Alternating Bankrolls

[Bodarc]

I would think this would blow the eye and PB's out of the water. Has anyone used this method? If it was combined with advanced strategy such as Ace S, wouldn't it seem absolutely crazy to anyone watching?

[Jabberwocky]

Is this innuendo for Dynamic Blackjack?

[Bodarc]

Well not innuendo Jabber but it was included in that title as a cover play. Of course I don't have the ebook but there is a discussion of it here:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...r-Richard-Reid

[Three]

It would really increase overall variance but each BR would be about normal independently. You would look like some kind of press and pull progressive if winning and a a loss chaser when losing. Odd systems for counting often get you quickly tagged as a counting idiot that will be a cash cow or just an idiot. I have used atypical counting techniques a lot. Sometimes your moves resemble traditional counters and you can catch heat but more often your moves just make them think you don't know what you are doing. HILO is such an industry standard that the more your approach differs from HILO the more often they think your an idiot.

You actually need enough money to have 2 separate BRs to make this work. Either BR can go bust while the other is kicking ass. AS KJ can testify to, playing different spreads will cause large swings to a single BR.

[muckz]

You would have to be OK with having to take 2x as long in playtime to reach the individual BR's N0's, two BR's with large differences eg. 60k/30k, and be 100% sure that this method will allow you to give more money in the long run than betting off a single BR of 90k with typical cover/no cover.

[Bodarc]

I wish I had the article. Of course you'd only do this in a high heat area muckz where straight betting of a 90K BR would force you into playing short sessions, so if you could play two or three times as long by looking like a chaser or something, you'd save all of that down time moving to different locations. You'd be starting 1/2 of your shoes off at high bets and everyone knows counters don't do that.

[RS]

I suggested this before but everyone called me an idiot....or maybe I am an idiot?

But basically you do something like alternate between a 5-40 spread and a 15-120 spread every hand...yes?

[Shadowless]

Have not personally tried it, but I don't think it would fool anyone watching, or at least not for long.
It all boils down to how much is bet when the count is positive than when it's negative.
If alternating between $100 and $500 units, for example, and the four-figure bets only occur on positive counts, no sharp person watching would be fooled.

I'm sure players could come up with creative ways to make it work for awhile. Maybe not always alternating after every other hand and playing one shoe with each unit instead, or playing two rounds at each unit before alternating, etc.

[Three]

Alternating following a win or loss may look the most ploppy like. You want them to see a reason for your bet changes.
Or alternating in opposition to the count changes to allow them to eliminate the reason you don't want them considering.

[Stealth]

Actually have a copy of the book and spent lots of time with the Analyze Play section on how to evaluate team players performance.

Yes, Dynamic Betting is crazy to watch. Requires a somewhat larger bankroll due to increased variance.

At times, will make you look like you lowered your bet when the count went up and vice versa. Beautiful.

Requires player to pick method by which to alternate. For example, bet ramp A on dealer red up cards and ramp B on black cards or even cards and odd cards or win/loss any other triggers you might think of. Some triggers can cause an imbalance in bet distribution between the two . Plan your attack.

Also, some of the back and forth's can cause you to make a large jump in bet size but overall you will not look like a counter.

Study, design, practice then implement. Highly recommend for lone wolfs with bankroll large enough to support.

You can do the same thing with two team players, I bet A you bet B then we switch. Very successfully used.

[Bodarc]

Hi Stealth

Actually, that is how I ran across the alternating bets. I was "doing homework" and drawing XmR charts along with Norm's examples in Modern Blackjack. I was then googling/researching and ran across your comments on the thread I gave above and knew you had done a good bit of work with it.

Would you mind if I message you about it?

[KJ]

Places that rely on human evaluation, yeah, you may confuse them for a while. But, more and more locations use some sort of computer analysis as part of their evaluation process and this trend is only likely to increase. Computer analysis is still going to show higher average wagers in the higher counts than neutral counts.

Let's take a real extreme scenario of two 1-12 spreads, $5-60 and $100-1200. For any human watching this would be real confusing as your lowest wager on the higher spread would be nearly twice that of the max wager on your lower spread. But a computer analysis, would find that the average wager during neutral counts was $52.50 and the average wager during high counts (max bet) would be $630, the same 1-12 spread.

So in those cases, I am not sure this technique will buy you all that much...perhaps just a little more time. But what you would assure is some crazy ass variance.

In this day and age of technology, and advances are only going to continue, I think players need to move away from the idea of trying to 'trick' and more towards limiting info shown. Things like short sessions where you exit before a determination can be made.

[Norm]

I think the point is to avoid computer analysis in the first place by seemingly betting so oddly that no one flags you for analysis.