The compromise between longevity and optimal betting strategy

I compared results from the first 4 months of this year to the last 4 months of this year and they were MUCH better earlier.

The earlier part of the year, I was more aggressive with my spread, and this got me backed off at a few places.

In response, I started to increase bets with the count by parlaying wins, and not more than that. Also, I stopped increasing bets after a loss, despite the count indicating I should.

The good news is I haven't been backed off since modifying my betting style. The bad news is my winnings are significantly down.

Is there a happier medium to reach? Should I go back to being more aggressive, betting with the count, as long as the pit isn't hovering nearby? Other thoughts?

Are you a professional? Do you have a lot of casinos around? Are you a black chip player? All important variables to consider. A part-time green chipper in Vegas should be aggressive. A professional black-chipper that has fewer casinos around should be putting down more cover. A red chipper shouldn't ever be putting down cover.

Are you a professional?
No, I have a "real" job, but I'm playing about one day per week.

Do you have a lot of casinos around?

Depends how you define a lot. I play in AC, so have some choices but it's not LV.

Are you a black chip player?

Not quite. Usually play a $25 or $50 unit.

21forme said:

Other thoughts?

Click to expand...

What I think I know, and don't rely on it, is that such betting restrictions can, like you say, significqantly effect EV.

I believe that isolating the effect of such things as never decreasing a bet after a win, never increase after a loss, never change a pushed bet, never more than parlay after a win etc are all simmable.

I guess I think I think that never jumping a bet to agree with count is less costly than never decreasing after a win or never increasing after a loss when the count warrants it.

So doing things like adjusting bet to count, even if jumpimg, but only after a win or decreasing bet to count but only after a loss can reduce the effect.

Obviously there's lots of variations but it's nice to know how such variations effect EV.

Fewer decks can really change some of these effects when counts can greatly change after just a few cards. Maybe bet 2 units off the top so if the count goes up quickly you can parlay and still be where you want.

Anyway, nobody ever seems to talk about their betting style so I just assume they use no camouflage and jump bets strictly according to the count even if it means a max bet goes to min bet even after a win or vice-versa or a push bet gets topped off by a few units no matter how weird it may appear.

21forme said:

Are you a professional?
No, I have a "real" job, but I'm playing about one day per week.

Do you have a lot of casinos around?

Depends how you define a lot. I play in AC, so have some choices but it's not LV.

Are you a black chip player?

Not quite. Usually play a $25 or $50 unit.

Click to expand...

I'd play a pretty aggressive game if you're near AC, green chips, and this is only a part time job. Just have a good act, don't play really long sessions, and you should be fine.

If you're playing 1 day a week, AC should have enough games that you can play 2 hour sessions and not have to play at one place more than twice a month. If you're going to be real picky about penetration and stuff, this might change.

I have been barred as a red chipper before. So wont need to use any kind of cover and I can spread without heat at $5.00 tables say spreading $10.00 to two hands of $35.00 each? I am thinking of Wendover in the early part of the year but think I will see heat even at these low levels of play.

If the count goes south on a single deck game I could see myself hitting 14 vs dealer 4 etc. I hate to not make those moves because they are backed by the math.

Ian Andersons book Burning the Tables in Las Vegas, is all about cover for the black and purple chip level player. Much of it is based on betting strategy, raising bets only after a win, and lowering bets only after a loss. He gives-up some of his edge, but at this level of betting the small wins are big $$. Intresting read with some great insights into working under the radar.

I can't find my copy of blackjack attack, but I went back and looked at burning the tables.

On the simulated game in the book, "correct hi-lo" strategy had an advantage of .89. This is where play is strictly by the book.

Restricting bet increases between any two hands to only doubling, and bet decreases to halving, drops this notional % advantage .74. Note that the bets are still increasing and decreasing with the count, but the rate at which they change is being throttled. However, this "base" playing style also includes intentional mistakes of always taking even money, always standing 16v10, and not doubling 10v10 or splitting tens in high counts, so I don't know how much of the win rate degradation is due to betting, and how much is due to playing (probably mostly betting)

Adding the restriction that bets can only be increased after a win reduces win rate from $228 to $170, and the advantage drops from .73 to .67

Conversely, the restriction that bets can only be decreased after a loss reduces win rate from $228 to $220 (must smaller drop), but the advantage % has a bigger drop, from .73 to .63 (more larger bets are being placed... volatility goes up too).

Anderson's Ultimate Gambit is all about preseving longevity and gross hourly win rate. It is NOT about keeping a high % advantage or reducing volatility. This is because, for our purposes, his bankroll is infinite. And when your minimum bet is at least $100, the win rate is going to be high enough anyway where you're not concerned if your advantage is under 1%.

Personally, at my much smaller betting level, if playing somewhere where I'd like a little longevity, I incorporate some, but not all, of the bet restrictions. For instance:
- I will generally not change bets on a push
- I will increase bets on either a win or a loss
- I will generally only double bets upward, unless I win a BJ/doubledown, where I will increase by more if the count calls for it.
- I will generally only decrease bets after a loss, unless I have an opportunity to "cheat" by dropping from two hands to 1.
- I will generally halve bets when decreasing, but I'll usually cheat by rounding down a unit if the opportunity presents itself
- If I have an elevated bet out at the end of a shoe, and don't lose, my first bet on next shoe could be anything between that and my minimum.

Even steps like these could very well be unnecessary at the green chip level. On the upside, one local place that I really would think would be sweating my action hasn't shown signs of it. On the downside, the downward bankroll swings really suck (which might be part of the reason the casino doesn't seem to care).