Always betting max?

[Dschddny]

The standard practice for betting when counting cards is to increase your
bet as the count gets higher (more positive). For example, if you're
betting between 5 and 25, you would bet 5 when the count is less than 0 or
less, 10 when the count is 1, 15 when the count is 2, 20 when the count is
3, and 25 when the count is 4 or more. Does this strategy really make
sense?

When the count is less than 1, the dealer has the advantage. When the count
is 1, the player and dealer are even (no advantage). When the count is 2,
the player has a .5% advantage. When the count is 3, the player has a 1%
advantage. And so on, increasing the player advantage by .5% for every
increment of 1.

My thought is, why do you need to wait until the count is very high before
jumping up to your maximum bet? If you have any advantage at all (even just
.5% at a count of 2), why not bet as much as you can (i.e. your max)? If you have any advantage at all, shouldn't you bet as much as possible to benefit from that advantage? Why not bet your minimum when the dealer has the advantage, and bet your maximum when you have the advantage?

 

[Shaggy18vw]

Proportional Betting

Good Question,
Read up on Kelly betting. This idea is simply based on betting a proportion of your bankroll with respect to your advantage. If the count is +2 and you have approx. a 1% advantage, you should bet 1% of your bankroll. (This is called full kelly betting). A lot of people will recommend half kelly betting. An example would be at a 1% advantage, betting .5% of your bankroll. The idea behind kelly betting is that it is the fastest way to increase your bank with the least risk of ruin.

Some things to make not of. It is impossible to bet a negative amount. i.e. when you have a disadvantage, the kelly concept says to bet -% of your BR. Also the idea is to re-evaluate your BR for each bet. This is also not practical. Partly because you have to bet in full dollar increments (you can't bet $42.50 on a hand.) Also partly because this is too much math to do on the fly... Let's see, by BR is down $100 from where I started, so 1% of $9900 is... too much work.

Typically, a player will set up a betting schedule based on their bankroll for a given trip. Only if they have a large swing + or -, will they re-evaluate the betting based on their BR.

Back to your question, the reason you don't bet max at any advantage you have is because you will lose your shirt.

 

[Sonny]

> If you have any advantage at all, shouldn't you bet as much as possible to
> benefit from that advantage? Why not bet your minimum when the dealer has the
> advantage, and bet your maximum when you have the advantage?

One word, VARIANCE! If you always bet your max with any advantage, the swings will be huge. The reason you bet an amount proportional to your advantage is to keep your variance low while keeping you EV high. There will always be a compromise between risk and reward. It is up to the player to optimize his bet spread in order to maximize earnings while maintaining an acceptable level of risk.

Another word, COVER! Often times a high stakes player will play with a very small spread and accept the variance since a higher spread would get them too much heat. However, if you were using a 1-4 spread and constantly jumping from 1 unit to 4 units and back, you would get heat at any level of play.

-Sonny-

 

[Stealth Bomber]

Re: Proportional Betting

Back to your question, the reason you don't bet max at any advantage you have is because you will lose your shirt.

This is not necessarily so. Remember, the player still has the advantage. However, it is highly risky given the variance swings of the game. Therefore, still not a good idea to play only max or min. (not considering heat)