Hollywood: Question?

[Hollywood]

Using standard AC conditions, 6 deck DOA, DAS split 3 times etc.

I have been spreading out 1 to 12, with 12 being my max bet.

As of late I have been playing 2 hands and spreading out both 12 times each.

Should I be increasing that number, or is 12 adequate for the ac conditions as stated above.

Naturally this is all using KO with the I18.

Thank you,

Hollywood

[Don Schlesinger]

> Using standard AC conditions, 6 deck DOA,
> DAS split 3 times etc.

> I have been spreading out 1 to 12, with 12
> being my max bet.

On one hand.

> As of late I have been playing 2 hands and
> spreading out both 12 times each.

So, now, two hands of 12, which is more risk.

> Should I be increasing that number, or is 12
> adequate for the ac conditions as stated
> above.

Depends on what your goal is. The equivalent in risk of ruin to one hand of 12 is two hands of 8.75, so two hands of 9 would be slightly more risky. For this same risk as the one-hand play, you now get 50% more profits (on the top bets only), because you're betting 18 instead of 12 (there is a slight card-eating effect, however, which varies with the number of players at the table).

If you spread to two hands of 12, you will be increasing your ROR by even more, and your win rate, as well.

So, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish, but, theoretically, two hands of 12 requires more bank than one hand of 12, while two hands of 9 does not.

Don

[Hollywood]

> On one hand.

> So, now, two hands of 12, which is more
> risk.

> Depends on what your goal is. The equivalent
> in risk of ruin to one hand of 12 is two
> hands of 8.75, so two hands of 9 would be
> slightly more risky. For this same risk as
> the one-hand play, you now get 50% more
> profits (on the top bets only), because
> you're betting 18 instead of 12 (there is a
> slight card-eating effect, however, which
> varies with the number of players at the
> table).

> If you spread to two hands of 12, you will
> be increasing your ROR by even more, and
> your win rate, as well.

> So, it depends on what you're trying to
> accomplish, but, theoretically, two hands of
> 12 requires more bank than one hand of 12,
> while two hands of 9 does not.

> Don

Hi Don:

Thank you for the quick response.

Maybe I did not properly put my question.

I have zero concern with risk of ruin.

I was trying to understand if my bet spread was adequate to beat the 6 deck game or if I should be increasing it.

I have been seeing posts over the last several months where players are saying they are spreading out 15 and 20 times.

I have been finding it difficult to spread out that far playing blacks and purples.

So I guess what I was asking is if I can continue to beat them using my spread or if i'm being lucky?

Hollywood

[The Prince]

> Hi Don:

> Thank you for the quick response.

> Maybe I did not properly put my question.

> I have zero concern with risk of ruin.

> I was trying to understand if my bet spread
> was adequate to beat the 6 deck game or if I
> should be increasing it.

> I have been seeing posts over the last
> several months where players are saying they
> are spreading out 15 and 20 times.

> I have been finding it difficult to spread
> out that far playing blacks and purples.

> So I guess what I was asking is if I can
> continue to beat them using my spread or if
> i'm being lucky?

> Hollywood

I know you're waiting for an answer from Don, but I though I'd throw in my two cents worth.

From everything I've ever read and heard, 12 units should be adequate to beat the six deck game playing only one hand. Depending on the game your advantage will only be around .6 ot .7 percent, which isn't very desirable, but such is the poor returns of a six deck game.

Of course, all the above applies to the play all approach. If you're back-counting, 1-12 is more than enough. Plus, you're playing two hands, which will of course bring in more money than one hand.

Hope I could be of help.

The Prince

[Don Schlesinger]

> Thank you for the quick response.
> Maybe I did not properly put my question.
> I have zero concern with risk of ruin.

That's a good problem to have! :-)

> I was trying to understand if my bet spread
> was adequate to beat the 6 deck game or if I
> should be increasing it.

Simple. The bigger the spread, the better. So, the right spread (since risk doesn't matter) is the largest one you can get away with and still be welcome back the next time. If you need numbers, the best way is to specify your hourly "requirements," and then we can determine the size of the spread necessary to achieve the result.

> I have been seeing posts over the last
> several months where players are saying they
> are spreading out 15 and 20 times.

> I have been finding it difficult to spread
> out that far playing blacks and purples.

That's the point. What's good for SCORE and what you can get away with are two very different creatures.

> So I guess what I was asking is if I can
> continue to beat them using my spread or if
> i'm being lucky?

If you play all, a 1-12 spread is not very good. Just check the Chapter 10 charts in BJA3 -- p. 236, Table 10.43, for A.C., for example. The unit sizes are given there along with the hourly win rates. Divide the unit into your unit ($100) and multiply by the win rate. Not enough? Then, you have to spread more.

Don

[Parker]

> Hi Don:

> Thank you for the quick response.

> Maybe I did not properly put my question.

> I have zero concern with risk of ruin.

> I was trying to understand if my bet spread
> was adequate to beat the 6 deck game or if I
> should be increasing it.

> I have been seeing posts over the last
> several months where players are saying they
> are spreading out 15 and 20 times.

> I have been finding it difficult to spread
> out that far playing blacks and purples.

> So I guess what I was asking is if I can
> continue to beat them using my spread or if
> i'm being lucky?

It's not just luck. :-)

Quickly plugging in a 1-12 black spread into BJRM with the typical AC game (6D, S17, DAS, 5/6 pen) using KO, I get $167/100 hands. Double that if you're playing two hands.

So, multiply your yours played by $167 (or $334 for when you're playing two hands) and see where you should be at. 100 hands/hour is probably optimistic, so if your actual win is above the total you get, then some of it is indeed due to positive variance ("luck," if you must).

If you wanted to increase that, you could try dropping to one hand when you're playing two hands and the count tanks. This would increase your effective spread to about 1-16.

Of course, finding creative ways to leave the table when the count tanks is a great way to increase your effective spread, even if you can only do it on an occasional basis.

Bottom line: A 1-12 spread will definitely beat the AC six deck game.

[Hollywood]

> It's not just luck. :-)

> Quickly plugging in a 1-12 black spread into
> BJRM with the typical AC game (6D, S17, DAS,
> 5/6 pen) using KO, I get $167/100 hands.
> Double that if you're playing two hands.

> So, multiply your yours played by $167 (or
> $334 for when you're playing two hands) and
> see where you should be at. 100 hands/hour
> is probably optimistic, so if your actual
> win is above the total you get, then some of
> it is indeed due to positive variance
> ("luck," if you must).

> If you wanted to increase that, you could
> try dropping to one hand when you're playing
> two hands and the count tanks. This would
> increase your effective spread to about
> 1-16.

> Of course, finding creative ways to leave
> the table when the count tanks is a great
> way to increase your effective spread, even
> if you can only do it on an occasional
> basis.

> Bottom line: A 1-12 spread will definitely
> beat the AC six deck game.

As usual I got my answer.

Best regards,

Hollywood