I generally parlay my bets as the true count increases. For example, if I win a bet and the true count is 2, on the next bet if the true count goes up to 3 then I'll bet two units. This works fine when the true count increases gradually, but what happens when the true count jumps from 2 to say 5 or more. It would look suspicious if I try to jump my bet and bet according to the Kelly criterion. Do I continue to parlay slowly(i.e. increase my next bet to say 3 units) or do I jump to 4 or 5 units from the 2 units. By parlaying slowly I keep my camouflage but I miss out on getting to my top bets sooner. Your comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated.
How do you parlay bets; what happens when true count jumps
- Thread starter csepres
- Start date
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
Yep, it's a pain.
In my stumblings with this method so far, it becomes a tradeoff of camo vs betting optimalness.
Full-discipline would have you continue to only parlay 2x of whatever the winning bet was. And if you have a split/doubledown situation, this means only the original bet.
Somewhere (either Blackjack Attack or some QFIT sims, I think) I saw some math that the optimalness of the betting is hurt most in single-deck games, where the count changes the fastest and the shufle comes soonest. It's hurt least in shoe games, where the changes are usually more gradual and you get more hands in. (In hurts very little in shoe games)
From personal experience, I can vouch for this effect when last time I played a SD game (at El Cortez, teehee). I was religious about only parlaying on wins, and I kept my bet the same after the shuffle. Instead of having any defineable "ramp", my average bets just ended up "wandering" during the course of several shuffles, from fairly low to fairly high, and back and forth. It was kind of strange, and it was either great cover, or horrible playing. Probably the latter.
Now, if you want to break from full parlay discipline, you can chip away at the edges. Maybe increase bets on losses as well as win. Maybe "super-parlay" winning doubles/splits. It's the art of The Act, which I'm weak at.
Also, if you're playing two hands, you can get into some more unusal combinations. I kind of enjoy playing two hands of dissimilar size once in a while, but when I do it, I'm only guessing at the optimalness of the bets from an EV and risk standpoint. (I just try to ensure that the bigger bet is not as large as my one-hand bet would be for that count, and that the aggregate bet is more than the one-hand bet, but never more than the aggregate two-hand bet would be).
In my stumblings with this method so far, it becomes a tradeoff of camo vs betting optimalness.
Full-discipline would have you continue to only parlay 2x of whatever the winning bet was. And if you have a split/doubledown situation, this means only the original bet.
Somewhere (either Blackjack Attack or some QFIT sims, I think) I saw some math that the optimalness of the betting is hurt most in single-deck games, where the count changes the fastest and the shufle comes soonest. It's hurt least in shoe games, where the changes are usually more gradual and you get more hands in. (In hurts very little in shoe games)
From personal experience, I can vouch for this effect when last time I played a SD game (at El Cortez, teehee). I was religious about only parlaying on wins, and I kept my bet the same after the shuffle. Instead of having any defineable "ramp", my average bets just ended up "wandering" during the course of several shuffles, from fairly low to fairly high, and back and forth. It was kind of strange, and it was either great cover, or horrible playing. Probably the latter.
Now, if you want to break from full parlay discipline, you can chip away at the edges. Maybe increase bets on losses as well as win. Maybe "super-parlay" winning doubles/splits. It's the art of The Act, which I'm weak at.
Also, if you're playing two hands, you can get into some more unusal combinations. I kind of enjoy playing two hands of dissimilar size once in a while, but when I do it, I'm only guessing at the optimalness of the bets from an EV and risk standpoint. (I just try to ensure that the bigger bet is not as large as my one-hand bet would be for that count, and that the aggregate bet is more than the one-hand bet, but never more than the aggregate two-hand bet would be).