Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: artguy: opening bet and follow-up

  1. #1
    artguy
    Guest

    artguy: opening bet and follow-up


    I implemented your suggestion in "Attack" this weekend to open with a two unit bet in a 2dk game (s17, das). This posed several problems with doubles and following bets when the TC did not justify the bet.

    First of all, in 14 hours of play I had only a few TC-2's to support a double from 2 to 4 units. Since Playing 2 units was already equivalent to a doubled bet, I generally avoided the double against everything but dealer stiffs. Is this playing to carefull at the top of the shoe? Do you have an indice for when to double the first bet.

    Secondly, when I won the opening bet I was generally faced with the issue of whether to let it ride or chip down. Typically the TC would drop into negative when I won with high cards. What to do...what to do! Again I generally chipped down to one unit when the TC went negative and let it ride otherwise. Is there any rule of thumb or insight you can pass on to me for this play?

    Ps. I did win this weekend armed with all my new information. It was especially helpful to know waht to do with the A-7. Thanks!

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: opening bet and follow-up


    If a double presents itself, I usually take it, even though I've bet more off the top of the shoe. To be more cuatious, you might employ all risk-averse indices for doubling, which might stop you (legitimately!) from making the double for more money than you may be comfortable with.

    Again, there are no "rules" for these things, just what seems reasonable to you at the moment. Camouflage is a subjective thing. No two people do it exactly the same, and some don't do it at all!

    Good luck to you!

    Don

  3. #3
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: But, Don ...

    I think he's asking something slightly different:

    "I generally avoided the double against everything but dealer stiffs."

    If he's not doubling, eg. 11 v 7, 8, or 9 just because he placed a large bet off the top, he's losing a chunk of EV! You need those doubles to make up for the inevitable lousy hands, which will also have "super-sized" bets. Once the hand is dealt, the whole EV|risk picture changes.

    ETF

  4. #4
    artguy
    Guest

    artguy: Re: But, ET Fan


    Have I missed a step here or is there something wrong with this picture? Everything I have read says to bet the odds and when you go beyond them, you are "gambling" and taking unnecessary risk. To risk a doubled bet of 4 units on a TC of -1 instead of 2 units is questionable but to take the risk to make up for other lost big bets down the way is vary scary. There must be something I am missing here...

    What I actually surmise is that at the top of the shoe the TC is not very reflective of what cards are coming up next as compared to being in the second dk. This could mean that it is a crap-shoot at the top regardless of what the TC is and the risk might be 50/50 whether you win or lose. Notwithstanding my well-honed intuitions, I would like to be put straight on this even if you have to use "Occam's razor" to do the job. Thanks!

  5. #5
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: Re: But, ET Fan

    What I think you're missing is this: once the hand is dealt you have a far far better idea of your advantage than what you had looking at the TC. Example: Top of the deck, so TC = 0. I place a double unit bet. I'm dealt 5,6 v the dealers 8. Looking good, count is going UP! Unfortunately, I catch a glimpse of two other player's hands: one BJ and a TT. Oh well, TC is now slightly below -2. Guess what? I WISH I HAD PLACED A MAXIMUM BET. Even with the TC = -2, I still have ~+30% edge on this hand! YES, let me double! I'll triple or quadruple if they let me!

    Ok, it's not quite so clear cut, because there's a positive EV for hitting as well. But it has to be a very close call before the risk averse play is to hit. The index for doubling 11 v 8 is -6 (SD S17), so I believe you'd have to be at about -5 for the risk aversion to dominate your decision.

    I had similar questions to yours long ago, and did some calculations, and that was my general conclusion. Don was kind enough, years ago, to send me a paper by Joel Friedman (if I could only find it!) with data on risk averse indices that allows precise answers to questions like this.

    ETF

  6. #6
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: But, ET Fan


    Well, I always have my copy at arm's length and can reach it in a jiffy. What you've written above may be true, but you have to be careful not to generalize. For example, for 11 v. 9, with a 4% bet out, Joel tells us not to double at TCs below -0.9.

    So, these decisions to "double at any cost" have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

    Don

  7. #7
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: I gotta get organized ...

    4% is just about my max bet (and nobody has accused me of timid betting), in a 2d game (artguy's original hypo), which would be about ten units (not 2 "off the top"). And TC = -.9 is only 3.1 from Wong's index for this play.

    But I take your point. Case-by-case. I'm sure 11 v T would be even more sensitive.

    ;-)
    ETF

  8. #8
    artguy
    Guest

    artguy: Re: I gotta get organized ...


    Thankyou for your insights (and Don). I would be interested in reading Joel's paper on risk averse play if you can point me in the right direction. What is interesting to me is that the indice will be different for doubling if I am overbet at 2units. Exactly what that is would give me more confidence in "tilting at the windmill".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.