I believe Don suggested a while back that the player advantage increased approximately linearly with the TC. If true wouldn't optimal bet ramp look like this:
TC=+1 0% player advantage Bet=1 unit
TC=+2 1% player advantage Bet=2 units
TC=+3 2% player advantage Bet=3 units
..ad infinitum
> I believe Don suggested a while back that
> the player advantage increased approximately
> linearly with the TC. If true wouldn't
> optimal bet ramp look like this:
> TC=+1 0% player advantage Bet=1 unit
> TC=+2 1% player advantage Bet=2 units
> TC=+3 2% player advantage Bet=3 units
> ..ad infinitum
CVCX suggests that for your game above (you didn't mention more important details such as penetration so I assumed one deck cut off, you also didn't mention your spread so I used 1-20 which is typical for a 6d game)
TC=0, 5
TC=1, 10
TC=2, 35
TC=3, 50
TC=4, 70
TC=5, 90
TC>5, 100
With a $3000 bankroll, your risk of ruin is near 30%...
TC=4, 40
Those player advantage numbers are off by a factor of 2x. At a TC of 1, player advantage is 0 as you have. at TC of 2, the player advantage is only .5%. Each increase in TC increases player advantage roughly .5% not 1.0%.
that said, to find the _optimal_ bet ramp, the easiest way is to use CVCX and run the sim. It will tell you the optimal ramp which is not always intuitive.
> CVCX suggests that for your game above (you
> didn't mention more important details such
> as penetration so I assumed one deck cut
> off, you also didn't mention your spread so
> I used 1-20 which is typical for a 6d game)
I thought 1-16 was typical
> TC=0, 5
> TC=1, 10
> TC=2, 35
> TC=3, 50
> TC=4, 70
> TC=5, 90
> TC>5, 100
If my advantage is increasing linearly (o.k. .05%if as you say below)why are my bets not progressing the same? i.e. $25 from TC1 -TC2, yet only $15 from TC2-TC3?
> With a $3000 bankroll, your risk of ruin is
> near 30%...
...wouldn't my way lower this
> TC=4, 40
what???
> Those player advantage numbers are off by a
> factor of 2x. At a TC of 1, player advantage
> is 0 as you have. at TC of 2, the player
> advantage is only .5%. Each increase in TC
> increases player advantage roughly .5% not
> 1.0%.
o.k. but you are still saying its is a roughly direct proportion increasing at .05 % (I really thought Don suggested it was 1%) per unit raise in TC, so why is our bet structure not? I guess I am asking if there are some TC moves that are greater are more than the average .05% player advantage increase to justify a greater or lesser bet. And why are we capping the increase at a TC+5. Has my increase in advantage stopped here no matter how much more the TC rises.
> that said, to find the _optimal_ bet ramp,
> the easiest way is to use CVCX and run the
> sim. It will tell you the optimal ramp which
> is not always intuitive.
Did you set a contoll here to get maximum bid in by TC+5?
IF, the TC is still rising at about .05%, and I am willing to wait untill the math is perfectly in line with with my max bet (or even that I have no max bet), then at this point aren't I very approximately matching my increase in advantage with an increase in bet?
For Example:
Tc=or-0, sit and wong cocktails
Tc+1 $10
Tc=2 $20....
Tc==20 $200 (now I'm at your suggested bet ramp of 1-20)
...and even another $10 for every TC unit rise after this
Thanks in advance.
> I thought 1-16 was typical
This is hotly debated. Some say 1-12. Others say 1-16. I've been using 1-20. Somewhere in that range is reasonable. You can probably win with 1-4, but it is going to be excruciatingly slow going to make any money...
> If my advantage is increasing linearly (o.k.
> .05%if as you say below)why are my bets not
> progressing the same? i.e. $25 from TC1
> -TC2, yet only $15 from TC2-TC3?
Don can answer this better than I can. The idea is that the quicker you ramp up your bets, the higher your long-term win rate. And the higher your variance and ROR. The bet ramp I gave was computed by CVCX, which was told to optimize bankroll growth assuming a starting BR of $3000. If you are willing to accept a higher ROR, ramp 'er up quicker, which increases your average bet and ROR. If you are more conservative, ramp slower, which reduces your average bet, your win rate, and your ROR..
The CVCX numbers I gave where what it computed as "optimal" for increasing your B/R without an unnecessarily high ROR...
> ...wouldn't my way lower this
> what???
> o.k. but you are still saying its is a
> roughly direct proportion increasing at .05
> % (I really thought Don suggested it was 1%)
> per unit raise in TC, so why is our bet
> structure not? I guess I am asking if there
> are some TC moves that are greater are more
> than the average .05% player advantage
> increase to justify a greater or lesser bet.
> And why are we capping the increase at a
> TC+5. Has my increase in advantage stopped
> here no matter how much more the TC rises.
I can't imagine Don saying +1 in the TC produces a +1% increase in player advantage. Every book I have read suggests about .5, which is based on the "removal effect" of what happens if you remove one low card from the deck..
> Did you set a contoll here to get maximum
> bid in by TC+5?
No. That is the point. I simply let it calculate the "optimal bet ramp" which is the ramp that balances ROR against BR growth... All I specified was the betting spread, which is a value you can adjust and instantly see the change to your hourly win rate and ROR value...
> IF, the TC is still rising at about .05%,
> and I am willing to wait untill the math is
> perfectly in line with with my max bet (or
> even that I have no max bet), then at this
> point aren't I very approximately matching
> my increase in advantage with an increase in
> bet?
> For Example:
> Tc=or-0, sit and wong cocktails
> Tc+1 $10
> Tc=2 $20....
> Tc==20 $200 (now I'm at your suggested bet
> ramp of 1-20)
The problem is you will almost _never_ get a TC of 20, so you will never get your max bet on the table. That's why the optimal curve is calculated the way it is. A TC of +4 or +5 is not _that_ common. But there you are playing with a 2% advantage over the house as opposed to the house having a .5% advantage over you.
This is why we suffer the huge variance we suffer. 2% is frightfully small with a big bet out. But the math says you will win long-term.
> ...and even another $10 for every TC unit
> rise after this
> Thanks in advance.
Hopefully you see the problem. If you _really_ want to understand this, buy CVCX or CVData from qfit. Now you can set your precise rules, your precise bankroll, and let it calculate your optimal bet ramp. If you don't like the optimal ramp, you can enter a custom ramp and it will show you things like ROR, hourly win rate, etc. for the optimal and your custom ramp, side by side, so that you can decide which is bets. Hint: You won't like any custom ramp as it will produce less $ per hour than your custom ramp, unless your custom ramp is overly aggressive which will increase the ROR unacceptably.
With the price of cvdata/cvcx, and the price of a decent computer today, it has to be the best money you can spend, even instead of taking one trip to the casino... I played 4 years guessing on bet ramp and so forth, trying to balance aggressiveness with stealth. Without knowing how it was influencing my "bottom line". Now I can find out trivially what varying from optimal does and whether it is worth the cover or not...
> The problem is you will almost _never_ get a
> TC of 20, so you will never get your max bet
> on the table. That's why the optimal curve
> is calculated the way it is. A TC of +4 or
> +5 is not _that_ common. But there you are
> playing with a 2% advantage over the house
> as opposed to the house having a .5%
> advantage over you.
> This is why we suffer the huge variance we
> suffer. 2% is frightfully small with a big
> bet out. But the math says you will win
> long-term.
First of all thank you for your responses and info. I understand that for the most part now, I have my maximum (practical) advantage at somewhere around TC=+5. I really only have a practical bank roll of $1000, so if the software CVCX (probably will buy) math suggests a max. bet of X at TC=+5. BUT if I get too a MUCH larger TC and am not willing to accept a larger ROR isn't some lesser increase (say..TC=10 bet1.5X) a smart bet...or am I still missing something.
I guess, given again the rules 6D DOA DAS S17 1 deck cut-off, $1000 Bankroll, I want to use a feaux max. bet. Reasonable?
> First of all thank you for your responses
> and info. I understand that for the most
> part now, I have my maximum (practical)
> advantage at somewhere around TC=+5. I
> really only have a practical bank roll of
> $1000, so if the software CVCX (probably
> will buy) math suggests a max. bet of X at
> TC=+5. BUT if I get too a MUCH larger TC and
> am not willing to accept a larger ROR isn't
> some lesser increase (say..TC=10 bet1.5X) a
> smart bet...or am I still missing something.
Hopefully someone else will jump in with better data than I have, but since we were chatting...
Think about this.. your advantage goes from something bad (< 0.0) at TC=0, to something good at TC >= 1. If you ignore high TC values which are very rare, the quicker you get your big bet out, the better, but with more variance. You could dump your big bet out at TC=1 which would maximize your hourly win rate, but also create a very large variance and ROR. The slower your ramp, the slower your ROR rises. And, of course, the slower your expected hourly win rate rises. That's why CVCX is so nice, you _know_ that the quicker you bet big, the more money you will make, CVCX will show you that and how much bigger your bankroll needs to be at that betting ramp to avoid going bust.
> I guess, given again the rules 6D DOA DAS
> S17 1 deck cut-off, $1000 Bankroll, I want
> to use a feaux max. bet. Reasonable?
New term to me so I really can't answer. Perhaps someone that knows the term can jump in. That is decent penetration for a 6d game, so it is playable for sure.
What difference does the penetration make as far as bet ramp goes?
I probably will get CVCX, but in the meantime any chance you can run a bet ramp for the above rules with $1000 bank roll? (also rule of rsa)
Thanks Rat Man
P.S. I also try to spread to 2 hands when count goes to a +2, and bet 75% on each. Is this wise with more than 1 player at table?
> What difference does the penetration make as
> far as bet ramp goes?
> I probably will get CVCX, but in the
> meantime any chance you can run a bet ramp
> for the above rules with $1000 bank roll?
> (also rule of rsa)
> Thanks Rat Man
> P.S. I also try to spread to 2 hands when
> count goes to a +2, and bet 75% on each. Is
> this wise with more than 1 player at table?
I'll have to fill in a couple of blanks. I'll try 1-12 for the spread.
for a BR of $1000, spreading 1-12, I get the following just looking at a canned sim in CVCX (one already run using hilo I18 + F4 (you didn't say full indices so I assume you are not using them all, I don't either).
pen of 4 decks, bet 5, 20, 40 and 60 at TC <=0, 1, 2 and >2
pen of 4.5 decks, bet 5, 15, 30, 50 and 60 at TC <=0, 1, 2, 3 and >3
pen of 5.0 decks, bet 5, 10, 25, 40, 50, 60 at TC <=0, 1, 2, 3, 4, >4
More importantly, for 5.0 pen, ROR is 49.8%!!, 4.5 is 59%, 4.0 is 66.8%. one in two chance of going bankrupt best case, 2 in 3 chances for the 4/6 penetration.
It is _amazing_ what the pen will do to you.
Books suggest spreading to multiple hands if there is another player at the table, not spreading if there is not. You can use CVCX to try 2 hands vs 1 hand to see what the best equal point is. For example, I go 1-8 in DD, or $5-$40 for one hand, or $5-2x25 for two hands. for the DD game I play, 1-8 and 1-2x5 are very close
in terms of risk/gain.
Oh My God............These ROR's make me feel like I'm just gambling!
> Oh My God............These ROR's make me
> feel like I'm just gambling!
The problem is 6d, spreading 1-12, with only 200 betting units available.6d shoes can be brutal anyway, and since they require a bigger spread (I personally use 1-20 on 6d, 1-12 is on the "slow end" of things) you can trash your BR in a heartbeat. You might do what I do and scout up reasonable DD games. You can use reduced spread and experience fewer wild swings.
If you can find good DD games of course...
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks