The art vs. the science of betting

[bj bob]

Every competent card counter knows what to bet at any given TC. There a dozens of books and charts written about "optimal" betting, so this aspect is very cut and dry.
The subjective aspect of bet variance is, however very intriguing. Let me pose a few examples of what I am getting at.

1) Do you ever raise/ lower your bet after a push to adjust for the TC?
2) Do you always start a new shoe/deck with a min. bet?
3) Do you ever lower your bet after a winning hand to adjust for a drop in the count?
4) Do you increase the size of you bet significantly to chase the count after a losing hand?
5) Do you ever let your double down/split/BJ win "ride" for the next hand in a pos. TC situation?
6) Do you ever add your winning ins. bet to your next one, assuming the count calls for it?

These are most of the betting situations I can think of which, although creative, may raise an eyebrow or two. Any one else have any cute tactics that help attain sync. with the TC?

 

[Kasi]

Every competent card counter knows what to bet at any given TC. There a dozens of books and charts written about "optimal" betting, so this aspect is very cut and dry.
The subjective aspect of bet variance is, however very intriguing. Let me pose a few examples of what I am getting at.

1) Do you ever raise/ lower your bet after a push to adjust for the TC?
2) Do you always start a new shoe/deck with a min. bet?
3) Do you ever lower your bet after a winning hand to adjust for a drop in the count?
4) Do you increase the size of you bet significantly to chase the count after a losing hand?
5) Do you ever let your double down/split/BJ win "ride" for the next hand in a pos. TC situation?
6) Do you ever add your winning ins. bet to your next one, assuming the count calls for it?

These are most of the betting situations I can think of which, although creative, may raise an eyebrow or two. Any one else have any cute tactics that help attain sync. with the TC?

I don't know. To me, any competent card counter has already figured out most of those questions and their effect on winning rate. Books are fine for "optimal" bet, sort of, but that rarely works exactly out to $5, $10, $20, $40 bets, etc. Players play in a real world, not theoretical, and all those questions u pose effect winning rate. They are almost like camouflage plays - to what extent are u willing to sacrifice optimal win rate vs longevity?

So, given how u add/decrease bets depending on TC, gives u a "practical" win rate.

To me, like u say, it's just not natural to add more to ur bet after a win than the win, decrease ur bet after a win, or even maybe taking back that big bet u just put out at the end of a shoe only to find ur shuffled up.

So it's up to u to weigh these effects ahead of time and decide what's best for u.

For instance, if u were on a team, I would imagine whether to ever add to a bet after winning, decrease a bet after winning, bet min on the top of a shoe or not are already defined, etc. On an ideal team, u r a robot with all questions answered and all members playing exactly the same.

I imagine sims can exactly answer questions like this but I don't know for sure.

I don't think a human being can just figure it out with a pencil & paper.

In general, I'd opt for longevity. You can't win if u can't play.

 

[QFIT]

A few comments on both posts:

1. I can only think of one book that discusses optimal betting. Most books give poor betting advice and the percentage of players that bet optimally is small.

2. Changing optimal bets to nearby 'rational' bets like $5, $10, $25, etc actually has very little effect on performance.

3. On the other hand, the set of cover betting moves in the first post has a dramatic effect on performance. Some degree of cover betting may be required at black chip play. But a point of developing a good act is to try to get away with as little cover as possible. I don't think most people realize how much they are giving away by never dropping a bet after a win or never raising after a loss. You do gain back some of this by using the suggestions in the first post of allowing a larger increase or decrease in your bet after a double or split. I have a very old chart on this at http://www.qfit.com/cv8.gif. The red bars are no cover plays; the blue bars full cover and the green bars show the recovery of some of the loss by allowing a bigger change after doubles and splits.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

... I don't think most people realize how much they are giving away by never dropping a bet after a win or never raising after a loss. You do gain back some of this by using the suggestions in the first post of allowing a larger increase or decrease in your bet after a double or split. I have a very old chart on this at http://www.qfit.com/cv8.gif. The red bars are no cover plays; the blue bars full cover and the green bars show the recovery of some of the loss by allowing a bigger change after doubles and splits.

Interesting. When playing SD the count can change a lot from one hand to the next. But when playing an 8D shoe it does not, even though you can play 8D just fine at a full table and SD you never want to play with more than 3 hands in the game. BJ Bob plays a lot of SD so I guess bet cover becomes both more expensive and more necessary.

 

[Mimosine]

1) Do you ever raise/ lower your bet after a push to adjust for the TC?
2) Do you always start a new shoe/deck with a min. bet?
3) Do you ever lower your bet after a winning hand to adjust for a drop in the count?
4) Do you increase the size of you bet significantly to chase the count after a losing hand?
5) Do you ever let your double down/split/BJ win "ride" for the next hand in a pos. TC situation?
6) Do you ever add your winning ins. bet to your next one, assuming the count calls for it?

1) no, never.
2) i try to avoid starting a new shoe with a min bet if my last bet was big, though i usually cut my big bet in half. i'll let this bet ride until it loses, then scale down to a 1x bet.
3) yes, though i probably shouldn't
4) sometimes, though according to BJAttack you should never do this
5) yes, again referring to BJA, parlaying a bet is encouraged, but i never more than double my previous bet.
6) ? not clear

 

[Sonny]

1) Do you ever raise/ lower your bet after a push to adjust for the TC?
2) Do you always start a new shoe/deck with a min. bet?
3) Do you ever lower your bet after a winning hand to adjust for a drop in the count?
4) Do you increase the size of you bet significantly to chase the count after a losing hand?
5) Do you ever let your double down/split/BJ win "ride" for the next hand in a pos. TC situation?
6) Do you ever add your winning ins. bet to your next one, assuming the count calls for it?

1) Guilty.

2) Not always the minimum, but usually 1-3 units for pitch games. For shoe games I’m either Wonging and not playing the first few rounds or I’m tracking and making big bets after the shuffle.

3) Sure, why not? Even the ploppies do this when they “hit their target.”

4) Of course. That’s the most typical ploppy play of all! Everyone loves the Martingale.

5) Yeah, I love that one.

6) Sure, it’s just like a parlay.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

Every competent card counter knows what to bet at any given TC. There a dozens of books and charts written about "optimal" betting, so this aspect is very cut and dry.
The subjective aspect of bet variance is, however very intriguing. Let me pose a few examples of what I am getting at.

1) Do you ever raise/ lower your bet after a push to adjust for the TC?
2) Do you always start a new shoe/deck with a min. bet?
3) Do you ever lower your bet after a winning hand to adjust for a drop in the count?
4) Do you increase the size of you bet significantly to chase the count after a losing hand?
5) Do you ever let your double down/split/BJ win "ride" for the next hand in a pos. TC situation?
6) Do you ever add your winning ins. bet to your next one, assuming the count calls for it?

These are most of the betting situations I can think of which, although creative, may raise an eyebrow or two. Any one else have any cute tactics that help attain sync. with the TC?

1. yes
2. yes
3 yes
4. yes if the count warrants it.
5. yes if the count warrants it.
6. i would yes if the count warrants it.
maybe i'm missing something here but isn't that what we should be doing, excepting maybe some cover might be warranted?

 

[21forme]

1. yes
2. yes
3 yes
4. yes if the count warrants it.
5. yes if the count warrants it.
6. i would yes if the count warrants it.
maybe i'm missing something here but isn't that what we should be doing, excepting maybe some cover might be warranted?

Same here.

 

[bj bob]

A few comments on both posts:

1. I can only think of one book that discusses optimal betting. Most books give poor betting advice and the percentage of players that bet optimally is small.

2. Changing optimal bets to nearby 'rational' bets like $5, $10, $25, etc actually has very little effect on performance.

3. On the other hand, the set of cover betting moves in the first post has a dramatic effect on performance. Some degree of cover betting may be required at black chip play. But a point of developing a good act is to try to get away with as little cover as possible. I don't think most people realize how much they are giving away by never dropping a bet after a win or never raising after a loss. You do gain back some of this by using the suggestions in the first post of allowing a larger increase or decrease in your bet after a double or split. I have a very old chart on this at http://www.qfit.com/cv8.gif. The red bars are no cover plays; the blue bars full cover and the green bars show the recovery of some of the loss by allowing a bigger change after doubles and splits.

Norm, you bring up several interesting points.
First, you mention that there is only one book about accurate optimal betting. OK,tell us. I'm curious as to which one you regard as the only reliable source. Seems to me that GameMaster covers this in depth, is that the one?
Second, you assert that "fuzzy" betting can cost you significant EV. I do agree with that premise; however, I'm not exactly clear as to what your chart signifies, i.e. the 1-14 axis. Could you explain?
Lastly, since I do not play shoe games, but only SD/DD, the count can jump all over the place rather quickly, unlike 6-8D, and trying to place the "perfect" bet constantly, would get me crucified in most Reno houses.

 

[EasyRhino]

I'm not sure if I would call it fuzzy betting, but maybe intentionally unoptimal betting. I know Schelisnger has a chapter about it in Blackjack Attack.

Personally, I tend to show a greater tendency to increase bets rather than decrease them. I'll super-parlay on some wins, and raise on losses. But I won't drop bets after a win, and won't drop from a max to min bet with the shuffle. Those two seem the most obvious to me.

Course, I rarely play single deck, but when I do, it's a BITCH to try to bet optimally and not feel like you're being lit up light a counter.

And yet, I have a hunch that playing a mediocre (D9) 1D game with betting cover may net you less than playing a quality shoe game with a big spread and optimal betting.

 

[QFIT]

Norm, you bring up several interesting points.
First, you mention that there is only one book about accurate optimal betting. OK,tell us. I'm curious as to which one you regard as the only reliable source.

Well, I am certainly not claiming that it is the only reliable source. What I said is that I could only think of one "book." That's Blackjack Attack. There may be other very recent books; but none come to mind.

Seems to me that GameMaster covers this in depth, is that the one?

Not a book. I just looked at it. I can't figure out where the numbers came from.

Second, you assert that "fuzzy" betting can cost you significant EV. I do agree with that premise; however, I'm not exactly clear as to what your chart signifies, i.e. the 1-14 axis. Could you explain?

The chart is many years old. I believe it was hand depth.

Lastly, since I do not play shoe games, but only SD/DD, the count can jump all over the place rather quickly, unlike 6-8D, and trying to place the "perfect" bet constantly, would get me crucified in most Reno houses.

Yep. That's why most pros don't play pitch games.