I have both BJA2 and BJA3
So I know the proper bets using hi low for various game conditions.
My question is as a halves player how would the bet ramps be different?
Is there an easy method to adjust the hi low bet ramps in BJA3 to the halves count?
thank you for any assistance
> I have both BJA2 and BJA3
> So I know the proper bets using hi low for various
> game conditions.
> My question is as a halves player how would the bet
> ramps be different?
Not very.
> Is there an easy method to adjust the hi low bet ramps
> in BJA3 to the halves count?
No.
> thank you for any assistance
Tell us exactly what game you play (pen, rules, etc.), what your bankroll is, what spread you want to use, acceptable ROR, and we'll give you the optimal unit and ramp.
Don
> Not very.
> No.
> Tell us exactly what game you play (pen, rules, etc.),
> what your bankroll is, what spread you want to use,
> acceptable ROR, and we'll give you the optimal unit
> and ramp.
> Don
Gosh, how nice
Let's try to keep it comparable to info in BJA3
Bankroll 10g
ROR 13.53 - kelly
games
h17 das
h17 das,ls
s17,das
4.5/6
true 2 and above floored
spreads 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
If time permits only one game is simmed then I would pick h17 das 4.5/6 1 to 3 spread, true 2 and above floored
thank you
> Gosh, how nice
We aim to please. :-)
> Let's try to keep it comparable to info in BJA3
> Bankroll 10g
> ROR 13.53 - kelly
OK.
> games
> h17 das
> h17 das,ls
> s17,das
> 4.5/6
> true 2 and above floored
> spreads 1-2, 1-3, 1-4
> If time permits only one game is simmed then I would
> pick h17 das 4.5/6 1 to 3 spread, true 2 and above
> floored
> thank you
Here's what I get:
For H17, DAS: Optimal entry for 1-2 is actually at +3. Unit is $125. You bet $250 at +6 and higher, but, obviously, this game is unplayable that way. Hourly win is $31.70.
With 1-3, it doesn't get much better: Still enter at +3, and bet $108. Bet $215 at +5 and $323 at +7. Win is $32.72.
With 1-4, enter at +3, with $95, then $190 at +4, $286 at +7 and $381 at +9 and higher (which never happens!). Win is $33.06. As you can see, by looking at the Hi-Lo charts in BJA3, for a game and approach like this, using Halves hardly matters.
For the next game (H17, DAS, LS):
1-2: Enter at +2, with $119. At +5, go to $238. Win is $47.20.
1-3: Enter at +2, with $100. At +4, go to $200, and then $300 at +6. Win is $50.27. I like this one!
1-4: Enter at +2 with $89. Go to $177 at +4, $266 at +5, and $354 at +7. Win is $51.70. Not worth it, to me. The 1-3 above looks perfect.
For the final game (S17, DAS):
1-2: Enter at +2 with $102. At +5, go to $206. Win is $36.84.
1-3: Enter at +2 with $89. Go to $179 at +4 and $268 at +6. Win is $38.94.
1-4: Enter at +2 with $80. Go to $160 at +4, $240 at +6 and $320 at +7. Win is $39.82.
Hope this helps.
Don
> We aim to please. :-)
> OK.
> Here's what I get:
> For H17, DAS: Optimal entry for 1-2 is actually at +3.
> Unit is $125. You bet $250 at +6 and higher, but,
> obviously, this game is unplayable that way. Hourly
> win is $31.70.
> With 1-3, it doesn't get much better: Still enter at
> +3, and bet $108. Bet $215 at +5 and $323 at +7. Win
> is $32.72.
> With 1-4, enter at +3, with $95, then $190 at +4, $286
> at +7 and $381 at +9 and higher (which never
> happens!). Win is $33.06. As you can see, by looking
> at the Hi-Lo charts in BJA3, for a game and approach
> like this, using Halves hardly matters.
> For the next game (H17, DAS, LS):
> 1-2: Enter at +2, with $119. At +5, go to $238. Win is
> $47.20.
> 1-3: Enter at +2, with $100. At +4, go to $200, and
> then $300 at +6. Win is $50.27. I like this one!
> 1-4: Enter at +2 with $89. Go to $177 at +4, $266 at
> +5, and $354 at +7. Win is $51.70. Not worth it, to
> me. The 1-3 above looks perfect.
> For the final game (S17, DAS):
> 1-2: Enter at +2 with $102. At +5, go to $206. Win is
> $36.84.
> 1-3: Enter at +2 with $89. Go to $179 at +4 and $268
> at +6. Win is $38.94.
> 1-4: Enter at +2 with $80. Go to $160 at +4, $240 at
> +6 and $320 at +7. Win is $39.82.
> Hope this helps.
> Don
Yes, thank you very much
much more then I expected
What I have done in the past is just use your Hi Low charts for betting and just figured I was underbetting maybe 5% to 10% and underbetting is not a bad thing, especially since I tend to play full fractional kelly.
What I gathered from this information is that to get the value of a higher level count you really need to bet with it. It appears the better the game rules and the higher the TC the more Halves starts to show its power?
In general the worse the game the more you will need to spread?
The power of a higher level count comes from?
1. Identifying more advantages?
2. Lower variance for its advantages?
3. Knowing the advantages and then betting into them?
Did I miss any and how would you rank them in importance?
Thanks again
> Yes, thank you very much
> much more then I expected
Your lucky day! :-)
> What I have done in the past is just use your Hi Low
> charts for betting and just figured I was underbetting
> maybe 5% to 10% and underbetting is not a bad thing,
> especially since I tend to play full fractional kelly.
OK, understood. Just not optimal.
> What I gathered from this information is that to get
> the value of a higher level count you really need to
> bet with it. It appears the better the game rules and
> the higher the TC the more Halves starts to show its
> power?
Right. But, since the BC of Halves is so outstanding, the real power is demonstrated in games where the betting is considerably more important than the play variations, i.e., shoe games with wide spreads.
> In general the worse the game the more you will need
> to spread?
Sure.
> The power of a higher level count comes from?
Depends on the type of count, whether ace-reckoned or not.
> 1. Identifying more advantages?
Yes, since it reckons more ranks than the simpler counts and fine-tunes among them more accurately.
> 2. Lower variance for its advantages?
Probably not crucial.
> 3. Knowing the advantages and then betting into them?
Similar to #1.
> Did I miss any and how would you rank them in
> importance?
The principle is fairly simple: Each card has a precise EOR (effect of removal) from the pack. Every point count attempts to approximate, within reason, the relative importance of the ranks to one another. The more point values that you have at your disposal (higher than level-1), to perform those estimates, the more accuracy you can obtain.
What I've always found to be somewhat amazing is how wonderful a job Hi-Lo does with BC (97%), given that it is a level-1 system that counts three different cards as zero. Of course, its PE could be better.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks