Study your TC's!

[moo321]

One thing I picked up on my most recent endeavor is to carefully study your advantage by TC. I realized in planning that I was overvaluing certain TC's and undervaluing others.

For example, I've been playing some H17 shoe games. They have surrender and good pen, but it's barely worth a 2 unit bet at +2 with a 5% ROR. My advantage was maybe .25%.

On the other hand, in very high counts, I was underbetting. When it gets to like +10, I had maybe 1% of my bankroll on the table, and this is an underbet. Many times I had 3, 5, or even 7%+ in advantage, and wasn't betting enough.

Of course, the "max bet" theory is based on the idea of limiting heat by limiting spread, which I think is a bit flawed. In reality, heat tends to either come from having a sharp crew (Vegas), or crossing a certain threshold: $100, $500, black action, etc.

I was also somewhat underbetting my advantage at slightly positive counts in pitch games. Many S17 games you can bet 2 units at +1, and 3-4 at +2.

SO, in conclusion, don't limit your spread because the book says to, and don't base your spread on what the book says. Study your actual advantage by TC, and bet optimally.

 

[Zerg]

Good Post!

Recently playing single deck I was thinking about this. With only a .2 off the top HE, if the running count is +1 after one hand the edge is about equal to +2 true in the h17 shoe games I use to play.

 

[Most Interesting Man]

Max bet aside, wouldn't using CVCX solve the problem? Doesn't it tell you the optimum bet per count at any given bank, risk tolerance, and playing conditions?

 

[sagefr0g]

Max bet aside, wouldn't using CVCX solve the problem? Doesn't it tell you the optimum bet per count at any given bank, risk tolerance, and playing conditions?

x2 ...... was just wondering the same thing.
please explain more moo.

 

[QFIT]

SO, in conclusion, don't limit your spread because the book says to, and don't base your spread on what the book says. Study your actual advantage by TC, and bet optimally.

Or get a better book.

 

[moo321]

Max bet aside, wouldn't using CVCX solve the problem? Doesn't it tell you the optimum bet per count at any given bank, risk tolerance, and playing conditions?

Well, yes, I was recommending this. My point was to not assume that all games are equal by TC.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Well, yes, I was recommending this. My point was to not assume that all games are equal by TC.

No of course not, and it's important to note how the different rules affect us as a function of count. I don't fear H17, because the value of H17 to the casino drops as count increases. On the other hand, the value of LS to the player increases as count increases, especially when your LS indices start kicking in, some midway up your spread and the rest at your max bet.

 

[flyingwind]

Moo, very good advice/observations.

 

[Xenophon]

Moo, anyone else that would like to comment..

Do you use Hi-Lo? If so, do you use count per deck or half deck indices (like Snyders Hi-Lo lite).

I started using Hi-Lo lite a while back mainly because I am a recreational player and it's easier to get back up to speed with Hi-Lo lite after I haven't played in a while.

With about 50 easy to memorize +-2 (and 3 +-4 ... 16 vs. 7,8, and 13 vs. 6) indices it sims very well in comparison to regular Hi-Lo and even other counts.

 

[moo321]

Moo, anyone else that would like to comment..

Do you use Hi-Lo? If so, do you use count per deck or half deck indices (like Snyders Hi-Lo lite).

I started using Hi-Lo lite a while back mainly because I am a recreational player and it's easier to get back up to speed with Hi-Lo lite after I haven't played in a while.

With about 50 easy to memorize +-2 (and 3 +-4 ... 16 vs. 7,8, and 13 vs. 6) indices it sims very well in comparison to regular Hi-Lo and even other counts.

I use Hi-lo with maybe 30 indices. I usually TC per deck, although in pitch or toward the bottom of a shoe I may use half deck.

 

[Zerg]

I use hi-lo

Indicies should be round numbers. Even if you are off by a full number it is just a small mistake.

I always divide by full decks, and try to round running counts to something that won't leave a remainer. I try to round them in the same direction.
example:

2.75 decks left count 8. I think "about 3" decks and "about 9" count so it is about 3.

If it is right in the middle like this one ill do it both ways:

3.5 decks left count 15. I think "15/3=5 so its less than 5." " about 16/4=4 so its more than 4."

Close enough! Thinking fast, playing fast and being slightly sloppy is better than playing slightly slower and more accurately IMO. Really, the most important thing is to put the big bets out when it is called for. I don't care if it is + 3.9 or + 5.2 I am betting a bundle! If I bet slightly too much, I am increasing my hourly return and variance (slightly.) If I bet slightly too little I am decreasing my hourly return and variance. I can live with either of those! As long as I know the approximate composition of the deck I can make good bets (and decent playing decisions.)

Even when I am sitting in front of my spreadsheet looking at my bankroll I go back and forth about how much I should bet at each TC, and I tweak it frequently. If I tweak it inadvertently during a session due to a small rounding error, thats cool with me

My advice to you or anyone with questions about indicies or counts is to use what you know and go play.

 

[Xenophon]

I use hi-lo

Indicies should be round numbers. Even if you are off by a full number it is just a small mistake.

I always divide by full decks, and try to round running counts to something that won't leave a remainer. I try to round them in the same direction.
example:

2.75 decks left count 8. I think "about 3" decks and "about 9" count so it is about 3.

If it is right in the middle like this one ill do it both ways:

3.5 decks left count 15. I think "15/3=5 so its less than 5." " about 16/4=4 so its more than 4."

Close enough! Thinking fast, playing fast and being slightly sloppy is better than playing slightly slower and more accurately IMO. Really, the most important thing is to put the big bets out when it is called for. I don't care if it is + 3.9 or + 5.2 I am betting a bundle! If I bet slightly too much, I am increasing my hourly return and variance (slightly.) If I bet slightly too little I am decreasing my hourly return and variance. I can live with either of those! As long as I know the approximate composition of the deck I can make good bets (and decent playing decisions.)

Even when I am sitting in front of my spreadsheet looking at my bankroll I go back and forth about how much I should bet at each TC, and I tweak it frequently. If I tweak it inadvertently during a session due to a small rounding error, thats cool with me

My advice to you or anyone with questions about indicies or counts is to use what you know and go play.

With hi-lo lite I divide by the number of half decks remaining. So my denominator is always a whole number. ie: 6 decks with 3.5 decks remaining I divide the running count by 7.

Alternatively, the running count has to be twice or greater (or less if negative) for the playing departure.

With this method a TC of +1 equals roughly a .5% advantage in a game with a starting disadvantage of -.5, so the bet could be increased sooner than a TC +1.

So basically I'm waiting for the running count to be twice the remaining number of half decks before I depart from basic strategy for all of the departures except 16 vs. 7,8 and 13 vs. 6 are +-4. The 4 indices are mainly for double or single deck.

This strategy isn't as fine tuned as normal hi-lo count per deck or a level 2 count of course but it is much easier to get up to speed with because virtually all of the departures are +-2.