Bet Spreads that are needlessly too high

[boneuphtoner]

I've read the recent thread of negative variance with interest, as I recently hit a bad run while severely undercapitalized. I lost over $1k in a $25 pitch game in less than 30 minutes, which could easily happen, I realize.

However, I have begun to question how much spreading is really necessary to gain an advantage for an amateur counter. Every blackjack book that I own states that the bet spread in a shoe must be at LEAST 1-8 and DD 1-6...usually those recommendations assume a play-all approach. In a shoe game especially, I typically use a semi-wonging approach where I leave when the TC drops below -4, Level II FELT's equivalent to a HiLo TC of -2. This makes a 1-8 spread seem not so bad from a SCORE perspective. However, since I have CVCX, I have noted that the SCORE and win rate remain very much on the positive side of things when I drop the spread to as low as 1-4 or even 1-3 in a six deck shoe game. And the ROR plummets with that very small spread. As an amateur who counts for sport and who hopes to walk out of the casino more than what he came in with, I wonder what is wrong with such an approach? The only obvious thing I can think of is your long term win rate will be lower. But if you are still very much on the positive side of things in the long run, why go to the trouble of raising a huge bankroll in order to withstand the negative swings if you aren't going to use counting to make money that is important to you?

It seems to me that most of the books out there do a disservice to amateur level counters who are playing for sport...encouraging them to raise these huge bankrolls so they can weather the inevitable storm. I've discussed my findings with a very reputable author, and he actually agrees with my conclusions.

Here are the CVCX data for level II FELT 6 decks S17 DAS RSA, SR, 78%, wonging out at a FELT TC of -4, $5k bank, $10 units:

1-4 spread: SCORE 34.30 ROR 5.2%
1-8 spread: SCORE 50.42 ROR 10.0%

It is interesting when I change this to play all, you get the following numbers:

1-4 spread: SCORE 17.47 ROR 16.9%
1-8 spread: SCORE 35.97 ROR 18.4%

Wow! What a difference! The puny 1-4 wongout spread is now almost as stong in SCORE as the 1-8 play-all with a FAR SUPERIOR ROR.

My point in making this post is that if you are wonging out as you should be (and using a HiLo -2 TC wongout isn't even that aggressive), the use of spreads like 1-8, 1-15, and 1-25 just aren't that necessary to be playing a winning shoe game...granted your theoretical win won't be as much, but if you are playing as an amateur for sport, that isn't a huge issue.

 

[SleightOfHand]

So... your problem is that you felt that the swings were too high even though you recognized that you didn't have enough money to handle the swings? You took a risk and it looks like you started hitting some negative variance. Thats what happens. Stop playing and get some money together or do some backcounting.

And as far as the books you read, those were written long ago in a galaxy far away where games had a much lower OTT HE. Games dont have the rules they used to have

 

[boneuphtoner]

You took a risk and it looks like you started hitting some negative variance. Thats what happens. Stop playing and get some money together or do some backcounting.

Oh, I understand the negative variance...it doesn't make it hurt any less, but my point is that even with today's rules, using a small spread with a very modest wong-out point is a definitive winning strategy! It won't win you that much, but if you are an amateur counter, the obsession of building a massive bankroll so that you'll be able to weather negative variance associated with a 1-15 spread in a shoe game is completely unnnecessary!

My post just reflected my observations in CVCX as they pertain to amateur counters....professionals looking to make real money that is important to them should not consider these points.

 

[sagefr0g]

....

My point in making this post is that if you are wonging out as you should be (and using a HiLo -2 TC wongout isn't even that aggressive), the use of spreads like 1-8, 1-15, and 1-25 just aren't that necessary to be playing a winning shoe game...granted your theoretical win won't be as much, but if you are playing as an amateur for sport, that isn't a huge issue.

to me part of the issue is the relative rarity of an actual advantage. speaking for us weekend warriors, here.
point being the times when one sticks a large bet out there tends to be relatively rare. that being the case, you can always lose a fair number of those big bets, easily to the point where by the time your trip is over and you get to 'enjoy' a nice long ride home down on your money.
maybe just me, but it can be a psychological bummer. just me maybe but what's the money you theoretically are gonna win for anyway? well, i'd just hope maybe it would be for something that's got potential to make you feel warm and fuzzy, lol.
different strokes for different folks, i guess, me, well i think heavy loss trips wear me down psychologically, besides just being unpleasant.
one has to wonder what that does for one's skillz. like a prize fighter maybe, part of the battle isn't just physically putting your opponent down but the key can be making him lose heart.
what ever, it is a genuine phenomenon regarding advantage plays that they are what they are, there tends to be some amount of opportunity for advantage available. like Sonny says, "it's a waiting game", so i guess whatever, it's your money, play it like you want.
AP stuff is a sort of predation, and just as the predator and prey stuff works out in nature so it is for AP's in casino's. whatever, lol, somehow the critters (of all sorts) survive in the wilderness and maybe not depending on those critters abilities and the ecology around them, so it is with us.
but yeah, me, well i like to start off with a relatively low spread, see how things go. thing is you can always change up your game plan, go with a larger spread maybe. perhaps there can be something of value for having the ability to be flexible in your plays, long as you understand the theoretical implications of your actions.

 

[NchooseK]

And as far as the books you read, those were written long ago in a galaxy far away where games had a much lower OTT HE. Games dont have the rules they used to have

This is a great point. Maybe you could try the same sim but use the rules of a more typical game of a "weekend warrior." ...everything same as before except H17, 72% pen and no surrender. And $5 units.

 

[Canceler]

However, I have begun to question how much spreading is really necessary to gain an advantage for an amateur counter.

I had the same question in this thread, which quickly ran off course. But the upshot seemed to be that when someone says "You need a 1:X spread to beat this game" they are really saying "I would need to use a 1:X spread to make this game worthwhile for me to play." Other people may have different standards regarding what makes a game worthwhile.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Optimal means Optimal

Once you decide if you are going to play all or your wong points you just use an optimal spread, because it's the best.:joker::whip:

If you find yourself sometimes wonging and sometimes having to play all then to be conservative use a play all bet ramp. So your big bets are consistent:joker::whip:

As far as overbetting. If resizing bets based on wins and losses one should always bet less then Kelly due to human error and table limit interference.:joker::whip:

 

[Nynefingers]

agree....sort of

If I were playing your game, with your bankroll (non-replenishable), and my risk tolerance, I would agree that the smaller spread is best. 10% RoR is quite a bit more than what I would be comfortable with. However, moving to a bigger spread to decrease risk works primarily because you decrease the minimum bet more than because you increase the top bet. I'm guessing that you don't have a $5 game available, but you'd be better off to play with a $5 min and increase the spread until the RoR is as high as you are comfortable. I understand that sometimes table minimums prevent that approach, which is why wonging is often advised for people on short bankrolls. As your bankroll grows, I'd recommend increasing your spread rather than your minimum bet until you reach your desired spread, whether that is 1-12, 1-15, or whatever.

 

[chichow]

Often times, I find it difficult to wong out on pitch games.

Most of what I see (even in Vegas) is the pitch games are more watched and there are not as many pitch games as shoes. So you don't get as many hands in (if you are exclusively playing pitch) since after a wong out or two its best to move to another casino which takes time.

 

[blackjack avenger]

SCORING is Great!

The games the OP is claiming are close are not close at all!:joker::whip:

SCORE is the mathematical way to compare which games are better. SCORE takes into consideration risk vs reward.

If one wants to play differently then that is a personal decision, but not the correct math decision:joker::whip:

 

[iCountNTrack]

I've read the recent thread of negative variance with interest, as I recently hit a bad run while severely undercapitalized. I lost over $1k in a $25 pitch game in less than 30 minutes, which could easily happen, I realize.

However, I have begun to question how much spreading is really necessary to gain an advantage for an amateur counter. Every blackjack book that I own states that the bet spread in a shoe must be at LEAST 1-8 and DD 1-6...usually those recommendations assume a play-all approach. In a shoe game especially, I typically use a semi-wonging approach where I leave when the TC drops below -4, Level II FELT's equivalent to a HiLo TC of -2. This makes a 1-8 spread seem not so bad from a SCORE perspective. However, since I have CVCX, I have noted that the SCORE and win rate remain very much on the positive side of things when I drop the spread to as low as 1-4 or even 1-3 in a six deck shoe game. And the ROR plummets with that very small spread. As an amateur who counts for sport and who hopes to walk out of the casino more than what he came in with, I wonder what is wrong with such an approach? The only obvious thing I can think of is your long term win rate will be lower. But if you are still very much on the positive side of things in the long run, why go to the trouble of raising a huge bankroll in order to withstand the negative swings if you aren't going to use counting to make money that is important to you?

It seems to me that most of the books out there do a disservice to amateur level counters who are playing for sport...encouraging them to raise these huge bankrolls so they can weather the inevitable storm. I've discussed my findings with a very reputable author, and he actually agrees with my conclusions.

Here are the CVCX data for level II FELT 6 decks S17 DAS RSA, SR, 78%, wonging out at a FELT TC of -4, $5k bank, $10 units:

1-4 spread: SCORE 34.30 ROR 5.2%
1-8 spread: SCORE 50.42 ROR 10.0%

It is interesting when I change this to play all, you get the following numbers:

1-4 spread: SCORE 17.47 ROR 16.9%
1-8 spread: SCORE 35.97 ROR 18.4%

Wow! What a difference! The puny 1-4 wongout spread is now almost as stong in SCORE as the 1-8 play-all with a FAR SUPERIOR ROR.

My point in making this post is that if you are wonging out as you should be (and using a HiLo -2 TC wongout isn't even that aggressive), the use of spreads like 1-8, 1-15, and 1-25 just aren't that necessary to be playing a winning shoe game...granted your theoretical win won't be as much, but if you are playing as an amateur for sport, that isn't a huge issue.

I am sorry but this is not true everytime you speak of a SCORE your ROR is ALWAYS 13.5% (SCORE is simply the win rate with a 10000 dollar bankroll and 13.5% ROR). The size of your bet spreads do not affect your ROR, what affects your ROR is the size of your betting units.

 

[psyduck]

The size of your bet spreads do not affect your ROR, what affects your ROR is the size of your betting units.

Are you saying spreading from 1 to 5 has the same ROR as spreading from 1 to 10? That does not sound right to me. Am I missing something?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Are you saying spreading from 1 to 5 has the same ROR as spreading from 1 to 10? That does not sound right to me. Am I missing something?

You are thinking in terms of the size of the bets while i am talking about the size of the spread. But that is not how you normally approach this when analyzing a game.

First you define you game, house rules, penetration, playing strategy, betting strategy and the ROR you want to play with and this will give you the size of your betting unit.

Edit: This is an old post of mine in a very similar thread,

Risk of ruin is the probability of your bankroll dropping to zero before reaching a desired level. There are only two ways to lower your risk of ruin: A) Play a better game (this includes house rules, betting and playing strategy) and B decreasing the size of your unit bet.

I have found over the years that it is much more convenient to have your win rate and standard deviation reported in betting units and not in dollar amount because for a given game these are invariable. It is also convenient to have your bankroll defined in terms of the number of betting units. Please note that the risk of ruin and short term swings (variance per round or hourly variance) are not the same thing, even though standard deviation is a variable in the equation to calculate ROR.

To clarify what is has been correctly mentioned, every time your total action increases because you are using a bigger bet spread or you are able to identify more advantageous situations, the standard deviation (in betting units) per hand would increase in but luckily so does your win rate per hand. It is also fortunate that win rate is proportional to the number of hands while the standard deviation is proportional to the square root of the number of hands. For instance:

We have a 6D game where pen is 60% vs a 6D with all the same except pen is 90%, the 90% game we will see more high TC's i.e more advantageous situations:

For the 6D 90%, the win rate is 0.057 units/hand and the SD is 5.84 units/hand
For the 6D 60%, the win rate is 0.017 units/hand and the SD is 3.80 units/hand

After playing 20000 hands:
For the 90% game your expected winnings are 20000*0.057 ± sqrt(20000)*5.84 = 1140 ± 825 units

For the 60% game your expected winnings are 20000*0.017 ± sqrt(20000)*3.80 = 340 ± 537 units

The above shows that even though the short term swings for the 60% game is lower, you will get much faster into a positive zone where swings become irrelevant because you will still be ahead.
The whole idea is to have a bankroll that can withstand these short term fluctuations, because the honey is down the line.

 

[boneuphtoner]

A lot of good points were made in this thread, and I don't disagree with what has been written. The following post by Canceler seems to really mirror what I was getting at:

I had the same question in this thread, which quickly ran off course. But the upshot seemed to be that when someone says "You need a 1:X spread to beat this game" they are really saying "I would need to use a 1:X spread to make this game worthwhile for me to play." Other people may have different standards regarding what makes a game worthwhile.

This is precisely what I wanted to come across in this thread. My only objective was to point out that conservative 1-4 spreading with adequate wonging is a positive winning strategy for counters not making their living at the game....and that it doesn't take a huge bankroll to achieve a low risk of ruin either. You won't make as much with this approach, but being on the plus side of the long run sure beats losing in the long run any day of the week.

 

[kewljason]

This is precisely what I wanted to come across in this thread. My only objective was to point out that conservative 1-4 spreading with adequate wonging is a positive winning strategy for counters not making their living at the game....and that it doesn't take a huge bankroll to achieve a low risk of ruin either. You won't make as much with this approach, but being on the plus side of the long run sure beats losing in the long run any day of the week.

As little as a 1-2 spread with adequate wonging is enough to turn most games to the player's advantage (a winning strategy). The question becomes is it worth the time and effort? The answer will be different for different people.

Last Year I had the pleasure of conversation on the train from Atlantic City with an older, retired gentleman who I had observed spreading 1-2 at the $25 table earlier. He told me that he made about the same few bucks an hour that he used to make spreading 1-5 on the lower limit tables, but received much better comps at this higher level.

After the conversation, I wondered if he was actually playing with an advantage at all with such a small 1-2 spread, so I later ran a sim and asked others to as well to confirm. The sims suggusted that he had indeed flipped the advantage from the house to the player and was making about $5 per hour. And this was with just a 1-2 spread and wonging out. We are also taking subpar AC games.

I will post the link to that thread, if you would like to read it.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=14895

 

[BrianCP]

I have a question that is semi related. What would be the Zen equivalent of a Hi-lo true count of minus two when dividing the running Zen count by the number of decks left (rather than calculating true edge, which is a bit beyond me at the moment).

 

[boneuphtoner]

As little as a 1-2 spread with adequate wonging is enough to turn most games to the player's advantage (a winning strategy). The question becomes is it worth the time and effort? The answer will be different for different people.

Last Year I had the pleasure of conversation on the train from Atlantic City with an older, retired gentleman who I had observed spreading 1-2 at the $25 table earlier. He told me that he made about the same few bucks an hour that he used to make spreading 1-5 on the lower limit tables, but received much better comps at this higher level.

After the conversation, I wondered if he was actually playing with an advantage at all with such a small 1-2 spread, so I later ran a sim and asked others to as well to confirm. The sims suggusted that he had indeed flipped the advantage from the house to the player and was making about $5 per hour. And this was with just a 1-2 spread and wonging out. We are also taking subpar AC games.

I will post the link to that thread, if you would like to read it.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=14895

Great! Thanks for sharing! I also checked out this situation in CVCX and confirmed it as well...this is certainly also a winning strategy in the long run! Granted you won't make much playing this way, but being a long term winner beats losing any day!

 

[boneuphtoner]

I have a question that is semi related. What would be the Zen equivalent of a Hi-lo true count of minus two when dividing the running Zen count by the number of decks left (rather than calculating true edge, which is a bit beyond me at the moment).

As far as true edge, the reports I've read from the experts indicate you shouldn't bother and performance really suffers....as compared to traditional count per deck. Do a search of the archives for more info.

A HiLo true count of -2 gives you an EV in a six deck game of ~-1.0%. For Level 2 counts, using count per deck, that number would be approximately doubled...For FELT, which is a modernized rounded version of the RPC, a count very closely related to Zen, CVCX indicates -3 gives you -.95%, and a -4 TC gives you -1.1%. Those would be comparable to -2 TC of HiLo.

 

[FLASH1296]

It is very highly inaccurate to assume that you can convert between Level 1 and level 2 True Counts by doubling/halving the integers.

It is not just inaccurate — it is very very wrong in almost all cases.

QFIT's Modern Blackjack has a fine table of advantages by True Count of selected counts to refer to.

Incidentally, I use ZEN (in shoe games) and had to learn early on, that the equivalent (approximate)
True Count in Hi-Lo, is found by multiplying the ZEN T.C. by .67

 

[boneuphtoner]

It is very highly inaccurate to assume that you can convert between Level 1 and level 2 True Counts by doubling/halving the integers.

It is not just inaccurate — it is very very wrong in almost all cases.

QFIT's Modern Blackjack has a fine table of advantages by True Count of selected counts to refer to.

I answered the OP's question accurately according to the output I got out of CVCX. And in this case, a HiLo TC of -2 is approximately equal to a RPC TC of -4.