

2 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll

Table 10: 2-deck simulation results using full High-Low with four players
In tables 1 and 2, we saw an 84%-88% increase in the hourly win rate with a 9%-16% increase in standard deviation. By adding three extra players, we are not surprisingly changing the 'shape' of the game substantially, lowering our win rate improvement to 35%-55%, but without increasing the risk (in fact, we have less risk in the double deck game). Inverse spreading is still a very powerful advantage method with four players.

Inverse spreading versus normal hand spreading

It is important to note that the method of applying inverse spreading described in this article is not a direct replacement for normal bet spreading, where counters spread to more hands as the count becomes very profitable to the player. In essence, we've used inverse bet spreading to substitute for play without the comparable normal hand spreading. If you wanted to model the equivalent system with aggressive hand spreading, you would have to further increase the single-hand bets enormously. For example, suppose you normally spread up to 8 units on each of three hands in a six deck shoe game. That's 24 units as a maximum total wager, so the equivalent inverse spread with one hand would be 3 x 24 = 72 units! If your unit bet size is $5, then this means the equivalent inverse spread would range from 3 hands of $5 to one hand of $360: this kind of bet ramp is sure to draw attention in many casinos.

But this argument depends on the notion that normal hand spreading will earn a player more per hour than inverse bet spreading with equivalent single-hand bet ramps as described in this article. Is it possible that inverse spreading, even without matching the higher normal three-hand spread bet sizes, performs better? To determine this, we ran another simulation using a traditional three-hand spread as follows:

·Unit bet size: $15, bet spreads as indicated prior for single-hand games
·Count system: Full High-Low with play indices, playing only one hand, one player
·Hand spread:
·true count (TC) < 3: one hand
·TC >= 3, TC < 4: two hands
·TC >=4: three hands

In this case, we are less concerned about risk of ruin and matching bet amounts since the goal of hand spreading is to simply boost our win rate as much as possible while accepting the increased risk and playing with a suitable bankroll. As such, we are primarily concerned only with the win rates per hour.

For the six-deck game, our maximum three-hand bets at a true count or 4 or greater is 3 x 8 units = 24 units = 24 x $15 = $360. Inverse spreading has us betting 24 units on one hand as well, but the unit bet size is $5, so the maximum bet is $120. For double deck, maximum hand spreading is 3 x 4 units = 12 units = $180. For inverse spreading, our maximum is one hand of 12 $5 units = $60. The effective bet spreads are summarized in this table:

6 deck:
Inverse hand spreading
Normal hand spreading
Minimum total bets/round
$15
$15
Maximum total bets/rounds
$120
$360

Table 11: 6 deck bet spreads for inverse spreading versus traditional hand spreading

2 deck:
Inverse hand spreading
Normal hand spreading
Minimum total bets/round
$15
$15
Maximum total bets/rounds
$60
$180
Table 12: 2 deck bet spreads for inverse spreading versus traditional hand spreading

On the surface, tables 11 and 12 show that we are severely 'handicapping' our comparison in that maximum with inverse spreading is much lower. All the same, here is the data summary:

6 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
Table 13: 6-deck simulation results: inverse spreading versus normal spreading

2 deck:
Expectation
Std. dev./round
Avg. bet size.
Win rate/hour
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
5% lifetime ROR bankroll

Table 14: 2-deck simulation results using full High-Low with four players
Incredibly, despite the fact we are using a smaller bet ramp when inverse spreading resulting in a 22%-25% reduction in standard deviation, the win rate is better (six deck) or only slightly lower (2.6% in two-deck)! The expected reduction in risk of ruin is notable in the ROR lines, yet we earn basically as much or more per hour using inverse bet spreading. This is a very unexpected and surprising result.

It should be noted though that we are using a fairly cautious traditional hand spread (increasing hands only at very high true counts), and did not simulate wonging at all (sitting out hands or shoes at very low counts). These different strategies may skew the results above.

Inverse spreading in practice

The statistics show pretty clearly that inverse bet spreading can improve our earnings potential, but does this benefit apply in real-world conditions at the casino tables? The Grifter suggested in his article that not only does inverse spreading help the player earn more money, but that it is great camouflage resulting in less chance of being backed off or barred.

As mentioned previously, inverse spreading can only be applied where a counter's unit bet size is already three times the table minimum bet. If a counter playing only one hand applies inverse bet spreading where this is not true, then they are significantly increasing their bankroll risk compared to their base game.

Another issue counters may find is that casinos require a higher bet per hand when spreading. A common practice is to require two times the minimum table bet for two hands, and three times for three hands. With this constraint, this means a $5 table would require an inverse spreader to play three hands of $15, which is equivalent to a $45 unit bet size. So, a player has to be playing at least nine times the table minimum in this case.
Despite these drawbacks, does inverse spreading by itself confuse the casino and help provide counter cover? Is spreading from three hands of $5 to one hand of $60 less suspect than playing one hand from $15 to $60 in a double deck game? Inverse bet spreading is new to me, so I can't say personally what camouflage benefits it provides. The Grifter, and many other card counters say it helps, and I have no reason to doubt that. But, I suspect the camouflage value is more applicable in high stake green or black chip games ($25 to $100 minimum bets), where extremely large top bets are not uncommon and draw less attention. At cheap $5 and $10 tables, extremely large bet jumps are less common, and inverse spreading may just alert the pit bosses sooner rather than later.

Conclusions

Inverse hand spreading may be suitable and advantageous for you if all of the points below apply:

·You card count successfully already.
·Your minimum bet size is at least three times the table minimum, or nine times if the casino has higher spread-hand betting requirements.
·You are concerned about camouflage in the games you play, and feel the need to further lower your risk of being backed off or barred.

Also, if you are a betting at the table minimums now but are employing traditional hand spreading, you may make more money with less risk by using inverse hand spreading instead, even without matching the equivalent maximum three-hand bet.

-- E N D --

My comments -

"Inverse Hand Spreading"

my comments -

My comments on Dan's excellent analysis of "Inverse Hand Spreading" betting:

Dan's analysis of a variant of The Grifter's Gambit ('TGG') yielded not-unsurprising results - inverse spreads out perform traditional spreads.

That said, however, Dan has analyzed variants of TGG which lose much of the real strength of the technique as I have revealed it - that being CAMOUFLAGE!

My 'standard' TGGs, based on Mason Malmuth's "consolidation betting", use the lowest possible apparent spread between negative and positive counts (ie, 1D = 3x1u to 1x3-4u; 2D = 3x1u to 1x7u). This low (3 to 3-4 or 3 to 7) net-apparent spread is the primary strength of TGG.

Also, as I did point out, TGG 1D-2D betting is best accomplished with heads-up play. Perhaps it will still work in a 2D game with 3 other players, but I would rather use a traditional spread in that environment - allowing the other players to eat the negative counts while I spread to 2-3 hands in the positive counts, which will achieve superior results, I believe.

I have also used heads-up TGG in 6D-8D games where my approach converges with Dan's 6D analysis model - I spread from 3x1u to 1x20u.

The above notwithstanding, Dan's analysis has validated my TGG 6D variant (which was strictly intuitive and not previously recommended by me) ... and he has further enlightened me to the power of the technique which will likely lead to additional variants. zg

Thanks ZG!

a real gem of a post!

yet another reason to aspire to a 10k bankroll....:grin:

-M.

very interesting results.

I just wanted to say i've been expirementing with the inverse betting/for md and im completely blown away by it's raw power.Ive been playing 3x30 3x60 2x180 1x720 and my win rate went straight through the roof. Nothing short of remarkable. There is however, a couple of questions i hope someone could answer for me,before i explore this new method of betting.

1. Since i use a level 2,wouldnt my t.c be twice as much,for this is the way i've been playing it. Opposed to the level 1 hi-low? i.e make the 3x60 at t.c+2-+4 instead of +1-+2.

2. Is it okay to go from 3x30[step 1] to 1x720[step 4] completely skipping step 2 and step 3,provided the count called for it. Or do you have to take it step by step.
Can someone rectify this for me. Any advice would be much obliged.

_______________________________________
This sheeps about to do sherring of its own.

jack said:

I just wanted to say i've been expirementing with the inverse betting/for md and im completely blown away by it's raw power.Ive been playing 3x30 3x60 2x180 1x720 and my win rate went straight through the roof. Nothing short of remarkable.

Click to expand...

What you are likely experiencing is VARIANCE - we note in the ZG Interview that the variance and RoR is higher with this.

1. Since i use a level 2,wouldnt my t.c be twice as much,for this is the way i've been playing it. Opposed to the level 1 hi-low? i.e make the 3x60 at t.c+2-+4 instead of +1-+2.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

2. Is it okay to go from 3x30[step 1] to 1x720[step 4] completely skipping step 2 and step 3,provided the count called for it. Or do you have to take it step by step.

Click to expand...

You detract from its power when you make larger multi-hand bets. Just go from the multi-hand minis directly to the larger 1-hand bets, BUT you still would size your larger bets to the TC. For example: 3x25 - 1x100 - 1x200 - 1x300 - 1x400 - 1x600. zg

zengrifter said:

What you are likely experiencing is VARIANCE - we note in the ZG Interview that the variance and RoR is higher with this.

Yes, exactly.

You detract from its power when you make larger multi-hand bets. Just go from the multi-hand minis directly to the larger 1-hand bets, BUT you still would size your larger bets to the TC. For example: 3x25 - 1x100 - 1x200 - 1x300 - 1x400 - 1x600. zg

Click to expand...

Okay,got it,x1, t.c+2:4u, t.c+3:8u, t.c +4:12u,t.c+5:16u,t.c+6:24u/30x24=720. Still on a roll $$$$
Very impressed with how it's designed.The math looks somewhat familiar.
Wish i had the BR to back up this kind of action. I would only play at this level at about 75k. But that's just me. Anyway im gonna see how it fares over the next 100hrs. And perhaps tuning it down for when i actually play for real. Depending on what the casinos stipulations are of course.
Thanks again, for this high performance strategy. j.j.:cow

jack said:

Okay,got it,x1, t.c+2:4u, t.c+3:8u, t.c +4:12u,t.c+5:16u,t.c+6:24u/30x24=720. Still on a roll $$$$
Very impressed with how it's designed.The math looks somewhat familiar.
Wish i had the BR to back up this kind of action. I would only play at this level at about 75k. But that's just me. Anyway im gonna see how it fares over the next 100hrs. And perhaps tuning it down for when i actually play for real. Depending on what the casinos stipulations are of course.
Thanks again, for this high performance strategy. j.j.:cow

Click to expand...

The main purpose of this strategy is CAMOFLAUGE not performance. I think I'd like to have 100k BR for the bet sizing you sugest. zg

I once got flat-betted in Reno (1D) and convinced the shift manager to allow me to split my flat-bet 'amount' across 2 or 3 hands on whim or count. Effectively they only allowed my play if I bet GG - 3x150 to 1x450. Everyone was happy and I didn't overdo it. zg

zengrifter said:

I once got flat-betted in Reno (1D) and convinced the shift manager to allow me to split my flat-bet 'amount' across 2 or 3 hands on whim or count. Effectively they only allowed my play if I bet GG - 3x150 to 1x450. Everyone was happy and I didn't overdo it. zg

Click to expand...

what does the GG stand for? so the pit knew you were counting, and you asked him if you could spread to multiple hands when the count was high?

SilentBob420BMFJ said:

what does the GG stand for?

Click to expand...

It stands for “Grifter’s Gambit”, as the title of this thread suggests.

SilentBob420BMFJ said:

so the pit knew you were counting, and you asked him if you could spread to multiple hands when the count was high?

Click to expand...

No, he was spreading to multiple hands when the count was negative. Read the first few posts in this thread.

-Sonny-

gg

Sonny said:

It stands for “Grifter’s Gambit”, as the title of this thread suggests.

Click to expand...

First "good game", then "Gordon Gekko", and now "Grifter's Gambit"? Good grief! How are we supposed to keep this all straight? Oh, you're suggesting to look at the context and THINK a little? It's all just too much...

:joker:

Any other "Grifter's Gambits"?

I LOVE the cover provided by Grifters Gambit, however it has been around for a while and seems to be well known. Anyone have anything else simmilar to this to help disguise a betting spread?

johnsonjj10 said:

I LOVE the cover provided by Grifters Gambit, however it has been around for a while and seems to be well known. Anyone have anything else simmilar to this to help disguise a betting spread?

Click to expand...

Its not well known - but it does stand out by itself - should be used in handheld games as part of a constanstly changing mix of gambit ploys, when sizable stakes are at play. zg

Gg

Tried this out in Reno last night with great success. I still play comparitively low stakes but was able to win a nice chunk of change and didn't even have the pit look at me once.

razzle said:

Tried this out in Reno last night with great success. I still play comparitively low stakes but was able to win a nice chunk of change and didn't even have the pit look at me once.

Click to expand...

For single deck its great for obtaining a higher-min table: Many times in Reno I have approached a $5-10 min table and gotten the min-bet raised to $25, to keep other players off, and in the next moment convinced the PC to allow me to make the min on all three hands (rather than the typical obligatory 3x-5x min for 3hands).

And GG betting is an entirely different and more exhilarating way to play at 1-2D. zg

Ps - Remember, you need a bigger bank (see ZGI).