How Much Would You Bet in This Situation

[Midwest Player]

Here is the story. Not too long ago I was playing blackjack where the dealer took an extra card to his already pat hand. The dealer called the pit over to the table and explains what happened. The pit says the extra card is the next card out.

Now this card was a face and it would be mine. Before I knew this extra card would be mine, I was planning on a mid size bet. Now that I knew my first card would be a face what would be the proper size bet?

Here is what I did. I doubled my mid size bet and got another face on my hand. I won the hand. I'm just wondering if this situation called for an even larger bet.

[RS]

For the mathematical optimal bet, you probably should have put out a ~10x max bet. As far as heat and all that other stuff, who knows?

[Freightman]

Your edge with the known first card, which is a face, is around 10%. In theory, 10% of your bankroll cushioned by whatever risk averse formula you would use. Practically, assuming no heat, a huge edge with a volume of only 1 bet in the kitty is still a big risk - so, I'll go against established thought, and say a super max bet is where you should be.

With scrutiny in mind, the jump to the big bet makes you look like a pig, and could cause you future grief at a local store- always a consideration.

[paymypush]

That's a 13% advantage and a max bet for me on the rare occasion that I see the 10 before it is dealt. In the scenario described here, my experience is that the 10 would have been burned if the dealer couldn't have used it. That was a very generous or perhaps a very uninformed pit.

[21forme]

Since we're bantering abournd numbers, I'll call it 12%. Table max bet if you (and your bankroll) could get away with it.

[BJGenius007]

Here is the story. Not too long ago I was playing blackjack where the dealer took an extra card to his already pat hand. The dealer called the pit over to the table and explains what happened. The pit says the extra card is the next card out.

Now this card was a face and it would be mine. Before I knew this extra card would be mine, I was planning on a mid size bet. Now that I knew my first card would be a face what would be the proper size bet?

Here is what I did. I doubled my mid size bet and got another face on my hand. I won the hand. I'm just wondering if this situation called for an even larger bet.

I was at the same table. Now I know who you are. Most of the time, the pit boss will burn that card. You should have bet table max.

[Stealth]

The farm (table max), within bankroll limits and tolerance to variance. Don't think you get many 12% advantage situations with counting.

Not worried about dealer/pit reaction as they have shown me the card and I would be considered stupid to not bet more with a known face coming, even as a ploppy.

[DSchles]

Wondering why, when assessing the mathematically correct bet size, everyone simply quotes advantage rather than edge divided by variance, which is the right way to do it.

Not discussing the appropriateness of jumping to such a large wager, but the starting point for discussion should be edge (around 12%) divided by variance (at least 1.32, but probably higher, because of the increased probability of a natural). So, if we were to make the variance, say, 1.4 -- and it may be more --then the correct bet is about 8.6% and not the double-digit values given above.

Don

[BJGenius007]

I was at the same table. Now I know who you are. Most of the time, the pit boss will burn that card. You should have bet table max.

By the way, one casino I frequent has this rule to keep that card for the next hand if that happened. So everybody wants the first base because a fast dealer often draw a card even he or she has already hard 17. Then the first base got to know the first card for the next hand. That is a great advantage.

[Meistro123]

8% of my bankroll.
there is less variance than normal when you are starting with a ten. it's not like we are going to double down or split.

[lij45o6]

8% of my bankroll.
there is less variance than normal when you are starting with a ten. it's not like we are going to double down or split.

You are also discounting a possible natural draw from the second card. This should increase variance as well for a 10 card. See Don's post above.

//If I may go off topic just once here

Question for Don: Something that has struck me curious is the possible change in variance based on the current cards, hand match-up, and the cards remaining. That is, we track EOR for EV per card and average EV, but is it possible to track EOR for Var and/or SD per card and average Var? If so, would tracking the EV and Var of the game help improve our betting on the known player 10 card? That is, if we know we have a +/-TC with a >/< 1.0 Var this could allow us to properly bet Kelly without having to sacrifice reward for less risk.

Counting EV and Var would improve our game as well as the expectation on the example hand above, no?

[lij45o6]

Wondering why, when assessing the mathematically correct bet size, everyone simply quotes advantage rather than edge divided by variance, which is the right way to do it.

Not discussing the appropriateness of jumping to such a large wager, but the starting point for discussion should be edge (around 12%) divided by variance (at least 1.32, but probably higher, because of the increased probability of a natural). So, if we were to make the variance, say, 1.4 -- and it may be more --then the correct bet is about 8.6% and not the double-digit values given above.

Don

This is also assuming that the analysis is started with a fresh pack, no? I wonder what the average EV would be with respect to the TC for any counting system, as well as the expected variance for that possible hand match-up?

[moses]

Wondering why, when assessing the mathematically correct bet size, everyone simply quotes advantage rather than edge divided by variance, which is the right way to do it.

Not discussing the appropriateness of jumping to such a large wager, but the starting point for discussion should be edge (around 12%) divided by variance (at least 1.32, but probably higher, because of the increased probability of a natural). So, if we were to make the variance, say, 1.4 -- and it may be more --then the correct bet is about 8.6% and not the double-digit values given above.

Don

Best Answer provided you can perform this calcalation in a matter of seconds.