ATERNATIVE BETTING:part 2of2

[jack.jackson]

I know most of you will read this post and move on to the next one. Nevertheless, it gratifys me to give you a couple minutes of entertainment as you have done for me.
But for those of you looking for alternative's you may want to consider reading this twice. Though i have no tangible evidence, and may be as fallacious as the paper it's written on. I however remain optimistic.

In this thread, i will display my intepretation for alternative betting for 2deck's, 4 deck's, 6 deck's, & 8 deck's in a uniformed and matrix fashion!

ABOUT THIS METHOD: First off, all 4 games are designed/created for 75% deck penetration. And will all have "5" different levels of unit spreads.

Secondly, The first level of unit spread, will match for every number of deck's in play, and ending at the 5th level with four times the amount we started from, at the 75% deck penetration mark for all four games.

Third and foremost, all levels of unit spreads will double at any point the number of decks are decreased exactly in half. Conversly, all levels of unit speads will be half, exactly as the number of decks doubles. For example.


2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8decks:

1/2:1:8u[75%] 1D:1:16u [75%] 1.5:1:24u[75%] 2D:1:32u [75%] [3]
3/4:1:6u 1.5:1:12u 2D:1:16u 3D:1:24u [2]
1D :1:4u 2D:1:8u 3D:1:12u 4D:1:16u [3]
1.5:1:3u 3D:1:6u 4D:1:8u 6D:1:12u [2]
2D :1:2u 4D:1:4u 6D:1:6u 8D:1:8u [3]

2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8 decks

avg: 1n4.6 1n11.5 1n13.2 1n18.4

Kinda reminds me of my favorite love song:eyepatch: congrats:sy

________________________-
COUNTERS DO IT BY THE NUMBERS:cool2:

 

[jack.jackson]

I know most of you will read this post and move on to the next one. Nevertheless, it gratifys me to give you a couple minutes of entertainment as you have done for me.
But for those of you looking for alternative's you may want to consider reading this twice. Though i have no tangible evidence, and may be as fallacious as the paper it's written on. I however remain optimistic.

In this thread, i will display my intepretation for alternative betting for 2deck's, 4 deck's, 6 deck's, & 8 deck's in a uniformed and matrix fashion!

ABOUT THIS METHOD: First off, all 4 games are designed/created for 75% deck penetration. And will all have "5" different levels of unit spreads.

Secondly, The first level of unit spread, will match for every number of deck's in play, and ending at the 5th level with four times the amount we started from, at the 75% deck penetration mark for all four games.

Third and foremost, all levels of unit spreads will double at any point the number of decks are decreased exactly in half. Conversly, all levels of unit speads will be half, exactly as the number of decks doubles. For example.


2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8decks:

1/2:1:8u 1D:1:16u 1.5:1:24u 2D:1:32u [3]
3/4:1:6u 1.5:1:12u 2D:1:16u 3D:1:24u [2]
1D :1:4u 2D:1:8u 3D:1:12u 4D:1:16u [3]
1.5:1:3u 3D:1:6u 4D:1:8u 6D:1:12u [2]
2D :1:2u 4D:1:4u 6D:1:6u 8D:1:8u [3]

2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8 decks

avg: 1n4.6 1n11.5 1n13.2 1n18.4

Kinda reminds me of my favorite love song:eyepatch: congrats:sy

________________________-
COUNTERS DO IT BY THE NUMBERS:cool2:

For some reason it crunched all my numbers together and made it hard to read. Here it's seperated and looks great. Why does it compact them together when i post.Can someone help?

 

[Canceler]

Try using the code wrap thingy! Don't ask for more details, because I don't remember how I did it.
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=21166

 

[jack.jackson]

I know most of you will read this post and move on to the next one. Nevertheless, it gratifys me to give you a couple minutes of entertainment as you have done for me.
But for those of you looking for alternative's you may want to consider reading this twice. Though i have no tangible evidence, and may be as fallacious as the paper it's written on. I however remain optimistic.

In this thread, i will display my intepretation for alternative betting for 2deck's, 4 deck's, 6 deck's, & 8 deck's in a uniformed and matrix fashion!

ABOUT THIS METHOD: First off, all 4 games are designed/created for 75% deck penetration. And will all have "5" different levels of unit spreads.

Secondly, The first level of unit spread, will match for every number of deck's in play, and ending at the 5th level with four times the amount we started from, at the 75% deck penetration mark for all four games.

Third and foremost, all levels of unit spreads will double at any point the number of decks are decreased exactly in half. Conversly, all levels of unit speads will be half, exactly as the number of decks doubles. For example

2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8decks:

1/2:1:8u* 1D:1:16u* 1.5:1:24u* 2D:1:32u* [3]
3/4:1:6u* 1.5:1:12u* 2D:1:18u* 3D:1:24u* [2]
1D :1:4u* 2D:1:8u* 3D:1:12u* 4D:1:16u* [3]
1.5:1:3u* 3D:1:6u* 4D:1:9u* 6D:1:12u * [2]
2D :1:2u* 4D:1:4u* 6D:1:6u* 8D:1:8u* [3]

2 decks: 4 decks: 6 decks: 8 decks

avg: 1n4.6 1n9.2 1n13.8 1n18.4

Kinda reminds me of my favorite love song:eyepatch: congrats:sy

________________________-
COUNTERS DO IT BY THE NUMBERS:cool2:

Couldnt figure out the code wrap, so i seperated them by astericks, plus made four necessary corrections.

 

[Sonny]

I'm not sure how you had them lined up before. Does this look better?

2 decks:               4 decks:                6 decks:            8decks:

1/2:1:8u              1D:1:16u               1.5:1:24u          2D:1:32u  [3]
3/4:1:6u             1.5:1:12u                2D:1:16u          3D:1:24u  [2]
1D :1:4u              2D:1:8u                 3D:1:12u          4D:1:16u   [3]
1.5:1:3u              3D:1:6u                 4D:1:8u            6D:1:12u   [2]
2D :1:2u              4D:1:4u                 6D:1:6u            8D:1:8u    [3]

2 decks:               4 decks:               6 decks:            8 decks

avg: 1n4.6           1n11.5                  1n13.2               1n18.4

 

[jack.jackson]

I'm not sure how you had them lined up before. Does this look better?

2 decks:               4 decks:                6 decks:            8decks:

1/2:1:8u              1D:1:16u               1.5:1:24u          2D:1:32u  [3]
3/4:1:6u             1.5:1:12u                2D:1:18u          3D:1:24u  [2]
1D :1:4u              2D:1:8u                 3D:1:12u          4D:1:16u   [3]
1.5:1:3u              3D:1:6u                 4D:1:9u            6D:1:12u   [2]
2D :1:2u              4D:1:4u                 6D:1:6u            8D:1:8u    [3]

2 decks:               4 decks:               6 decks:            8 decks

avg: 1n4.6           1n9.2                  1n13.8               1n18.4

Ya, this is how it's supposed to look, however the following corrections are made in this post. + im curious still as to how you do it.

I'll try this one last time. sorry folks:sad:

 

[Canceler]

Use Preview!

+ im curious still as to how you do it.

When you're creating a new post, there are toolbars available. See the one that starts with B I U. The third button from the right looks like a pound sign (#). That's the one you want. Select your table, then click the #. Be sure to use the Preview Post button. You may have to mess around with things to get them to look right in the preview, but you will eventually get it.

 

[k_c]

Using

Ya, this is how it's supposed to look, however the following corrections are made in this post. + im curious still as to how you do it.

Here's how:

     [code} replace } with ]
     Put your      stuff here    with whatever
                                                  spacing you want
     abcd                efgh                ijkl
     [/code} replace } with ]

Hope this helps.
k_c

 

[jack.jackson]

:flame:

Ya, this is how it's supposed to look, however the following corrections are made in this post. + im curious still as to how you do it.

I'll try this one last time. sorry folks:sad:

* T.C * R.C E.V SPREAD
[-10].5 -4 -2 [-5] -2 -1 0 ? +.72 x 1 1:72
[-6] .75 [-3] 0 +1 +2 ? +.24 x2 1:48

[-4] 1D:+2 +3 +4[-2][+2]+2 +3 +4 .00 1:36
+4 +6 +8
[-2]1.5:+4 +6 +8[-1] +6 +9 +12 -.24 x1 1:24

[-1] 2D:+5 +7.5+10 +10+15+20 -.36 x2 [1:16] 1:18[-2]


2.5:+5.6+8.4+11.2 +14+21+28 -.42

[0] 3D: +6 +9 +12[0] +18 +27 +36 -.48 x4 1:12
not+24

3.5:+6.3+9.4+12.6 +22+33+44 -.52

4D:+6.5+9.75+13 +26+39+52 -.54 x6 [1:8] 1:9[-1]

4.5:+6.66+10+13.33 +30+45+60 -.56

5D:+6.8+10.2+13.6 +34+51+68 -.58

5.5:+6.9+10.36+13.8 +38+57+76 -.59

[+1] 6D:+7+10.5+14[.5]+42+63+84 -.60 x10 1:6

This is a level 2 system, twice that of a level 1.
Notice our unit spreads are equal to our betting levels @ 3D
The first column in the running count is when i raise[bump] the second column is my avg. bet. The third column is my max bet. Twice that of the first one.I never more than double my bet unless im going to the bump. i.e if the running count jumps to +15 with 2D remaining and i previously made a flat bet my next bet will be 4unit ,not 8 units.1/4 my max.The * is where i start deviating from my playing strategy the left column is for hard doubles and soft hands A2-A6. The right column is for splits and soft hands A6-A9.Standing vs drawing in negative counts. Reversing this in positive counts. 15vT+6[index] i'll only if stay at +8 at one deck. But if theres three decks remaining i'll stay at +6. Starting at 3D.[0] my index for 11vT is -6. But at 6D its -5 and with 1/2 deck remaing is -16.r.c-8]. My index for 13v2 is -2 at 3D but i'll hit at tc 1.5 between 3-6D. But will only hit at -4 with one deck.
Anyway these are my own theories. And is for reading material only. And shouldnt be taken to the heart without any physical proof. I know this as well. Im not one of those birdbrains who still believes weve never landed on the moon. Nevertheless i am a force to reckon with at the tables.:flame:

 

[jack.jackson]

         T.C                   R.C              E.V               SPREAD
   *                *
 [-10].5  -4  -2 [-5]        -2  -1   0 ?      +.72           x 1  1:72
 [-6] .75        [-3]         0 +1  +2 ?        +.24           x2  1:48  
   
 [-4] 1D:+2 +3 +4[-2][+2]  +2 +3 +4             .00              1:36
                          +4 +6 +8
 [-2]1.5:+4 +6 +8[-1]     +6 +9 +12          -.24      x1        1:24
 
 [-1] 2D:+5 +7.5+10      +10+15+20           -.36  x2   [1:16] 1:18[-2]


 2.5:+5.6+8.4+11.2       +14+21+28         -.42 
 *                   *
 [0] 3D: +6  +9  +12[0]  +18  +27  +36     -.48      x4        1:12 
                          not+24

 3.5:+6.3+9.4+12.6       +22+33+44       -.52                  

  4D:+6.5+9.75+13        +26+39+52       -.54   x6     [1:8]  1:9[-1]

4.5:+6.66+10+13.33      +30+45+60        -.56

 5D:+6.8+10.2+13.6      +34+51+68        -.58

5.5:+6.9+10.36+13.8     +38+57+76        -.59
  *                  *                                           
[+1] 6D:+7+10.5+14[.5]+42+63+84         -.60      x10       1:6[CODE]

[/CODE]
Now i know what the preview message is for. And finally learned how to use the code wrap. Hope this looks better. Im so stupid.

This is a level 2 system, twice that of a level 1.

Notice our unit spreads are equal to our betting levels @ 3D
The first column in the running count is when i raise[bump] the second column is my avg. bet. The third column is my max bet. Twice that of the first one.I never more than double my bet unless im going to the bump. i.e if the running count jumps to +15 with 2D remaining and i previously made a flat bet my next bet will be 4unit ,not 8 units.1/4 my max.The * is where i start deviating from my playing strategy the left column is for hard doubles and soft hands A2-A6. The right column is for splits and soft hands A6-A9.Standing vs drawing in negative counts. Reversing this in positive counts. 15vT+6[index] i'll only if stay at +8 at one deck. But if theres three decks remaining i'll stay at +6. Starting at 3D.[0] my index for 11vT is -6. But at 6D its -5 and with 1/2 deck remaing is -16.r.c-8]. My index for 13v2 is -2 at 3D but i'll hit at tc 1.5 between 3-6D. But will only hit at -4 with one deck.
Anyway these are my own theories. And is for reading material only. And shouldnt be taken to the heart without any physical proof. I know this as well. Im not one of those birdbrains who still believes weve never landed on the moon. Nevertheless i am a force to reckon with at the tables.