Mr. Ed: Spread

[Mr. Ed]

Hello.

I have a few questions:

1. How do you define spread when you play two hands? If I'm at a $10 table, I'll bet $10 if the count is <1, 15,10@1, 25,25@2, 50,25@3, 75,50@4 and 75,75@5. Is my spread 1-7.5 or 1-15?

2. Is the above considered "small change" and I don't need to worry about heat? (I play at Foxwoods in CT) I have never noticed any heat at all - am I kidding myself?

3. I usually play for 1-3 hours at a time. Am I drawing attention to myself, or am I more invisible?

4. After a good shoe, I really can't stand to throw my money away when the count goes back down to zero, so I usually just cash in and go home after a good shoe. Am I sending out red flags?

5. Would I be more visible if I used the same ramp, but my minimum bet was $5 instead of $10?

6. I usually, but not always, only increase bets by parlaying, and decrease bets when I loose. I'll also sit out a few hands if the count goes less than -1. Should I even bother doing this with the stakes I'm betting? Or should I start the discipline of NO EXCEPTIONS right away?

7. Can I get away with betting odd amounts? Kelley betting says to bet 15,10@1, 30,25@2, 50,40@3, 60,60@4 and 75,75@5, but I'm afraid of sending red flags (or just annoying the dealer).

[RP]

1. How do you define spread when you play two hands? If I'm at a $10 table, I'll bet $10 if the count is <1, 15,10@1, 25,25@2, 50,25@3, 75,50@4 and 75,75@5. Is my spread 1-7.5 or 1-15?

Answer: Neither. Your spread is 1-10. Two hands of $75 is roughly the equivalent of one hand of $100. It has been determined that when you spread from one hand to two, your max. bet should be 73% of what it would be if you played one hand all of the time. Based on that notion, two hands of $75 are the equivalent of one hand of $102.74 ($75/.73).

[Don Schlesinger]

> 1. How do you define spread when you play
> two hands? If I'm at a $10 table, I'll bet
> $10 if the count is Answer: Neither. Your
> spread is 1-10. Two hands of $75 is roughly
> the equivalent of one hand of $100. It has
> been determined that when you spread from
> one hand to two, your max. bet should be 73%
> of what it would be if you played one hand
> all of the time. Based on that notion, two
> hands of $75 are the equivalent of one hand
> of $102.74 ($75/.73).

Yes and no! :-) Your answer is based on a ROR perspective, namely, that playing two hands of $75 is roughly the equivalent of playing one hand of $100, for risk purposes. But, it's not clear that this is what Mr. Ed had in mind.

So, from an EV point of view, betting that total of $150 at the top, with a minimum bet of $10, really does look like a 1-15 spread to me -- almost. That's because the win won't be quite as large as simply betting one hand of $150, because you're using up more cards in the process. This, in turn, depends on how many other people are with you at the table.

Don

[RP]

> Yes and no! :-) Your answer is based on a
> ROR perspective, namely, that playing two
> hands of $75 is roughly the equivalent of
> playing one hand of $100, for risk
> purposes. But, it's not clear that this is
> what Mr. Ed had in mind.

> So, from an EV point of view, betting that
> total of $150 at the top, with a minimum bet
> of $10, really does look like a 1-15 spread
> to me -- almost. That's because the win
> won't be quite as large as simply betting
> one hand of $150, because you're using up
> more cards in the process. This, in turn,
> depends on how many other people are with
> you at the table.

> Don

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info., Don.

[Contrail]

> Hello.

> I have a few questions:

> 1. How do you define spread when you play
> two hands? If I'm at a $10 table, I'll bet
> $10 if the count is

As discussed in the other posts, it's a 15-1 spread. The pit/eye sees $10 and they see $150 and that's 15-1. If you always played two spots with a low bet of $10 on each spot, they would see $20 and $150 and that's 7.5-1.

> 2. Is the above
> considered "small change" and I
> don't need to worry about heat?
> I have never noticed any
> heat at all - am I kidding myself?

For the most part, you will experience very little (if any) heat at those betting levels at your casino. As long as you are not horribly obvious or camp out there for several hours a day over a period of several days, you should be fine. That doesn't mean you should grow lax; it just means that you probably have not notice any heat because there wasn't any.

> 3. I usually play for 1-3 hours at a time.
> Am I drawing attention to myself, or am I
> more invisible?

Naturally the longer you're there the more visible you are and, in general, it's good to keep your time at a given pit short. But where you play there are several different casinos and different pits in each casino. Forty-five minutes in the main casinos pretty much covers your 3 hours. In addition, depending on your schedule you may be able to work around shift changes so that you get to each casino twice and double your total time for a given trip. Of couse they can follow you if they want, but I wouldn't worry about that at this point unless you've specifically had some kind of trouble in one casino and are thinking about going to a different one. So you might consider spreading the 3 hours around if you're not doing that already.

> 4. After a good shoe, I really can't stand
> to throw my money away when the count goes
> back down to zero, so I usually just cash in
> and go home after a good shoe. Am I sending
> out red flags?

You're not sending out red flags. Some have argued in favor of leaving after a strongly positive shoe to, in part, avoid the scenario of a bunch of relatively small bets followed by a shoe of relatively large bets followed a bunch of relatively small bets again. Simply leaving will not be a problem, imo, and you will probably occacionally receive pats on the back for your sound judgement in knowing when to leave.

But there's a difference between leaving a specific game and leaving the casino altogether. If you normally play three hours and leave after one hour because you had a good shoe, then you've lost two hours. That may not be a big deal if you live next door and will back again tomorrow. But if you've spend a couple of hours driving to and from the casino then you've spent that travel time for a third of the payoff. In general, it will take you longer to get a certain number of hours in or equivalently you will get less hours for a given time frame.

Also, imo, you're not throwing money away starting another shoe. Every shoe has some potential value at the outset that depends the number of decks, the rules, penetration, etc. What you don't know at the outset is whether or not the potential will be realized for any specific shoe. Your initial bets are investments in that potential. Once it is clear that the potential won't be realized you move on. If the potential is realized to some extent you increase your bets enough to garner your profit as well as your initial investment back.

You can avoid those initial waiting bets by wonging-in, but this is not necessarily always the best way to proceed. Wonging-in at your casino is often a real challenge. If you rely solely on this approach you will invaribly lose time and miss some real opportunities. I would suggest you read Blackjack Attack (Chapter 12) in this regard and come up with an approach that suits your style and specific conditions.

> 5. Would I be more visible if I used the
> same ramp, but my minimum bet was $5 instead
> of $10?

Well, good luck finding a $5 table. You'll have your work cut out for you getting $10 tables. That aside, the answer really depends on the situation. Certainly if you have $150 out at a table with players that have been betting $5-$25, then the pit will notice and notice more than if you only had $75 out. But at a $10 table you'll see red and green action on a regular basis.

It may also be useful to be clear on what you would be doing. You would be cutting your hourly win rate in half. Of course, you would also be significantly decreasing your ROR, but that, by the nature of your question, is not the motivation. You would be doing it to avoid heat and, in that sense, it being done to provide cover or make it less apparent that you may be a counter. A fifty percent cut, however, seems to me to be pretty expensive cover.

> 6. I usually, but not always, only increase
> bets by parlaying, and decrease bets when I
> loose. I'll also sit out a few hands if the
> count goes less than -1. Should I even
> bother doing this with the stakes I'm
> betting? Or should I start the discipline of
> NO EXCEPTIONS right away?

There appears to be differing opinions regarding only increasing bets after a win and only decreasing bets after a loss. I think it's fine either way as long as you understand what it costs and what it buys in terms of longevity. I would suggest you maintain the practice until you feel comfortable enough with things to be able to make that assessment for yourself.

Sitting out a few hands can be more problematic. If by sitting out you mean sitting at the table and not playing, then, personally, I would advise against it. I know that you will see others doing it, but they aren't sitting a the table counting and they don't jump back in when the count rises again. Imo, it's better to just leave the table for another game or ask for lammer. If you do the latter, be prepared to have someone in your seat when you return and don't be shy about reclaiming it.

> 7. Can I get away with betting odd amounts?
> Kelley betting says to bet 15,10@1, 30,25@2,
> 50,40@3, 60,60@4 and 75,75@5, but I'm afraid
> of sending red flags (or just annoying the
> dealer).

I think it best to avoid regimentation or fiddling with chips to get some specific number down. But if you're betting $10 to two hands of $75 you will invariably be betting red, green, and probably mixtures at some point. In and of itself this is not a problem. Also, although you don't want to be rude to dealers, you don't want to change your game plan simply because you run across a bad one.

If you wish, you can adjust your ramp a little so that you're increasing in multiples of $10, for example, or multiples of $25 if you wong-in to a $25 minimum table. You can easily use BJRM to see how these changes would impact your win rate and ROR.

[Mr. Ed]

Contrail,

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. You really addressed my concers and I appreciate it. I appreciate your specific knowlege about my casino.

Sincerly,

Mr. Ed

> As discussed in the other posts, it's a 15-1
> spread. The pit/eye sees $10 and they see
> $150 and that's 15-1. If you always played
> two spots with a low bet of $10 on each
> spot, they would see $20 and $150 and that's
> 7.5-1.

> For the most part, you will experience very
> little (if any) heat at those betting levels
> at your casino. As long as you are not
> horribly obvious or camp out there for
> several hours a day over a period of several
> days, you should be fine. That doesn't mean
> you should grow lax; it just means that you
> probably have not notice any heat because
> there wasn't any.

> Naturally the longer you're there the more
> visible you are and, in general, it's good
> to keep your time at a given pit short. But
> where you play there are several different
> casinos and different pits in each casino.
> Forty-five minutes in the main casinos
> pretty much covers your 3 hours. In
> addition, depending on your schedule you may
> be able to work around shift changes so that
> you get to each casino twice and double your
> total time for a given trip. Of couse they
> can follow you if they want, but I wouldn't
> worry about that at this point unless you've
> specifically had some kind of trouble in one
> casino and are thinking about going to a
> different one. So you might consider
> spreading the 3 hours around if you're not
> doing that already.

> You're not sending out red flags. Some have
> argued in favor of leaving after a strongly
> positive shoe to, in part, avoid the
> scenario of a bunch of relatively small bets
> followed by a shoe of relatively large bets
> followed a bunch of relatively small bets
> again. Simply leaving will not be a problem,
> imo, and you will probably occacionally
> receive pats on the back for your sound
> judgement in knowing when to leave.

> But there's a difference between leaving a
> specific game and leaving the casino
> altogether. If you normally play three hours
> and leave after one hour because you had a
> good shoe, then you've lost two hours. That
> may not be a big deal if you live next door
> and will back again tomorrow. But if you've
> spend a couple of hours driving to and from
> the casino then you've spent that travel
> time for a third of the payoff. In general,
> it will take you longer to get a certain
> number of hours in or equivalently you will
> get less hours for a given time frame.

> Also, imo, you're not throwing money away
> starting another shoe. Every shoe has some
> potential value at the outset that depends
> the number of decks, the rules, penetration,
> etc. What you don't know at the outset is
> whether or not the potential will be
> realized for any specific shoe. Your initial
> bets are investments in that potential. Once
> it is clear that the potential won't be
> realized you move on. If the potential is
> realized to some extent you increase your
> bets enough to garner your profit as well as
> your initial investment back.

> You can avoid those initial waiting bets by
> wonging-in, but this is not necessarily
> always the best way to proceed. Wonging-in
> at your casino is often a real challenge. If
> you rely solely on this approach you will
> invaribly lose time and miss some real
> opportunities. I would suggest you read
> Blackjack Attack (Chapter 12) in this regard
> and come up with an approach that suits your
> style and specific conditions.

> Well, good luck finding a $5 table. You'll
> have your work cut out for you getting $10
> tables. That aside, the answer really
> depends on the situation. Certainly if you
> have $150 out at a table with players that
> have been betting $5-$25, then the pit will
> notice and notice more than if you only had
> $75 out. But at a $10 table you'll see red
> and green action on a regular basis.

> It may also be useful to be clear on what
> you would be doing. You would be cutting
> your hourly win rate in half. Of course, you
> would also be significantly decreasing your
> ROR, but that, by the nature of your
> question, is not the motivation. You would
> be doing it to avoid heat and, in that
> sense, it being done to provide cover or
> make it less apparent that you may be a
> counter. A fifty percent cut, however, seems
> to me to be pretty expensive cover.

> There appears to be differing opinions
> regarding only increasing bets after a win
> and only decreasing bets after a loss. I
> think it's fine either way as long as you
> understand what it costs and what it buys in
> terms of longevity. I would suggest you
> maintain the practice until you feel
> comfortable enough with things to be able to
> make that assessment for yourself.

> Sitting out a few hands can be more
> problematic. If by sitting out you mean
> sitting at the table and not playing, then,
> personally, I would advise against it. I
> know that you will see others doing it, but
> they aren't sitting a the table counting and
> they don't jump back in when the count rises
> again. Imo, it's better to just leave the
> table for another game or ask for lammer. If
> you do the latter, be prepared to have
> someone in your seat when you return and
> don't be shy about reclaiming it.

> I think it best to avoid regimentation or
> fiddling with chips to get some specific
> number down. But if you're betting $10 to
> two hands of $75 you will invariably be
> betting red, green, and probably mixtures at
> some point. In and of itself this is not a
> problem. Also, although you don't want to be
> rude to dealers, you don't want to change
> your game plan simply because you run across
> a bad one.

> If you wish, you can adjust your ramp a
> little so that you're increasing in
> multiples of $10, for example, or multiples
> of $25 if you wong-in to a $25 minimum
> table. You can easily use BJRM to see how
> these changes would impact your win rate and
> ROR.