Question about betting spread

Kaiser

Kaiser

Well-Known Member
I've been using the KISS III count for a while, using a 1-10 spread in a 6 deck game like Mr. Renzey advises. When the count hits 20 I bet 3 units, 21 I bet 5 units, 22 is 8 units, and 23+ is 10 units.

There is also a page in the book that tells you what TC you would be at, in different parts of the shoe, according to what KISS III count you are at. For instance 21 equals a TC of 2 no matter where you are in the deck, 25 equals a TC of 3 with a couple of decks played. It's an unbalanced count so the TC goes up even if your KISS count stays the same and you go further into a deck. I have no problem with that, and it's pretty easy to fudge your index numbers. A count of 27 gives you a TC of 3.5 at 2 decks dealt out, 4.0 at 3 decks, 5.0 at 4 decks, 6.0 at 4.5 decks, etc.

What struck me as odd this morning though, is I was reading through Bringing Down The House, and read the bit at the back of the book by MIT Mike. He said that you should make your bets according to the true count, where you subtract one from the TC to offset the disadvantage off the top, and then bet as many units as your TC is. So if you have a TC of 6, subtract 1 to make 5, and bet 5 units. Seems simple enough.

But compared to the KISS III betting spread, it's pretty low. Two decks into a shoe with a count of 25, I'd be betting 10 units with KISS III, whereas I'd only be betting 2 units according to MIT Mike. (TC of 3 minus the 1 offset, makes 2 units). or at a count of 27 with 3 decks dealt; I'd be betting 10 units with KISS III but only 3 units with Mike's spread - TC of 4 minus the one makes 3, so 3 units?

I also noticed a chart in Kevin Blackwood's book about spreading in a 6 deck game. He advocates a 1-20 spread, and he goes to a max bet when the count is at +5 for Hi Lo.

I'm a little confused. According to Blackjack Bluebook II, I'd be making a 10 unit bet at a count of 23, when even with only 2 decks remaining the TC is only 3. Seems like a pretty low count to have a max bet out compared to the other two guys.

Hope this post makes sense. It seems like the KISS III spread is more aggressive than these others.

Thoughts?
 
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
It's probably a compromise for longevity. Schlesinger and others say they never add to a bet after a loss and never add more than parlay their winnings to add to a bet as the count rises. It's a question of balancing your betting strategy with what you think you can get away with, without being backed off.
 
S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
i have blackwoods book, and i have to say, spreading from 1-20 with max @ +5 in 6 deck? that would give you an insane advantage.. probably 1% or more.. i would not recommend betting 20 units at +5, (or ever really), unless you have a very large bankroll.. and i know somebody will have a problem with me spitting out what appears to be random guessing, so where am i getting this info? books.. i am allowed to repeat what i have read in 5+ books arent i? and possibly give and educated guess
 
E

EmeraldCityBJ

Well-Known Member
A big spread does not require a larger bank if the max bet remains constant

SilentBob420BMFJ said:
i would not recommend betting 20 units at +5, (or ever really), unless you have a very large bankroll..
Click to expand...
The amount of the max bet has more to do with the required bankroll size than the bet spread. In fact, I would even assert that your risk increases as your spread decreases. For example, if your bankroll can support a max bet of $100 when you have a 2% edge or greater, if your betting unit is $25 (4:1 spread), you're less likely to succeed than if your betting unit is $5 (20:1 spread). Taking this concept to an extreme would be to flat bet (1:1 spread) which pretty much guarantees that you will go bust at some point because of the house edge.

Your max bet should be based on your BR size and your risk tolerance. Your single unit bet (or min bet) should be based on how much you think you can get away with for a given game.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
EmeraldCityBJ said:
The amount of the max bet has more to do with the required bankroll size than the bet spread. In fact, I would even assert that your risk increases as your spread decreases. For example, if your bankroll can support a max bet of $100 when you have a 2% edge or greater, if your betting unit is $25 (4:1 spread), you're less likely to succeed than if your betting unit is $5 (20:1 spread). Taking this concept to an extreme would be to flat bet (1:1 spread) which pretty much guarantees that you will go bust at some point because of the house edge.

Your max bet should be based on your BR size and your risk tolerance. Your single unit bet (or min bet) should be based on how much you think you can get away with for a given game.
Click to expand...
Well, I've always thought it's better to understand the totality of one's betting system rather than basing it only on what may support a max bet.

Certainly I can have exactly the same risk spreading the same bankroll 1-4, 1-8 or 1-20, whatever. The only thing that would change would be my unit size.
And, likely my max bet at the same 2% advantage.

Why change your spreads around a fixed max bet leading to very different ROR's when u can just adjust your spread to the ROR you want even though your max bet would change?
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
Spreads higher than 1-10 are often recommended for play-all 6D or 8D play. If you go through the tables on Blackjack Attack on mediocre shoe games with those spreads, the results are pretty grim. But to be fair, the results are still grim even with really large spreads, just due to the inherent suckiness of play-all against shoe games.

As usual, wonging makes everything better.

However, I can see how you might still go with (only) a 1-10 spread, for instance, if you're playing for comps or otherwise playing for longevity, or if the reduced spread is because of a higher-minimum table where the game is much better.
 
S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
EmeraldCityBJ said:
The amount of the max bet has more to do with the required bankroll size than the bet spread. In fact, I would even assert that your risk increases as your spread decreases. For example, if your bankroll can support a max bet of $100 when you have a 2% edge or greater, if your betting unit is $25 (4:1 spread), you're less likely to succeed than if your betting unit is $5 (20:1 spread). Taking this concept to an extreme would be to flat bet (1:1 spread) which pretty much guarantees that you will go bust at some point because of the house edge.

Your max bet should be based on your BR size and your risk tolerance. Your single unit bet (or min bet) should be based on how much you think you can get away with for a given game.
Click to expand...
you knew what i meant! but if you consider a unit to be at least the table minimum like most people do, then 20 units is a lot no matter how you look at it, but if your on a $25 table and units to you are $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50, then no, 20 units would not be insane
 
S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
Sonny said:
Classic! :grin:

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
EasyRhino said:
Spreads higher than 1-10 are often recommended for play-all 6D or 8D play. If you go through the tables on Blackjack Attack on mediocre shoe games with those spreads, the results are pretty grim. But to be fair, the results are still grim even with really large spreads, just due to the inherent suckiness of play-all against shoe games.

As usual, wonging makes everything better.

However, I can see how you might still go with (only) a 1-10 spread, for instance, if you're playing for comps or otherwise playing for longevity, or if the reduced spread is because of a higher-minimum table where the game is much better.
Click to expand...
so then spreading $10-$200 in a 6 deck AC game (.43%) wouldnt result in a large advantage? btw, im not sure what large is, but i think 1% would be considered large right? im talking about EV in play-all.. if the answer is no, you wouldnt have a large advantage in that situation, then that means that wonging is extremely powerful, much better than spreading.. but i do know this.. if you spread $10-$200 and only played in positive counts, your advantage would be massive (totally dependent on how you spread tho, because if you spread 1 unit for every 1 tc (20 units at +20 tc!), then clearly it wouldnt be nearly as good, but still good, as your already playing positive just cuz your playing in +counts, so any spreading would be even better).. it appears that no amount of spreading or wonging is as good as spreading and wonging together
 
Last edited:
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
btw, im not sure what large is, but i think 1% would be considered large right?
Click to expand...
A 1% advantage is the bare minimum most card counters would accept. I know some players who won’t sit down unless they can get 3% or better. Ask a sports bettor or horse handicapper if he would bet on a 1% advantage and he will just laugh. A 1% edge is tiny.

SilentBob420BMFJ said:
it appears that no amount of spreading or wonging is as good as spreading and wonging together
Click to expand...
Amen! That’s the golden rule of BJ right there.

-Sonny-
 
S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
Sonny said:
A 1% advantage is the bare minimum most card counters would accept. I know some players who won’t sit down unless they can get 3% or better. Ask a sports bettor or horse handicapper if he would bet on a 1% advantage and he will just laugh. A 1% edge is tiny.



Amen! That’s the golden rule of BJ right there.

-Sonny-
Click to expand...
i had no idea.. most of the books i read have said that counting cards can get you UP TO a 1.5% advantage, so i assumed that 1% was good, and 1.5% was very good.. now i completely understand why everybody has scoffed at my flat bet wonging! sure im playing at an advantage, but to you guys, less than a .5% advantage is nothing.. couple that with my bets and you have less than 50 cents an hour profit! (im aware it would be like 56 cents due to doubles/splits (if [1.17 x flat bet = avg bet] is correct), but whatever) im in the bigtime!
 
Last edited:
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
SilentBob420BMFJ said:
inow i completely understand why everybody has scoffed at my flat bet wonging! sure im playing at an advantage, but to you guys, less than a .5% advantage is nothing.. couple that with my bets and you have less than 50 cents an hour profit! (im aware it would be like 56 cents due to doubles/splits (if [1.17 x flat bet = avg bet] is correct), but whatever) im in the bigtime!
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody is scoffing at you. Heck, even if u had 1.5%, so u'd make $1.50/hr. Not exactly life changing lol.

And I'd make a real effort in establishing what your advantage actually is for how u bet what blah blah blah.

The important thing is to measure your actual results to expected results so you have verification that what you are doing is correct. It doesn't matter how little you may win as much as your overall results make sense and aren't extremely unlikely.

Not that that is an easy thing to do.

A bigger bankroll and spread can come later.

A small point, but remember a HA is always expressed in terms of average initial bet. Not average total bet.

So, if u bet $1/hand for 10000 hands (ie 10000 dealer upcards) in a game with a 0.5% advantage you will expect to lose $50. Even though you will have likley wagered $11000 or so in total.

To assume your expected loss would be $55 would not be right.
 
S

SilentBob420BMFJ

Banned
Kasi said:
I don't think anybody is scoffing at you. Heck, even if u had 1.5%, so u'd make $1.50/hr. Not exactly life changing lol.

And I'd make a real effort in establishing what your advantage actually is for how u bet what blah blah blah.

The important thing is to measure your actual results to expected results so you have verification that what you are doing is correct. It doesn't matter how little you may win as much as your overall results make sense and aren't extremely unlikely.

Not that that is an easy thing to do.

A bigger bankroll and spread can come later.

A small point, but remember a HA is always expressed in terms of average initial bet. Not average total bet.

So, if u bet $1/hand for 10000 hands (ie 10000 dealer upcards) in a game with a 0.5% advantage you will expect to lose $50. Even though you will have likley wagered $11000 or so in total.

To assume your expected loss would be $55 would not be right.
Click to expand...
you should read this.. http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=7821
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Kasi said:
Why change your spreads around a fixed max bet leading to very different ROR's when u can just adjust your spread to the ROR you want even though your max bet would change?
Click to expand...
Because its easier and safer. zg
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Because its easier and safer. zg
Click to expand...
Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. That's all I'm saying.

Would you at least agree that it might not be true as an absolute over all games and spreading all different amounts at various TC's yet keeping a max bet the same? Even assuming the max bet stayed the same at the same original TC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top