Handling multiple hands in advanced betting strategy tables.

**Skull** · 05-24-2014, 08:53 PM

Hey Norm!

Let's assume the 6 lines below are an excerpt of an advanced betting table in CVData or CVBJ for a given TC.

1 won 2
1 lost 1
2 won 2x2
2 lost 2x1
4 won 4
4 lost 2x2

Let's imagine I just bet 2 units. If I lost, I spread to 2 hands of 1 unit. Now if I push, CVBJ tells me to make 1 bet of 2 units instead of repeating my 2x1 bet. Since I assume CVData does the same, that's not exactly the behavior I would expect. Is that a way to change that?

Now, let's imagine I bet 2 units and won. I spread to 2 hands of 2 units (total of 4). If I win, according to the bet ramp, I have to drop one hand and bet 4 units on 1 hand. However, I want to parlay my bets and bet the 2 hands of 4 units I have on the table. In order to do so, I should change the fifth line above to

4 won 2x4

BUT I don't want to do that because, for instance, another portion of the table may tell me to decrease my bet to 4 units after losing a 8-unit bet and I DON'T want to spread to 2 hands of 4 units in the case I win this 4-unit single-hand bet; I just want to bet 1 hand of 4 units!

I guess the my main problem is to understand when CVData and CVBJ distinguish between a 2x2-unit bet from a 4-unit bet (or 3x3 from 9, etc...) and when it does not.

I know this is confusing, so I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

Thank you very much in advance.

Best!

**Norm** · 05-25-2014, 03:34 AM

In the first example, what is Tie set to in the Last Hand Status? It should be set to Last Bet.

CV doesn't distinguish in the betting strat between 1x2 and 2x1 for the previous hand bet when indexing into this table. The table would be too confusing. Note: it may also piss off some dealers if you constantly switch between numbers of hands. I don't care about pissing off other players. But, doesn't pay to piss off the dealer.

**Skull** · 05-25-2014, 04:54 AM

Hey Norm! Thanks for the reply!

Yes, Tie is set to Last Bet as default. But I guess the behavior I mentioned is explained by the last part of your answer. Well, I will try to think of a workaround...

Norm, why exactly does switching between number of hands piss off some dealers? I definitely don't want to do bother them, but why is that?

Thanks!

**Norm** · 05-25-2014, 05:14 AM

I could be wrong. But, if the number of hands changes too often, it can throw off their rhythm and increase errors. It can also slow the game if you are at third base.

Nothing wrong with changing number of hands now and then. There was a style of cover I used which called for changing number of hands often, particularly after doubles and splits. One problem with shoe games is you flat bet for long periods and then suddenly start increasing your bets when you finally get a decent count. A bit of a giveaway that you're counting. So, with a neutral count, I switched the number of hands, which allowed me to change the bet size (multiple hands, lower bet per hand) during neutral counts so when a decent count came, it didn't look odd for me to start playing multiple hands with larger bets. But, it seemed to mess up some dealers.

**Skull** · 05-25-2014, 05:58 AM

Hey Norm!

That's EXACTLY what I was trying to emulate in CV.
I think that if I create something like the lines below, I will induce a "loop" in CV in a way that it will always be correct and restrict the spreading to two hands to a small chunk of the table.

1 won 2
1 lost 1
2 won 2x2
2 lost 2x1
4 won 2x2
4 lost 2x1

Now, if TC increases and, for instance, I just won a 4 unit bet (2x2), then it will switch to one hand of, possibly, 4 units, what seems counter-intuitive, but maybe that's even better this way...

While using CVBJ, I can override the bet ramp at will, so that I am not too much robotic in my betting; but my main concern is providing a bet ramp to CVData that will be close enough to my actual play.

But I think I am finding just the way to do that.

Thanks a lot Norm!