Speaking of variance, does strictly back-counting work?

[21forme]

Let's assume you're playing a 6D shoe game and you can get away with back-counting and not playing any full shoes. Let's also assume about 20% of the shoes you count go positive and are worth playing. Depending on how many players are at the table, you might play 5-10 hands in that shoe.

So, you're playing 10 hands or so per hour. Sound about right? Even with a +EV of say 2-10%, you're placing 10 unit bets on a fairly small number of hands. The variance would be very high. Is it feasible to follow this strategy or will it take too long for the casual weekend player to play enough hands to be anywhere near long-term expectations?

 

[sagefr0g]

Let's assume you're playing a 6D shoe game and you can get away with back-counting and not playing any full shoes. Let's also assume about 20% of the shoes you count go positive and are worth playing. Depending on how many players are at the table, you might play 5-10 hands in that shoe.

So, you're playing 10 hands or so per hour. Sound about right? Even with a +EV of say 2-10%, you're placing 10 unit bets on a fairly small number of hands. The variance would be very high. Is it feasible to follow this strategy or will it take too long for the casual weekend player to play enough hands to be anywhere near long-term expectations?

dunno about the stats you enumerate. i think the 20% of shoes presenting a decent count for six deck games with good penetration is about right.
i'd say the +EV realized might get to 2% rarely.
as far as the question is it feasible to follow the strategy for the casual weekend player....... well i think so. you may be all over the map as far as the long term statistics but that doesn't mean that you should expect your overall statisitics to be abysmal. your results should still fall with in the expectation and standard deviations of your game and play.

 

[EasyRhino]

So, you're playing 10 hands or so per hour. Sound about right? Even with a +EV of say 2-10%, you're placing 10 unit bets on a fairly small number of hands.

Let's flip this around a bit, and say you're playing all. You still only get a edge of a few percent on 10 hands per hour, but even worse, you're playing a whole bunch of other hands, with small to negative expectation.

By strictly backcounting, your average bet size per hand would be higher, but your average bet size per hour would be lower.

 

[jimpenn]

"By strictly backcounting, your average bet size per and would be higher, but your average bet size per hour would be lower." Rhino

What are you saying? I'm an experienced rec. player and just don't understand what you are trying to get across with the analysis.

Thanks, Jim
Happy New Years

 

[EasyRhino]

Let's say you have a stupid-simple 10-100 spread, and you only bet min or max, no in between. And let's say you see 100 hands per hour at a table, and just have the choice of playing all, or backcounting. And let's say that of those 100 hands, 80 would be min bet, and 20 would be max.

So, if you were playing all, the total wagering for the hour would be (80*10)+(20*100)=2800. So, $2800 wagered in an hour, with an average bet per hand $28 per hand.

Now, let's say you backcount exclusively. During the same hour, total wagering is 20*100=2000. Average bet per hand played is $100.

So, I'm pretty sure this means that backcounting means that you'll be wagering smaller aggregate amounts, and I think this would actually decrease your variance. If you are very bankroll-limited, then the key is to both backcount and have a very small max bet.

 

[Sonny]

So, I'm pretty sure this means that backcounting means that you'll be wagering smaller aggregate amounts, and I think this would actually decrease your variance.

That’s true. You’re putting less money on the table so you are risking less per hour. You are also not playing any –EV hands so you are not losing as much money per hour. In that sense your variance has decreased.

HOWEVER, the decreased variance may allow you to raise your betting level. Since you are only playing +EV hands you are not making any $10 waiting bets so you new minimum bet becomes $20 (or whatever your first bet raise is). You are not making any –EV bets so your overall advantage is also larger which allows you to safely increase your max bet in relation to your bankroll. Instead of betting $10-$100 play-all you might be able to bet $20-$200 backcounting with the same ROR. Your short term variance (SD) has gone up but your long term variance (ROR) is the same and your EV has increased. Both the EV and fluctuations will be higher but your overall exposure to risk is the same. You’ve just doubled your EV by making a simple change in your betting strategy!

Also, having a bigger minimum bet might allow you to play the better games with better pen and less crowded tables. That will increase your EV even more!

This is the subtle art of bankroll leverage.

-Sonny-

 

[21forme]

Good points, guys. Appreciate the input.

Here's an example of what made me ask the question:
I usually play a $25 min table, 6D shoe. My 1 unit is $25 and I ramp to $250.

I wonged in to a shoe last week at a KO count of +4 (full bet, preferred strategy, insurance, etc.), and the count remained above this until the shoe ended. I was dealt a 7/4 my third hand, doubled and won - a little scary betting $500, but it worked. At the end of the shoe, another $500 double down bet and I lost. I netted $300 that shoe and with the 2 big bets, that's what got me thinking about the large variance.

 

[Sonny]

The variance will seem larger because you are mostly making big bets. Your variance per hand is larger but you are making fewer bets so your hourly variance is smaller. Since your EV is higher and your variance is lower your overall risk is also lower. You're earning more money and taking less risks. As Don Schlesinger likes to say, "You're getting more bang for the buck."

-Sonny-

 

[Claza]

Good points, guys. Appreciate the input.

Here's an example of what made me ask the question:
I usually play a $25 min table, 6D shoe. My 1 unit is $25 and I ramp to $250.

I wonged in to a shoe last week at a KO count of +4 (full bet, preferred strategy, insurance, etc.), and the count remained above this until the shoe ended. I was dealt a 7/4 my third hand, doubled and won - a little scary betting $500, but it worked. At the end of the shoe, another $500 double down bet and I lost. I netted $300 that shoe and with the 2 big bets, that's what got me thinking about the large variance.

If you can get away with playing only when you are at an advantage over the house, more power to you, I would do the same thing if I could, except I like to avoid attracting unwanted attention from pit critters.

However, at $25-$250, you seem to be playing with big money, and if you are wonging in when the count is good, you probably make substantial bets right from the beginning. Huge bets require huge bankrolls and even "huger" self discipline.

The variance will swing a lot wilder when big money is at stake, do you have the bankroll and the psychological means to deal with it?

Remember that even when the count is good your advantage is still too slim to rely on for the short term. It just means that given a great number of hands at the exact same conditions you would probably win slightly more than lose.

My advice to you: Continue backcounting and wonging in for as long as you are sure you can get away with it, but analyze your Risk of Ruin and make sure you understand very well the bankroll management concept.