Proportional Betting + Wong out effect?

[Bushie]

I'm just going to ignore the toxicity. Forgive me if I'm not one to delve into the minutiae of the maths involved, I have but a layman's knowledge of the terms. That's not to say that I'm a "counting ploppy", as I could tell you what my EV, RoR, SD is etc.

Moving on..

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.

Thankyou Three. I use a custom balanced Level 3 count with about 10 indices. I'm not 100% sure what the advantage gained at each increment is, as K.Walker's book is the only material I've found that covers this subject on SP21 (specifically, Pontoon), and its calculated at .66% using her unbalanced Hi-Lo with full indices. I've calculated that without indices to be around .6% and used that as a baseline (even though I know it doesnt correlate with my count, but hey).

My bet spread is 1-12 which caps at +5. Wong out at -1. Unit is $10, so:

0/1=$10
2=$30
3=$60
4=$90
5=$120

So using the same ramp, optimal betting equates to a 11.11% increase at +5 (12:1)? What happens to my W/R and SD if the betting ramp isnt capped but increases exponentially by 4:1 at each integer? Is it actually possible to maximise PE so much (hence W/R) and reduce SD (by betting/spreading less) to a point where its possible to draw decent EV?

Please correct me if I've made a mistake somewhere. I'm always happy to learn.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"I use a custom balanced Level 3 count with about 10 indices."

"10 indices," tells me that you're playing a very sub-optimal game.

Nearly a decade ago I was aided by a brilliant young computer
programmer to develop my Flash III Count. I taught it to just a minuscule coterie of experts, some of whom quit their jobs to become successful full-time Professional Players.

The variance of the game can be very punishing. What is crucial to fully comprehend is that playing with 6 or 8 Spanish Decks, P.E. is more important, by far,than is Bet Sizing. My (Flash III) system has more indices than you'll believe, about 250 are NEEDED to succeed. That is because the betting
aspects are fairly clear. The dealer's extremely low 'bust' percentage is part of the reason that P.E. is crucial. The other
factor to fathom is that the suit of your cards and the number
of cards in your hand all require different index adjustments.

To elucidate let's take a look at the worst possible player-dealer hand matchup. The worst possible is a Hard 17 vs.
a dealer ACE. Including Surrender and Rescue indices, I
note that a high + T.C. requires me to STAND, while a low
- T.C. requires me to HIT. At most T.C.s I will surrender the hand. At certain T.C.s I will "rescue" my failed doubles that resulted in hard 17. What if I have a hard 13, 14, or 15?
These hands, and others like 7-7, and multiple card hands that may reach 21 without busting have MULTIPLE
index-adjustments. So ... you have a stiff that could become 6-7-8 vs. a dealer stiff -- you know your index for standing
BUT you now must look for further adjustments. THREE of them (mixed suits, suited, spaded) each have different adjustments. Mostly you HIT for the bonus, so you hit most of the multi-card stiffs as they have converted themselves to multi-card 21 bonuses. Now you have an index adjustment for the hand when it is comprised of any 4, 5, and 6 or more cards. That is three (3) more adjustments. If I have a six (6)
card hard 17 or 18 and the dealer has a high enough card I will HIT.

My count requires an Ace Side Count. The E.O.R. of the Ace
ina S17 game is 2.5 X that of a Face card. In a H17game
it is more like 1.5 X the Face Card.

The power of the ACE is completely crucial to understanding the game, as is that of the extraordinary value embedded in the 10 (free) bonuses.

I rarely, almost never, mention Spanish21 in my posts
because even a count like Hi-Opt II is "over the heads"
of most of our readers.

The untimely death of Katarina Walker prevented her from completing her work on Spanish21 as her book is presented well enough, but the counting system and advice are just elementary in scope and there are many errors. e.g. There
is no index for Insurance. At least thrice a year (on average) you will correctly take Insurance. That's "tongue in cheek"
as your annual loss by never taking insurance will be picayune.

[Freightman]

Flash said
"The untimely death of Katarina Walker prevented her from completing her work on Spanish21 as her book is presented well enough, but the counting system and advice are just elementary in scope and there are many errors."

It should be noted that her book was a classic, far ahead of its time. I'm aware that there are improved count variations since that time, but fir the the most part, I am not familiar.

I still have an interest in the game, but no real steady access to anything playable.

[Three]

So using the same ramp, optimal betting equates to a 11.11% increase at +5 (12:1)? What happens to my W/R and SD if the betting ramp isnt capped but increases exponentially by 4:1 at each integer? Is it actually possible to maximise PE so much (hence W/R) and reduce SD (by betting/spreading less) to a point where its possible to draw decent EV?

Pontoon is a quite different game than S17 SP21. The major differences is no hole card and H17 instead of S17. I really don't want to guess at things but I have partially analyzed the H17 version of SP21. I learned enough to know just that change really alters the game. Then if you add in redouble and/or no hole card the game is very different. I can only speak of the S17 game from AP experience. I am not sure how helpful that is. Hopefully someone is reading your post and will be qualified to give you answers to your question and choose to do so. ZMF has lots of experience playing the H17 redouble version of SP21 so he can give advise from experience closer to the game you play. But the no hole card rule really changes the game from the H17 redouble version of SP21. Hopefully a fellow Aussie will reach out to you and be knowledgable enough about pontoon to help.

[Bushie]

"10 indices," tells me that you're playing a very sub-optimal game.

Nearly a decade ago I was aided by a brilliant young computer
programmer to develop my Flash III Count. I taught it to just a minuscule coterie of experts, some of whom quit their jobs to become successful full-time Professional Players.

The variance of the game can be very punishing. What is crucial to fully comprehend is that playing with 6 or 8 Spanish Decks, P.E. is more important, by far,than is Bet Sizing. My (Flash III) system has more indices than you'll believe, about 250 are NEEDED to succeed. That is because the betting
aspects are fairly clear. The dealer's extremely low 'bust' percentage is part of the reason that P.E. is crucial. The other
factor to fathom is that the suit of your cards and the number
of cards in your hand all require different index adjustments.

To elucidate let's take a look at the worst possible player-dealer hand matchup. The worst possible is a Hard 17 vs.
a dealer ACE. Including Surrender and Rescue indices, I
note that a high + T.C. requires me to STAND, while a low
- T.C. requires me to HIT. At most T.C.s I will surrender the hand. At certain T.C.s I will "rescue" my failed doubles that resulted in hard 17. What if I have a hard 13, 14, or 15?
These hands, and others like 7-7, and multiple card hands that may reach 21 without busting have MULTIPLE
index-adjustments. So ... you have a stiff that could become 6-7-8 vs. a dealer stiff -- you know your index for standing
BUT you now must look for further adjustments. THREE of them (mixed suits, suited, spaded) each have different adjustments. Mostly you HIT for the bonus, so you hit most of the multi-card stiffs as they have converted themselves to multi-card 21 bonuses. Now you have an index adjustment for the hand when it is comprised of any 4, 5, and 6 or more cards. That is three (3) more adjustments. If I have a six (6)
card hard 17 or 18 and the dealer has a high enough card I will HIT.

My count requires an Ace Side Count. The E.O.R. of the Ace
ina S17 game is 2.5 X that of a Face card. In a H17game
it is more like 1.5 X the Face Card.

The power of the ACE is completely crucial to understanding the game, as is that of the extraordinary value embedded in the 10 (free) bonuses.

I rarely, almost never, mention Spanish21 in my posts
because even a count like Hi-Opt II is "over the heads"
of most of our readers.

The untimely death of Katarina Walker prevented her from completing her work on Spanish21 as her book is presented well enough, but the counting system and advice are just elementary in scope and there are many errors. e.g. There
is no index for Insurance. At least thrice a year (on average) you will correctly take Insurance. That's "tongue in cheek"
as your annual loss by never taking insurance will be picayune.

First of all, I'd like to thank you ZMF for the knowledge and insights you have given me into SP21/Pontoon in the past. It's quite hard to find info about it compared to BJ, and material on Pontoon is even harder.

However, I disagree with these statements :

"10 indices," tells me that you're[SIZE=4] playing a very sub-optimal game.

My (Flash III) system has more indices than you'll believe, about 250 are NEEDED to succeed.

I'm aware that my count and indices are nowhere near 100% optimal, as in they don't glean as much advantage as possible. That's not to say that it doesn't glean any advantage whatsoever. In fact, it's a custom balanced ace-reckoned level 3 count that I derived from E.O.R figures you graciously provided for me to use in 8D H17 SP21.

I'm fully aware of the power of aces in S17 SP21, and its E.O.R in H17 (again, mostly thanks to you).

I use Walker's Pontoon BS chart, which includes all multi-card and suited card deviations, which I've memorised. The indices I use are the ones that are most likely/advantageous (16v10,15v10, 14v3, 14v2,9v5,9v4 etc). I keep her book as the Bible (apart from her count, its obviously quite weak). I think I've only taken insurance once in Pontoon ever (twas a monster count, +7).

I have a level 3 count with ASC, but I find that I was too prone to error when using it, especially in 8D and using indices. It's some hardcore mental gymnastics that's for sure. So I opted for a less error-prone solution.

Again, thank you for the advice. If there's anything I've missed or if you have anything more to add, please do. Or just PM me.

[Three]

I use Walker's Pontoon BS chart, which includes all multi-card and suited card deviations, which I've memorised. The indices I use are the ones that are most likely/advantageous (16v10,15v10, 14v3, 14v2,9v5,9v4 etc). I keep her book as the Bible (apart from her count, its obviously quite weak). I think I've only taken insurance once in Pontoon ever (twas a monster count, +7).

One thing Kat said in her book is that a true insurance advantage is so rare in these games that you can play a lifetime and never see one. I guarantee you if you use a general insurance index it will show false positives most of the time. Like using an ace reckoned count the A is counted with the T and maybe (an)other card(s) as well is a poor indicator for insurance. Even if you use an ace neutral count that just counts faces as high cards the neutral cards need to be accounted for. Since you don't do that the rare times you get an insurance play it may not be and when you do have that once in a lifetime insurance opportunity your count might not indicate it is a play. High variance and almost never being used will never reach the long run. I would recommend not taking insurance. You will not be making a truly plus EV insurance play most of the time. Taking insurance once in a blue moon may be a red flag for the casinos especially if you win.

I just skimmed through a lot of her book to bone up on pontoon. I still didn't figure out if it has redouble or not. Redouble games double so many hands that multi-card bonus draw indices are less important. Once you double you can't get a multi-card bonus if the dealer follows the rules of the game. Of course the rate of doubling in a NHC game would depend on the rules for what happens to doubles when the dealer gets a BJ. She recommends learning all indices unless you will play less than 100 hours in your life. She felt that it would take you 9 hours to learn all the indices and every 91 hours of play using all the indices makes the same money as playing 100 hours with the 18 most important indices. What she calls all indices is a small fraction of what I call all indices. All indices for the games she describes in her book is around 450 indices. For example 15v2 has 2 card, 3 card, 4 card, 5 card, 6+ card, 87 unsuited, 87 suited, and 87 spaded indices. If it had a surrender index it would have non-special 15, 87 unsuited, 78 suited, and 87 spaded surrender indices as well. All the indices are different and general adjustments gives up a ton of EV. To short cut the memorization you will notice families with the same adjustment from the non-special index. But they may relate more to the dealer up-card than the hand total. Doubling indices are the same way and some soft doubles have between indices that have hit, stand and double indices for the same number of cards where you double at a high enough count and hit at a low enough count and stand in the middle. To be honest there isn't much difference in EV between any of them through the standing part in the middle. You could eliminate the stand section and make them hits without much cost. The point is she was thinking about indices in the way you would think about BJ indices with side count adjustments. That is not the way to look at the multi-card bonus draw adjustments because they affect almost every playing decision you make. Even 2 card hands. If they don't pay the bonuses on split hands that makes another index, any hand total that will never results in a bonus payout. The 2 card index factors into it the chances of becoming a bonus payout. Leaking EV on almost every hand costs a boatload. Or conversely picking up the extra EV of accurate play on almost every hand adds up fast.

When you use a more accurate count in BJ like a side count adjusted count you gain EV on every decision whether it is changed or not. The slope of the gain line becomes steeper after the index is exceeded with more accurate playing decisions. But most mistakenly believe the gain in EV is from the hands you play differently. Most of the time the side count is pretty close to expectation. But in the games described in Kat's book every time you make a multi-card bonus altered decision the decision is more accurate.

Anyway the point is that the question isn't whether you are using too few indices because you are using too few indices to the extreme. The question is how many indices should you use. I would take Kat's advice and use them all. What she considered all the indices is a small fraction of what all the indices actually is.

[davethebuilder]

A few points about Pontoon.

Most experienced players know that Insurance is not actually Insurance, it is a side bet with a high house edge offered by casinos to increase revenue. The problem with Insurance in Pontoon is that there is a much greater chance of the dealer out drawing the player even if he/she does not have a natural which will not be known until the end of the round in the NHC game. For the unbalanced Hi-Lo count the index is +7. This means that at least 1/3 of the remaining cards would have a 10 value which is very unlikely.

Pontoon is available in several Australian casinos as well as in Asia and is mainly dealt from a CSM holding between 4 and 8 Spanish decks. There are a couple of 8 deck shoe games in Australia which I feel the OP plays so I won't identify the location. The games in Australia are all NHC with H17, a player 21 is an automatic winner even against a dealer natural and redoubling is not permitted.

When Katarina was playing she made good money by using proportional betting, that is betting proportionally to the advantage in order to maximise her win rate. It was not generally known that good returns were available from Pontoon so 90% pen was available along with no or very little heat. The publication of her book had a dramatic effect on the game in this country and most casinos either removed it or started dealing it from a CSM and that is because her work was well researched and accurate. Several people have stated that errors exist in the book but I have never seen a list or the requisite mathematical proof to justify their claims. The book needs to be judged for what it was at the time of publication...a groundbreaking original work.

Some years ago it was possible for a flat betting player using a modified Composition Dependent Basic Strategy to play Pontoon at an advantage when combined with comps and/or rebates. The methodology does not involve counting, is quite complex and utilises rules and playing conditions not available to Spanish 21 players in America and you won't find out how to do it in the book. Unfortunately, the comps are no longer as generous but the same method can be applied today to play a near break even game. Then if you count you can achieve a win rate and SCORE greater than most Blackjack and Spanish 21 games. So it is not really necessary to use a level 3 count with or without an ASC for Pontoon to be profitable.

[Three]

Thanks Dave. I was hoping an experienced Pontoon player would chime in on this thread.

[Freightman]

Thanks Dave. I was hoping an experienced Pontoon player would chime in on this thread.

Shirt, concise and to the point - and might I add, humble.

[Bushie]

A few points about Pontoon.

Most experienced players know that Insurance is not actually Insurance, it is a side bet with a high house edge offered by casinos to increase revenue. The problem with Insurance in Pontoon is that there is a much greater chance of the dealer out drawing the player even if he/she does not have a natural which will not be known until the end of the round in the NHC game. For the unbalanced Hi-Lo count the index is +7. This means that at least 1/3 of the remaining cards would have a 10 value which is very unlikely.

Pontoon is available in several Australian casinos as well as in Asia and is mainly dealt from a CSM holding between 4 and 8 Spanish decks. There are a couple of 8 deck shoe games in Australia which I feel the OP plays so I won't identify the location. The games in Australia are all NHC with H17, a player 21 is an automatic winner even against a dealer natural and redoubling is not permitted.

When Katarina was playing she made good money by using proportional betting, that is betting proportionally to the advantage in order to maximise her win rate. It was not generally known that good returns were available from Pontoon so 90% pen was available along with no or very little heat. The publication of her book had a dramatic effect on the game in this country and most casinos either removed it or started dealing it from a CSM and that is because her work was well researched and accurate. Several people have stated that errors exist in the book but I have never seen a list or the requisite mathematical proof to justify their claims. The book needs to be judged for what it was at the time of publication...a groundbreaking original work.

Some years ago it was possible for a flat betting player using a modified Composition Dependent Basic Strategy to play Pontoon at an advantage when combined with comps and/or rebates. The methodology does not involve counting, is quite complex and utilises rules and playing conditions not available to Spanish 21 players in America and you won't find out how to do it in the book. Unfortunately, the comps are no longer as generous but the same method can be applied today to play a near break even game. Then if you count you can achieve a win rate and SCORE greater than most Blackjack and Spanish 21 games. So it is not really necessary to use a level 3 count with or without an ASC for Pontoon to be profitable.

I would love to discuss this further in private Dave. I mean no disrespect to New Worlders and I appreciate their input, but Aussie Pontoon is quite the unique beast. This particular game has one of the lowest HEs of any game available in Australia. Its potential profitability using a good system is enormous.

[Three]

I would love to discuss this further in private Dave. I mean no disrespect to New Worlders and I appreciate their input, but Aussie Pontoon is quite the unique beast. This particular game has one of the lowest HEs of any game available in Australia. Its potential profitability using a good system is enormous.

Of course you are right. I hope you got that I was saying that while trying to be as helpful as I could. The NHC rule really changes the game. And it is beneficial rather than either no effect or harmful. I wish you the best. Do as you see fit with all the advice given. Only 1 expert replied. Hopefully he will continue this with you as you requested.