See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 50

Thread: Proportional Betting + Wong out effect?

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Proportional Betting + Wong out effect?

    I'm just trying to figure out what effect proportional (optimal) betting has combined with wonging out at -1? This is for SP21, which generally has a higher win rate but much higher standard deviation.

    I was simulating a 1-12 bet spread that capped out at +5 and wong out all hands under -1. What effect would proportional/optimal betting have on the win rate, and what effect would it have on standard deviation when wonging out at -1?

    Edit: Jeez forgot the important part. Rounding off the bet/count advantage ratio to 4:1 at counts over +5 as well (for ease of use and practical purposes).

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    If you don't give a count you need to give a max bet advantage. Also you don't say effect on what compared to what. By proportional and optimal, are you meaning the ratio of max bet to waiting bet is 12:1 but the bets in between can be anything? I assume you mean kelly betting by proportional optimal betting.

    I will give many things to compare it to. Each bets the optimal bet at each TC if it is between the betting restrictions.

    For S17 SP21, always playing one spot and the traditional use of information gathered for level 3 betting count from combining two balanced counts:
    1) Unrestricted betting and only playing with an advantage, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$326
    W/L: 2.27%, $58.08/100 rounds observed, $175.50/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.984, $761.87/100 rounds observed, $1324.49/100 rounds played
    n0: 17,208
    c-SCORE: 58.11
    BR required for 1% RoR: $23,012

    2) Unrestricted betting and playing all TC -1 or more, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$326
    W/L: 1.90%, $56.58/100 rounds observed, $83.27/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.580, $766.45/100 rounds observed, $929.85/100 rounds played
    n0: 18354
    c-SCORE: 54.49
    BR required for 1% RoR: $23,909

    3) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +6 or higher) and only playing with an advantage, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.88%, $39.63/100 rounds observed, $119.50/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.615, $550.73/100 rounds observed, $957.35/100 rounds played
    n0: 19314
    c-SCORE: 51.78
    BR required for 1% RoR: $17,623

    4) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +6 or higher) and only playing TC -1 or higher, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.51%, $38.12/100 rounds observed, $56.11/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.207, $557.05/100 rounds observed, $675.79/100 rounds played
    n0: 21349
    c-SCORE: 46.84
    BR required for 1% RoR: $18,741

    I hope you can see what you are looking for from these possibilities. TC +5 would be different for your count so I used the count at which the max bet restriction would be bet at that amount. TC +5 is 88.89% of that 12:1 maximum bet. This allows you to see the effect of adding the tolerable disadvantage bets TC -1 or higher to betting optimally, of restricting top bet to 12 times your waiting bet, and any combinations of the two for any statistic listed.

  3. #3


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    If you don't give a count you need to give a max bet advantage. Also you don't say effect on what compared to what. By proportional and optimal, are you meaning the ratio of max bet to waiting bet is 12:1 but the bets in between can be anything? I assume you mean kelly betting by proportional optimal betting.

    I will give many things to compare it to. Each bets the optimal bet at each TC if it is between the betting restrictions.

    For S17 SP21, always playing one spot and the traditional use of information gathered for level 3 betting count from combining two balanced counts:
    1) Unrestricted betting and only playing with an advantage, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$326
    W/L: 2.27%, $58.08/100 rounds observed, $175.50/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.984, $761.87/100 rounds observed, $1324.49/100 rounds played
    n0: 17,208
    c-SCORE: 58.11
    BR required for 1% RoR: $23,012

    2) Unrestricted betting and playing all TC -1 or more, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$326
    W/L: 1.90%, $56.58/100 rounds observed, $83.27/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.580, $766.45/100 rounds observed, $929.85/100 rounds played
    n0: 18354
    c-SCORE: 54.49
    BR required for 1% RoR: $23,909

    3) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +6 or higher) and only playing with an advantage, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.88%, $39.63/100 rounds observed, $119.50/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.615, $550.73/100 rounds observed, $957.35/100 rounds played
    n0: 19314
    c-SCORE: 51.78
    BR required for 1% RoR: $17,623

    4) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +6 or higher) and only playing TC -1 or higher, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.51%, $38.12/100 rounds observed, $56.11/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.207, $557.05/100 rounds observed, $675.79/100 rounds played
    n0: 21349
    c-SCORE: 46.84
    BR required for 1% RoR: $18,741

    I hope you can see what you are looking for from these possibilities. TC +5 would be different for your count so I used the count at which the max bet restriction would be bet at that amount. TC +5 is 88.89% of that 12:1 maximum bet. This allows you to see the effect of adding the tolerable disadvantage bets TC -1 or higher to betting optimally, of restricting top bet to 12 times your waiting bet, and any combinations of the two for any statistic listed.
    Think I'll scratch my balls. More oroductive.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Think I'll scratch my balls. More oroductive.
    Translation: I am not here to try and help people. I am here to mock those that help people. The very definition of a troll. Logical conclusion, Freighter just admitted his main function here is to be a troll.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Translation: I am not here to try and help people. I am here to mock those that help people. The very definition of a troll. Logical conclusion, Freighter just admitted his main function here is to be a troll.
    It would be so hilarious to debate you, but that's another event. I thought you had me on ignore. Guess not.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    After thinking about it, including the TC +5 in the max bet bin would still have the recommended bet for the max bet betting bin be more than 12 times the waiting bet. So the same info with TC +5 as the max bet when the max bet is restricted to 12 times the waiting bet. The change only affects #3 and #4 in post #2.

    For S17 SP21, always playing one spot and the traditional use of information gathered for level 3 betting count from combining two balanced counts:

    3) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +5 or higher) and only playing with an advantage, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.88%, $40.22/100 rounds observed, $121.53/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.628, $562.00/100 rounds observed, $976.93/100 rounds played
    n0: 19528
    c-SCORE: 51.21
    BR required for 1% RoR: $18,083

    4) Restrict max bet at 12 times the waiting bet (TC +5 or higher) and only playing TC -1 or higher, max bet at TC +9:
    Bet spread: $12-$144
    W/L: 1.51%, $38.71/100 rounds observed, $56.98/100 rounds played
    SD: 2.222, $568.19/100 rounds observed, $689.13/100 rounds played
    n0: 21542
    c-SCORE: 46.42
    BR required for 1% RoR: $19,202

    No surprise that there isn't much difference between the two versions of the restricted max bet bin. But over betting TC +5 bin's optimal bet by 1/9th at max bet, because the max bet betting bin still recommends a bet higher than the max bet if TC +5 is included in the max bet betting bin, increases n0 (decreases c-SCORE) that doesn't seem worth the tiny increase in EV and insignificant change in W/L. The W/L didn't even change enough to change the 1/100th of a percent digit in either cases.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    It would be so hilarious to debate you, but that's another event. I thought you had me on ignore. Guess not.
    I evaluate whether you stopped trolling to take you off ignore periodically. If I am curious about your take on something I open your response which also allows a reevaluation. Your still just a troll that gets upset when people try to be helpful where others will not be. Let's see how many other people try to help the OP. You still haven't tried to answer the OP. All you have done is ridicule everyone that has tried to help the OP that had seriously low on specifics question. I wasn't even sure exactly what he was asking so I answered in a way that gave answers to everything so he could pick the stat that answered his query.

    This type of behavior by the forum's trolls is exactly why this forum has a staying on topic problem for threads. The OP shouldn't have to be insulted by such childish behavior. But trolls are all about being offensive and insulting so it is no surprise when one does just that.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    I evaluate whether you stopped trolling to take you off ignore periodically. If I am curious about your take on something I open your response which also allows a reevaluation. Your still just a troll that gets upset when people try to be helpful where others will not be. Let's see how many other people try to help the OP. You still haven't tried to answer the OP. All you have done is ridicule everyone that has tried to help the OP that had seriously low on specifics question. I wasn't even sure exactly what he was asking so I answered in a way that gave answers to everything so he could pick the stat that answered his query.

    This type of behavior by the forum's trolls is exactly why this forum has a staying on topic problem for threads. The OP shouldn't have to be insulted by such childish behavior. But trolls are all about being offensive and insulting so it is no surprise when one does just that.
    Helping people is not the issue. What is the issue is your absolute endless stream of mostly useless. minutiae - case in point - the endless dribble about goats and the car, where, to the shock of everyone, you admitte your erroneous transgressions.

    Further, you have only yourself to blame - each and every fake suck up and apology transmitted by you, includes a cheap shit, I mean shot or 2, along with additional verbiage justifying your voluminous original ridiculous incomprehensible position.

    Further, your inability, under almost any virtual circumstance, to admit a possible superior position to your own is not helpful, only sad.

    I see a post by 3, and the first thing I think of - wonder if I have time to take a crap. You have an obsessive compulsion, to tell people that you are the absolute best at everything you do. You can't help yourself, and you won't, or don't get it. You need help, buts that's just my opinion.

    In any event, I was quite prepared to leave things, but your own compulsions, some described above, simply require a response - and, as I've previously intimated, the ball is in your court.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    "I wasn't even sure exactly what he was asking so I answered in a way that gave answers to everything so he could pick the stat that answered his query."

    And therein lies exactly the crux of the problem. Nine out of 10 other people (including me) would have therefore responded: "To better answer your question, you need to be more specific about the following." Upon receiving a clarification, you then could have answered ONCE rather than FOUR times.

    But, no, under the guise of covering ALL possible scenarios, you feel compelled to demonstrate your vast storehouse of knowledge, as if the OP will now be even more impressed, and to go on to state virtually ALL that you know about the topic.

    And you STILL don't understand that this approach is repugnant to the vast majority of people here.

    Don

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    And you STILL don't understand that this approach is repugnant to the vast majority of people here.
    not trying to be rude , but that is something to think about.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    1.) T3. Consider eliminating this word if you don't want things to escalate.
    I thought that was the nicest word I could choose as an adjective to describe the behavior Freighter is compelled to do nonstop.
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    2.) How do you know Bushie is new? Maybe he has played more than you.
    I didn't say he was inexperienced nor did I make any other assumption on his experience level.
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    3.) Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say you are being helpful, when you've yet to be marked helpful?
    The OP is the only one qualify to say if I have been helpful or not. If I haven't been I am sure the OP appreciates the attempt to be helpful. All I said is I tried to be helpful (or at least thats what I meant). I could get 300 unhelpful but if I helped the OP then I was helpful. Pe raps the helpful ratings should reflect the opinion of the one asking the question.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "I wasn't even sure exactly what he was asking so I answered in a way that gave answers to everything so he could pick the stat that answered his query."

    And therein lies exactly the crux of the problem. Nine out of 10 other people (including me) would have therefore responded: "To better answer your question, you need to be more specific about the following." Upon receiving a clarification, you then could have answered ONCE rather than FOUR times.
    I did ask so others would answer but also took the time to give a thorough answer without the information.
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    But, no, under the guise of covering ALL possible scenarios, you feel compelled to demonstrate your vast storehouse of knowledge, as if the OP will now be even more impressed, and to go on to state virtually ALL that you know about the topic.
    I never showed anything impressive. I have some interactive sim results already opened and simply entered the information necessary to give the OP what he needed. How would anyone possibly think that was impressive? You could probably teach a chimp to do it. Well the interactive spread sheet is impressive but those accolades don't belong to me. They belong to the software designer, Gronbog. Take a bow Gronbog. And what is wrong with all scenarios? The OP isn't the only learning from the forum. Most posters answer to allow others to learn about related questions the readers might have as well. You aren't one of those trying to helpful in a broader sense. Right or wrong you just very directly and specifically answer the question. No attempt is ever made to get the OP to understand why that is the answer. It is a matter of opinion as to which is better. Obviously those that answer the question and try to teach a little more about why that is the answer to the question disagree with you on which is better. That doesn't make either opinion right or wrong.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    I did ask so others would answer but also took the time to give a thorough answer without the information.

    I never showed anything impressive. I have some interactive sim results already opened and simply entered the information necessary to give the OP what he needed. How would anyone possibly think that was impressive? You could probably teach a chimp to do it. Well the interactive spread sheet is impressive but those accolades don't belong to me. They belong to the software designer, Gronbog. Take a bow Gronbog. And what is wrong with all scenarios? The OP isn't the only learning from the forum. Most posters answer to allow others to learn about related questions the readers might have as well. You aren't one of those trying to helpful in a broader sense. Right or wrong you just very directly and specifically answer the question. No attempt is ever made to get the OP to understand why that is the answer. It is a matter of opinion as to which is better. Obviously those that answer the question and try to teach a little more about why that is the answer to the question disagree with you on which is better. That doesn't make either opinion right or wrong.
    Summary
    You don't get it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Would this be an effective form of proportional betting?
    By dalmatian in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 06:25 PM
  2. Betting Strategy Wong In and Out Problem
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 09:12 AM
  3. Dewayne: Considering proportional betting
    By Dewayne in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-14-2005, 11:06 AM
  4. PaddyBoy: to wong or not to wong
    By PaddyBoy in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-2002, 02:53 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.