The action edge

[Dopple]

I play with 5 limits so it seems logical that when I have even the slightest edge I should put as much into action as possible. The swings can get a little heavy but over the long haul I have done well.

Using the UAPC system and the million dollar blackjack book I have figured out how soon you have an edge based on how many .5 decks played and the running count. I dont have the exact number in my head but it is around a +20 if only one deck has been played as far as I remember.

The get the best value you should in fact when in good positive situations where not only the count but your advantage based on penetration is solidly in your favor you should always put as much down as you can I would assume even if it meant always spreading to 7 bets of 5 each.

I dont know if there is any real question here but feedback is always of interest.

 

[EasyRhino]

Are we talking 5 dollars, or 5 hundred dollars?

Are you playing heads up? If you're by yourself, I suspect that playing multiple hands in any count is still self-defeating.

 

[Dopple]

Sorry I am a poor boy it is just 5, I dont have 3500 to lose on one deal.

I think 7 @ 5 should have the same effect as a 35 bet, is it not the amount you place into play, hence the term action.

 

[EasyRhino]

Is this colorado?

If you spread to 7 spots, would you get 7 different hands of cards dealt to you?

This is just guesswork on my part, but I think such a strategy would suffer from a zero-sum nature. If you get high cards on some spots, it will leave less good cards for other spots. The only advantage you'd gain is from "card eating", where the dealer only gets one hand in high counts, and you get a ton.

If there were other players at the table, they'd be eating more cards in bad counts, but you wouldn't be able to spread as much in good ones.

So my guess is there would be a marginal improvement, but I doubt it would convert the game to a winning game.

 

[Dopple]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes Colorado. 7 different hands.

Make sense to me that if each hand has a slight edge at a high count you would times that by 7. You are a compilation of seven different fictional players and net all the advantage to your own game.

I say get as much down but I need to be sure I do in fact have that true edge and am not off a little and putting the money into action when it may be in fact slightly disfavorable.

Playing under these condition sharpens your game for better allowable spreads elsewhere.

I think I can play a very slight advantage if I am right on with only one hand and 3 to 5 dollars spread although it is tough.

 

[EasyRhino]

This is a very interesting question, and I'm bummed I don't know the answer.

Let's look at the flip side of the argument. The count is positive, you've got some sort of advantage. If you play a ton of spots, you get a lot of money on the table. But, if you only continue to play one spot, you're going to get more rounds in at an advantage. And when the count drops, you won't be stuck with a lot of money out on the table.

 

[rollem411]

I think it depends on how many people are at the table. If you play heads up with the dealer, I don't think it would make a big difference if you played one hand or several because all the cards are coming to you. If there are 2 or more players besides you then you might have the better advantage if you played 2 hands+ because your getting more of the "good" cards when they are being dealt rather than the same as the others. Not sure if this is true, but thats just my input.

 

[Sonny]

Are these shoe games? How many decks do they use in CO?

With a $5 table max your main priority should be getting money on the table. Eating cards might hurt you a bit but not worse than not spread your bets enough. In this case you would probably rather play several hands and eat cards than play a few hands and not spread much. Depending on the game, a $5-$35 spread probably isn’t going to earn you much unless you can Wong a lot.

-Sonny-