Different Betting for + or -

[CEO1]

Is it possible to run simulations on using different Betting strategies for when the deck is in a negative count vs those betting strategies used on a positive count. For example if you have a very mild progression in negative based on winning last hand say 1-2 or 1-3 vs a positive progression of 1-12 or something like that. Just find that when we are counting we try to show we are playing some type of progression system, and that all get lost with single bet after single bet when deck is negative.

Would a mild progression system in the negative allow you to get away with more on the positive. Pit/EITS would have even more confirmation you are just a basic strategy player using progression.

Or..would this all just be TOO costly. I am not concerned with the increase in variance here or risk of ruin effect, only potential help in cover.

Thanks

[Freightman]

Sorry I meant + or - on Title (don't see how to edit Title)

Is it possible to run simulations on using different Betting strategies for when the deck is in a negative count vs those betting strategies used on a positive count. For example if you have a very mild progression in negative based on winning last hand say 1-2 or 1-3 vs a positive progression of 1-12 or something like that. Just find that when we are counting we try to show we are playing some type of progression system, and that all get lost with single bet after single bet when deck is negative.

Would a mild progression system in the negative allow you to get away with more on the positive. Pit/EITS would have even more confirmation you are just a basic strategy player using progression.

Or..would this all just be TOO costly. I am not concerned with the increase in variance here or risk of ruin effect, only potential help in cover.

Thanks

Unless you have very specific info which would justify additional units in an increasing negative count (and those situations do arise) the approach you are describing is really to costly. I think you would be better off with, let's say, a 2 x minimum bet off the top, and maintaining till you lose a bet or 2.

The other thing you can do is to maintain a multi unit bet as you continue to win, as the count drops, decreasing your unit(s) after a loss. For this approach to work, you need to know the ins and outs of opposition betting, that the timing is correct, as well as having a bankroll suitably strong for the purpose.

Neither approach is safe on a shoestring bankroll.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

would this all just be TOO costly. I am not concerned with the increase in variance here or risk of ruin effect, only potential help in cover.

All progressive betting schemes are "too costly" (purposeful understatement).
They all fail in the long-run. In reference to "cover", there is no need for cover
play. Indeed, you want to "advertise" your progression, as it will be very much
welcomed by the casino.

[bigplayer]

Yes, it's possible to run a simulation, that's what CVData is good for. you can used the Advanced Betting Strategy to create as complex a betting scheme as you would care to create and simulate it.

[CEO1]

Thank you for both for your response. BP I will take your comment as a challenge, I have only had CVData for a week or so, it is not obvious yet to me how to set this up. Below see my Advanced Sheet 1-10 Betting Schedule.

I just don't see how I would add to this where in a minus deck I progress from 1 to 3 if I parlay wins, and always go back to 1 if I lose, whenever the count is in a minus deck, regardless of how minus.

Betting Schedule 1-10 with cover.jpg


.

[Dog Hand]

CEO1,

The betting scheme you posted does NOT contain a progression for TC at 0 and below: instead, it says to repeat the previous bet after a win, and drop to a bet of 1 after a loss.

If you actually want a 1:3 progression for TC's of 0 & below, you should change the "Last Bet 1/won/TC <=0" box from 1 to 2, and then change the "Last Bet 2/won/TC <=0" box from 2 to 3. This will create a new "Last Bet 3" row. In that "won/TC <=0" box, input a 3; in the "lost/TC <=0" box, input a 1.

With these changes, for negative (and neutral) TC's, you'll play a 1:3 positive progression.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[CEO1]

Thank you Dog Hand for your help. Yes, I realized my chart did not yet include 1:3 progression, I needed a hint on how to do that, and you gave that to me, so thank you! As predicted, it was just way too expensive for such a progression into the negative. The simulation programs have been very informative to me so far. I am spreading 1-5 DD and 1-12 6D using black chips in real casino play, using many of the "cover techniques" described on the check boxes. Although I have not yet been backed off, I can see how much this "cover" is costing me in EV. It's a lot...but not sure what to do about it since I want longevity. Thanks again.