Hi-Lo IRC

[jack.jackson]

Spit-ballin

I have a decent understanding of the math behind the game but this passage from Don Schlesingers Blackjack Attack pg. 259 where he quotes Griffin says:
"The player's advantage "reaches its zenith (almost 13%) when 73% of the cards are tens." Thus more tens than 73% lowers the player advantge.

I am not trying to start a number battle here but just want to sort out an advantage question that I find perplexing. I could almost run manual sims on paper or at home or a table using special decks made up of 73% tens and see if it would pan out to the above mentioned 13%.

I think I have a good question here. I am off track somewhere?

I think I remember reading about this in PBJAB. When the count reaches extreme levels, that the count will start to revert backwards. Meaning that a TC of -17 is better for the player than lets say -15 would be.

 

[Sonny]

Hi there, you can read my article on the hi-lo system (which will hopefully answer all of your questions) here:

beatthecasinos.blogspot.com/2007/12/blackjack-card-counting-hi-lo-system.html

You wrote some unusual things in that article. Do you really wait until a TC of +4 to start raising your bets? Do you play through the negative hands as well? At what point to you make your max bet? What kind of bet spread do you use? I know that you advocate using small bet spreads and playing through all negative counts, but it seems like waiting for a +4 TC will have you throwing away money about 85% of the time. Did I misunderstand something?

-Sonny-

 

[davidpom]

Hi Sonny

Read the posts I've made today in the other forum areas and all should become clear re the negative play. It's about avoiding detection. I'm not saying play ALL negative EV hands, and certainly for nothing more than bare minimum bets. It's just a decoy to throw trained pit staff off identifying a strong card counter (in my case, I'm using quite large bet sizes of hundreds of dollars a hand - so don't want to attract unnecessary heat).

Hope this clarifies.

 

[Sonny]

It's just a decoy to throw trained pit staff off identifying a strong card counter (in my case, I'm using quite large bet sizes of hundreds of dollars a hand - so don't want to attract unnecessary heat).

I still don’t understand. How does flat betting a bare minimum bet for 90% of the time (or more), then suddenly jumping your bets up wildly at +4 make for better cover? If anything it would seem much more suspicious as well as less profitable. It seems like slowly ramping your bets as the count rises will appear more natural since you look like the typical gamblers who parlay and “chip up” their bets when they’re winning. Also, by avoiding all negative counts you can make your spread look much smaller since you never make any minimum bets. If you always start playing when you have an advantage big enough to bet 2 units then a 1-16 spread becomes a 2-16 spread, which only looks like a 1-8 spread to the pit. You can also turn a 1-15 spread into a 3-15 spread which looks like a tiny 1-5 spread. Doesn’t that sound like better cover? It’s more profitable too.

-Sonny-

 

[Dopple]

Excuse me for butting in but is not a 2-16 spread exactly a 1-8 spread?

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[davidpom]

To my maths, dopple, you're 100% correct. A 2-16 is the same as 1-8. On that basis, it's also the same as 3-24, 5-40, 8-64. Well spotted.

 

[Canceler]

Excuse me for butting in but is not a 2-16 spread exactly a 1-8 spread?

Correct me if I am wrong.

I believe his point is that you still use your 1-16 spread, BUT don't play in any situation that would require a bet of 1.

 

[Dopple]

So basically you are "in there" just by being there, observing, and having the opportunity to pounce like "a predator ape" into the play.

Sounds like perfectly good math and good play to me.

 

[davidpom]

I agree dopple. Good play, and avoids detection too.