Fred Renzey: Betting Over Your Max

[Don Schlesinger]

> Second, used the same $20,000 bank, played with an
> altered deck so that a flat betting player had a 26%
> advantage. Then proceeded to bet $1000 every hand.
> This player's hourly win was $26,000 and his 1000 hour
> ROR was 0.6%.

When do we start, Fred? :-)

Don

[Fred Renzey]

> The RoR might be .06, IF the player was carrying his
> entire $20,000 bankroll with him, but suppose he only
> had a trip BR of $4000 and had already lost $1000. You
> are now betting a third of your remaining stakes? Plus
> what if you draw a 6 or 7 and need to double. Now you
> are betting two thirds of your remaing BR.

snip> That ROR was six tenths of one percent. The exercise was intended to mimic taking another player's Ace in a split against the dealer's 3 for five times your own maximum bet. Then to compare its ROR vs. that of your own normal play when adequately bankrolled. As actually tested though (a modified shoe grossly stripped of low cards such that the TC was +52), the player indeed would sometimes have to split, then re-split, then double down, thereby increasing his exposure beyond just taking one hit card to an Ace.

The interesting part I thought, was that with only 20 betting units in the master bankroll, the edge was so big that the ROR was miniscule. There are several "time-to-time" opportunities to make another "plunger's" double, or go splitting with him for several times your own normal maximum, and one may very well eschew most of them for fear of overbetting.

Suppose you went to the casino with $2500 in your pocket, have your other $17,500 in the bank, and are a $20-to-=$200 bettor. You're down $1500, and this Ace-splitting opportunity comes up for $1000. Should you go all in?
Upon review I'd have to say -- jump all over it!

Don, have I missed something???