Bigger spreads doesn't increase your win rate

[AlexD30]

Bigger spreads doesn't increase your win rate. What it does, is increases the variance/standard deviation into your bank. If you want to make money using variance and if you have a very large bank that can absorb huge swings then what you can do sometime is to spread big while you have the edge but go back to your normal bet spread as soon as you get a large swing in your favor. But on the other hand you can have a big negative swing playing like that and in the long run they all balance out.

The most efficient way to play into this game is to bet optimally related to your bankroll. You have to be happy if you get 1.25% or 1.50% edge over the house in the long run. This edge can be accomplished by a moderate spread. You don't have to go nuts and bet the farm with 1:100 spread. It is not necessary to do that. A spread of 1:6 in double deck with S17 will get the money. Betting more then that is useless because you will only exchange chips back and forth between you and the dealer and in the end you will have almost the same results but with huge and unnecessary swings along the way.

I can't see the point of going thru large bankroll swings while having only a little effect on the win rate. A 1.25% edge is more then enough to make serious money in this game. You can even limit your spread to only increase the bet after a winning hand on the positive counts and still make plenty of money. If you only parlay a bet when you have the edge or repeat the last bet if you lost but still got the edge, or drop to one unit if the count is negative and you lost the last bet, it will get you a healthy income no matter what.

AlexD30

 

[learning to count]

wow the other guy thought you were just rude

I guess your rude and a card counter who knows what he is talking about! Great post!

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Re: wow the other guy thought you were just rude

Often the table limit will get in the way of placing the proper bet to bank ratio. That, the pit boss, or your nerves will........smile

 

[The Mayor]

The optimal win rate also comes with a very high risk of ruin, over 13% -- full kelley. This has you continually increasing your bet in proportion to your advantage, with no regard for table limits.

The way to approach betting is to begin by figuring out your max bet, and the true count you want to place that bet at. Then try and get the largest spread possible with that as your fixed max bet.

For example, if my max bet is $100, then, playing for example 6 decks, I am much better off spreading 20-1 at a $5 table then 4-1 at a $25 table.

--Mayor

 

[Sonny]

Say WHAT?!

> Bigger spreads doesn't increase your win rate. What it does, is increases the
> variance/standard deviation into your bank.

That's strange, all the books I've read say that having a large bet spread is one of the BEST ways to increase your win rate (other than playing faster). Most authors seem to be under the impression that betting bigger in positive counts will win more, while betting less in negative counts will lose less. Strange.

> You don't have to go nuts and bet the farm with 1:100 spread. It is not
> necessary to do that. A spread of 1:6 in double deck with S17 will get the
> money. Betting more then that is useless because you will only exchange chips
> back and forth between you and the dealer and in the end you will have almost
> the same results but with huge and unnecessary swings along the way.

It sounds like you may have this confused. If you FLAT bet you will be exchanging chips with the dealer without any real win rate. If you use a non-count based progression, you will be increasing your variance but not your win rate. However, a proper count based betting spread is the easiest way to beat the game. Back when Thorp was counting aces and fives he would beat the game with a big bet spread alone. His system was weak and he didn't have any playing deviations, but it worked becuase he knew when to throw out the big money.

I agree that a 1:100 bet spread is not necessary, but it is BETTER that a 1:6 spread (assuming you can afford it). A higher top bet WILL win more money. A lower bottom bet WILL lose less money.

> I can't see the point of going thru large bankroll swings while having only a
> little effect on the win rate. A 1.25% edge is more then enough to make
> serious money in this game.

Well, that is your opinion. If I am willing to accept (and can afford) a 30% risk-of-ruin, why should I not try for a huge spread? I could win MUCH more money and I will could be winning MUCH faster, as long as I don't go broke. Maybe a 1.25% edge is enough for you, but if I could get a higher win rate just by increasing my spread and still maintain an acceptable ROR, why not? Isn't that what Uston's teams did?

It's like Don says in BJA2, there is not one win rate applicable to all blackjack games. Different rules, different conditions, different systems and different spreads will all impact your edge over the house.

-Sonny-

 

[Rob McGarvey]

"The optimal win rate also comes with a very high risk of ruin, over 13% -- full kelley."

13%? That is great compared to the divorce rate! ;>

"This has you continually increasing your bet in proportion to your advantage, with no regard for table limits."

You have to regard table limits. If your Kelly calls for a 5K bet and the table max is 2.5K you are stuck with it. Your RoR goes down, as does your variance. If you have two spots you can bet two squares and drop your RoR that way, and your variance when you should be betting more than 5K with two hands out, again, underbetting your edge.

 

[Rob McGarvey]

Re: Say WHAT?!

and different people willing to except different RoR. It is great to understand the math. When you are betting with money that you can afford to lose, I like to tell myself:

SELF?

Feel the fear, and do it anyways!

Do ya feel lucky?? Well do ya??

All on the right side of a posi EV,

Rob McGar V

 

[AlexD30]

0.60% edge over the house played with $500 unit

A small edge of 0.60% edge over the house while playing with average $500 is going to give you more money as income then a 2.75% edge played with green chips or even black chips (i.e. $25 or $100).

If you play red chips of $5 each you need the biggest edge that you can get to be able to make any decent money. On the other hand I only need a small edge of 0.50% to 0.60% to make serious money in this game. A modest spread on big denomination chips will generate a greater income if you can handle big action and IF you are good enough to accomplish that small edge over the house.

What you need is this:
1. Big bankroll, probably 1,000 units or more
2. Hi-Lo or any valid card counting system
3. Play the hands by the index, probably I18 or more will suffice
4. 2 Deck game with S17, DAS and LS
5. Bet spread of 1:3 or 1:4 (enough for 0.60% edge)
6. Be cool under pressure
7. Get in the long run ASAP

All of the above will generate a $300/hour INCOME as your EV in the long run.

AlexD30

 

[walkingdood]

Huh?

The following from BJRM:

Game: 4.5 of 6D, S17, das, LS, hilo, play all
Bank: $25,000
ROR: 1.8% (half Kelly)

Spread 1-6
Unit-$17.91
Win rate per 100 hands-$23.28
standard deviation per 100 hands $543
SCORE- 18.49

Spread 1-12
Unit-$15.78
Win rate per 100 hands-$41.19
standard deviation per 100 hands $718
SCORE- 32.83

Spread 1-25
Unit: $11.07
W/100: $55.46
SD/100: $834
Score: $44.09

Spread 1-50
Unit: $7.15
W/100: $63.99
SD/100: $896
Score: $50.98

Spread: 1-100
Unit: $4.31
W/100: $69.18
SD/100: $932
Score: $55.06

 

[Sonny]

Re: 0.60% edge is for beginners

> If you play red chips of $5 each you need the biggest edge that you can get
> to be able to make any decent money. On the other hand I only need a small
> edge of 0.50% to 0.60% to make serious money in this game. A modest spread on
> big denomination chips will generate a greater income if you can handle big
> action and IF you are good enough to accomplish that small edge over the
> house.

So instead of using my huge bet spread at low stakes I should use a tiny spread with high stakes to reduce my variance? That doesn't quite float with me.

If I am using a large spread that gives me a 1.5% advantage with a $25 average bet, my hourly EV should be around $37.50. Now if I play with a modest spread that gives me a 0.6% edge with a $63 average bet, I will still be making $37.80 an hour, but my variance has skyrocketed! One standard deviation with my low stakes play is around $275 (using the 1.1*SQRT(100 hands) formula, which is a bit lower than the true SD but will work for comparison purposes). One SD with the lower spread and higher bet has now reached around $693! And that's only ONE SD, only about 63% of the time!

That sucks. Not only am I not earning as much as I could be, but I am risking much more money to earn it. Obviously this is a very simplified example, but I think the comparison is valid.

> What you need is this:
> 1. Big bankroll, probably 1,000 units or more

Since when is 1,000 units a big bankroll? A lot of players I know like to have at least 150 top bets behind them. If your top bet is 8 units, that's 1200 units right there. I think a nickel player with a $5000 bankroll may still be under-funded in many cases.

> 4. 2 Deck game with S17, DAS and LS

I think I only saw this game offered in a casino once, but I woke up before I could play

> 5. Bet spread of 1:3 or 1:4 (enough for 0.60% edge)

Unless you're bumping up against house limits, you might as well press a little higher in a 2-deck game. If dropping your bottom bet draws too much heat, take a few bathroom/phone call breaks. There is no reason an experienced and intelligent card counter like you should be settling for a 0.6% win rate.

> 6. Be cool under pressure

Like a cucumber, baby!

> 7. Get in the long run ASAP

I've been trying to for the past three years I guess I'm more of a sprinter than a distance runner; I keep getting winded!

-Sonny-

 

[AlexD30]

0.60% edge is for beginners ? --- OK, no problem!

Read Ian Anderson's "Burning the tables in Las Vegas" and see for yourself what edge he is looking for. Or, run John Auston's BJRM software and look for an edge of 0.60% played on a bank that has $500 average bet and see how much is the income per hour.

After you do those two things I suspect that you will reconsider that thing " ... for beginners"

AlexD30

 

[learning to count]

Re: 0.60% edge is for beginners ? --- OK, no problem!

A $500 unit is a heck of a bet. AT .60 you will make some dinero... a lot of dinero! Whew mind boggling! The bank roll would have to be close 3/4 of a million and that's not round checks either. Can I just play with your bankroll or could I swim in it it for five minutes...please please. If I was your dealer would you tip me a blue chip every so often for smiling at you and acting like I want to discuss your personal problems? WHew this is out of my league. Thanks for contributing to the site. I have already learned a great deal form your posts!!!!!! : )

 

[Mister M]

Re: totally agree sonny!

 

[Count Luckula]

Re: 0.60% edge is for beginners ? --- OK, no problem!

LTC, did you really mean three-quarters of a million? My guess is that Alex is working w/ much more than that. And what's that, are you advocating tipping? For shame...

Sonny, there's a huge difference between what Alex is talking about and what most other people on this site are talking about. For the red chip player, even small green chip player, you need all the advantage you can get. I wouldn't even bother w/ cover plays. It's not worth it. There are better ways to avoid notice. For the purple chip player, you can afford to sacrifice a lot of your advantage for the sake of cover. It becomes necessary, because from the moment you place that first bet, tons of eyes are watching you. The one caveat is that you'll need a massive, and I mean massive, bankroll. The smaller spread on a 2D game with favorable rules will help to reduce the increased variance of a large bet size. Ponder this - there are BJ games out there that can be beaten without changing your bet size. There are a lot of different ways to approach playing and betting, but one things remains the same. You need a sufficient bankroll.

 

[Sonny]

Back to the point here

> Sonny, there's a huge difference between what Alex is talking about and what
> most other people on this site are talking about...For the purple chip
> player, you can afford to sacrifice a lot of your advantage for the sake of
> cover...The one caveat is that you'll need a massive, and I mean massive,
> bankroll. The smaller spread on a 2D game with favorable rules will help to
> reduce the increased variance of a large bet size.

I don't think that anyone is arguing about cover here, or the lower variance of smaller spreads. The original post was about how larger bet spreads don't increase win rates, which I don't accept. The idea that "Betting more then that [1:6 in DD s17] is useless because you will only exchange chips back and forth between you and the dealer and in the end you will have almost the same results but with huge and unnecessary swings along the way" does not fly with me. Although a larger spread may not increase you win rate by much it will compound over time, and by lowering your small bets instead of raising your big bets you are actually REDUCING variance.

The original post seems to advocate smaller spreads at higher stakes. I don't think that this is the way to reduce variance. Although it may be necessary for cover purposes, a larger spread at lower stakes can get the same win rate with less variance. I never said that a smaller spread wouldn't get the money, just that a larger spread is better.

Although the post mentions a sensible 1:6 spread for DD S17, anything lower than this that doesn't include some form of Wonging will raise your risk-of-ruin to a dangerous level for such a small rate of earnings.

Of course, if I was pulling in the loot like Dr. AlexD30, this wouldn't bother me either! Wow, a guy who's rolling in money and has a boatload of experience playing at high stakes with the masters. Maybe we've found a replacement for good ol' ZenGrifter!

-Sonny-

 

[Count Luckula]

Re: Back to the point here

Sonny,
you're definitely right. The larger the spread, the higher your expectation. That's the whole point of wonging - by spreading to zero when the remaining cards are not favorable. If you're playing all, the best way to maximize your EV is to base your max bets on your bankroll and desired ROR, and then spread down to as small of a bet as you can get away with. Assuming the same bet spreads in favorable counts, you will decrease your variance by spreading to smaller bets when the counts become unfavorable.
I haven't seen it, but I've heard of somebody spreading from $20k to 0, i.e. flat betting only in positive counts. Talk about variance.

 

[learning to count]

Imagine swimming in all that dough!

At a minimum 3/4 of mil would be needed! AND AS FAR AS THE TIP HEY I'M GREEDY. I can see where anyone will would want big tips. As far as tipping Fug em!