Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: SP21/Pontoon Bet Spread Sizing?

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    SP21/Pontoon Bet Spread Sizing?

    Why is it that the consensus for these two blackjack variants calls for massive bet spreads?

    I understand that 8D blackjack games for example, typically require a larger spread of at least 1-16+ when taking a play-all approach to overcome the increase of negative expectation hands. But I've read in various places that 8D SP21 requires a spread of at LEAST 1-20+, sometimes even as high as 1-40, when using play-all to pull a reasonable profit. Its SD is slightly lower than traditional blackjack too. Wouldnt its various bonus multi-card payouts somewhat negate initially negative expectation hands somewhat too? You're more likely to pull 2-6 and hit 19-21, as is the dealer, but they're not getting paid out 3:2, 2:1 or 3:1. Plus you have the advantage of being instantly paid out when you do. Surely this must offset the need for using a huge spread somehow?

    Anyway, I brought this up for my specific case. I'm using a wong out point of -1.5/-2 TC on 8D H17 Pontoon. The HE is .40%. Whereas blackjack is around .58%. Why would I need to use a 1-16 bet spread even when I'm wonging out of most negative shoes? Obviously the return of using higher spreads with wong out increases profitability dramatically, but my BR isnt overly large currently and I need to balance EV with my calculated RoR. Surely using either a 1-10 spread, or 1-12 spread would suffice when wonging out at -2 TC in this case?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    if your bankroll can't sustain a large spread then use a smaller spread

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jabberwocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Agharta
    Posts
    1,308


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Meistro123 View Post
    if your bankroll can't sustain a large spread then use a smaller spread

    Sound advice ONLY if you are willing to Wong out.

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    These three points will explain it to you:


    • Your game is far more volatile than blackjack.
    • It is commonplace to suffer "losing streaks."
    • The dealer's bust percentages are rather low.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sound advice ONLY if you are willing to Wong out.
    Even if you were to play all it would make no sense to over bet your bankroll in the name of playing with a large spread.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I guess my actual question is: is a 1-10/12 spread with wong out at -2 enough to "beat" this game?

    I use "beat" very loosely, as I'm aware of the fact that such a spread isn't going to generate enormous amounts of EV p/hr. However, I have a period of time in the near future where this can be overcome by the volume of hands I'll be able to play (1 month of annual leave coming up, plenty of spare time to burn). Heat shouldn't be an issue. My goal at the moment is just to build my BR up so I can lower my RoR, and hopefully build it to a point where I can place larger bets with lower risk.

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushie View Post
    " ... is a 1-10/12 spread with wong out at -2 enough to "beat" this game?"
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 06-16-2017 at 10:42 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    13,616


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    These variants are very very nonlinear. This makes simple counts really inaccurate requiring a large spread and causing extreme variance that few can stomach. By getting into really creative counting techniques you can beat the game with a smaller spread than it takes for BJ. You need to understand how to take advantage of the nonlinearity of these variants by using creative counting techniques that allow you to focus on the bizarre effects that all the crazy rules that compensate for a lack of rules. Playing strategy is at least as important as betting strategy. I use around 500 indices and almost eliminate the HE when flat betting. You have to understand that there isn't just an index for say 15v3 and a few global adjustments. There is an index for non-bonus draw 2 card 14v2, 3 card 14v2, 4card 14v2, 5 card 14v2, 6+ card 14v2, 6,8 unsuited 14v2, 6,8 suited 14v2, spaded 14v2, splitting 7,7v2, and another index for un-split 7,7v2. For surrender there are indices for each bonus draw and non-bonus draw hand for a hand total.

    Then for plays that are ten density based plays you can adjust for neutral cards on the table with a side count adjustment for non-tens. It is like you started side counting them that round. In the long run a hand that contained 2 neutral cards would have a different index than a hand with no neutral cards. That is because the index would reflect a 2 card deficit of neutral non-tens. Like an insurance adjustment with an A side count for an ace neutral count. The index might be different by one or 2 TC but if you use a side count adjustment for neutral cards on the table it would affect more hands and be more accurate than a composition dependent index for a 2 neutral card hand. The latter would average over the entire shoe a 1 TC difference but if you used the side count idea to adjust the RC for the general index it would move the index 0 to 5 TC increments depending on how many decks are unseen and maybe even more depending on what count you use. Like I said you can use the adjustment as a side count adjustment for every neutral card on the table versus the expected neutral cards for the number of exposed cards. In the long run the adjustment will be much more accurate than playing without it despite being a lot different than if you side counted the ranks during the shoe. You are just using all the information you have available. Just think of it as having started side counting at the beginning of each round.

    The more accurate your playing decisions the less of a spread you need to beat the game. Everything works together. Like if you have a bet for a high TC. It is rarely reached early in the shoe. The optimal bet is based the average of all instances you would make the bet. This is heavily weighted with counts from deep in the shoe because that is almost always when you see that high, rare TC. The floating advantage is much bigger in the variants and starts in the middle of the shoe. So the true optimal bet if you reach that TC early in the shoe would slightly less since the bins average is so heavily weighted by situations with a big floating advantage that you don't have early in the shoe. So if you are in that betting situation early in the shoe and are in the lower half of the bin you should demote your bet to the next lower betting bin. Very late in the shoe you would promote a bet close to the cusp of the next higher betting bin for the same reason. You aren't arbitrarily changing bets here. You are using what you know about the game to fine tune betting mistakes that your understanding of the game and how your bets are derived by the simulator says are built into your ramp by betting them more accurately. If you know you are missing an opportunity to bet more accurately in order to take advantage of certain rules then you invent a counting method to get that advantage. There are lots of bonus rules and it is your task to figure out how to make the most of them. You bet more in BJ because you know your likely to get a bonus payout. Well in SP21 the BJ bonus is a tiny part of all your bonus payouts. The 5 card bonus makes up most of your total bonus payouts in these variants (If memory serves it is over 60% of the total bonus money paid to you). Think about how to devise a count that will identify when you are more likely to get the main bonus payouts as well as the minor ones like the BJ bonus.

    There are all kinds of tweaks you can do to make things more accurate if you understand how things work in the simulator and with the game. The same understanding of the game should be used to take advantage of the nonlinearity caused by all the crazy payout rules and the surrender, DD rescue and auto-pay rules. You have many weapons in your arsenal if you have been developing all the skills everyone says isn't worth it in BJ. Side counting, balanced side counting, ridiculous numbers of indices, combining counts in more creative ways than simply adding them together, etc. all are powerful tools in your arsenal. Use them all in an intelligent ways.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Jabberwocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Agharta
    Posts
    1,308


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    Kat Walker didn't follow your advice.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    After reading Walker's book, I was under the impression that when playing heads up, one box is ALWAYS optimal. You only play two boxes with 75% of your standard bet in each at positive counts when there are other players (1-2) and three boxes of 60% when there are 3 or 4 other players.

    Otherwise you just have more money out on two independent hands against the same dealer upcard in disadvantageous counts.And my BR isnt large enough to sustain inverse spreading (Grifter's Gambit).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Little help with bet sizing/spred I should be using.
    By DickFer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-18-2015, 02:41 PM
  2. Aleatoric: Spanish 21 bet sizing
    By Aleatoric in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 01:13 AM
  3. Myooligan: bet sizing question
    By Myooligan in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 08:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.