Does sitting out and re-entering at positive counts increase bet spread?

[seriousplayer]

If I start a shoe at a fresh shuffle and play until the TC drop to less than or equal to -1 then sit out. Re-enter after the TC is advantageous. Does doing that increase my average bet spread? For example, suppose I play at a $10 minimum table spreading 1-10 from $10-$100. By sitting out and re-entering does it make my 1-10 average bet spread 1-20?

[Three]

Your spread is infinite. By the amount of time until you get backed off is finite.

[ZenKinG]

Why would it increase your bet spread if you're not betting when you sit out.

BET SPREAD. Read that 10x slowly. A spread that requires you to 'bet'

Do you think before you write?

[bigplayer]

Why would it increase your bet spread if you're not betting when you sit out.

Your spread is based on your average lowest bet when you don't have an advantage. If the your lowest bet (when you play) is $10 and you sit out half of the negative counts betting $0 then your average low bet is around $5. That doubles your effective spread. An ancillary benefit is that the pit has half of the opportunities to observe you making your lowest possible wager. Really I think it's all semantics. Either the spread is infinite, 1-20, or 1-10 with table exits...either way it's all the same thing.

Rather than sit out and try to re-enter it's better to just try to change tables and enter another fresh shoe. Once I give up on a shoe I just write it off and wait until the shuffle, usually in the bathroom, but far better to just bop to another pit and start over.

[seriousplayer]

Why would it increase your bet spread if you're not betting when you sit out.

BET SPREAD. Read that 10x slowly. A spread that requires you to 'bet'

Do you think before you write?

Why? because I am playing half of the time in negative counts. If you know your math and think about it. Suppose you are playing 100 hands a shoe and you are only betting half of the time with minimum bet. You take the average it will come out to be $5 and not $10 average bet since half of the time you are making 0 bets.

Do you think when you write??? I think you have a reading problem I did mention average bet spread on my post.

[DSchles]

If I start a shoe at a fresh shuffle and play until the TC drop to greater than or equal to -1 then sit out. Re-enter after the TC is advantageous. Does doing that increase my average bet spread? For example, suppose I play at a $10 minimum table spreading 1-10 from $10-$100. By sitting out and re-entering does it make my 1-10 average bet spread 1-20?

First, where you wrote "greater than or equal to -1," above, you meant "less than or equal to -1." Next, although you're entitled to ask any question you like, the question isn't really very important. What your effective spread is doesn't really matter; what matters is how much you can win per hour, given a certain bankroll and the table limits.

In fact, your average minimum bet, under your scenario, is not the simple arithmetic average ($5) of $10 and zero, because the frequencies of the two bets are not the same. You would make the $10 minimum bet about 73% of the time, for a typical 4.5/6 game. 27% of the time, you would be betting higher. If you sit out true counts of -1 and below, they occur 27.7% of the time, so your average minimum bet drops, but to $6.22, not $5. Average spread, if that had any real importance, or significance, which it doesn't, might be around 1-16.

What does matter is how much sitting out negative counts can increase your hourly win. If you simply put a zero everywhere that you would have put a $10 bet, except at TC = 0, you save the losses on those bets, and your hourly win increases about 35%. But, you can do better, betting optimally for that scheme. Although you can't increase your top bet, sitting out the bad counts allows you to bet more at the positive counts, where the top bet isn't yet reached. And, it might allow you to make that top bet ($100) sooner. So, you win even more.

Bottom line: in my opinion, the concept is important, but you asked the wrong question.

Don

[seriousplayer]

First, where you wrote "greater than or equal to -1," above, you meant "less than or equal to -1." Next, although you're entitled to ask any question you like, the question isn't really very important. What your effective spread is doesn't really matter; what matters is how much you can win per hour, given a certain bankroll and the table limits.

In fact, your average minimum bet, under your scenario, is not the simple arithmetic average ($5) of $10 and zero, because the frequencies of the two bets are not the same. You would make the $10 minimum bet about 73% of the time, for a typical 4.5/6 game. 27% of the time, you would be betting higher. If you sit out true counts of -1 and below, they occur 27.7% of the time, so your average minimum bet drops, but to $6.22, not $5. Average spread, if that had any real importance, or significance, which it doesn't, might be around 1-16.

What does matter is how much sitting out negative counts can increase your hourly win. If you simply put a zero everywhere that you would have put a $10 bet, except at TC = 0, you save the losses on those bets, and your hourly win increases about 35%. But, you can do better, betting optimally for that scheme. Although you can't increase your top bet, sitting out the bad counts allows you to bet more at the positive counts, where the top bet isn't yet reached. And, it might allow you to make that top bet ($100) sooner. So, you win even more.

Bottom line: in my opinion, the concept is important, but you asked the wrong question.

Don

Don,

Thank you for the feedback on my question. I fixed "greater than or equal to -1" to "less than or equal to -1". I also edited the question so it makes clear what I am asking.