Betting Ramp Changes Based on Depth of Shoe

**Nascent Norm** · 03-20-2018, 07:35 AM

Being a newbie, I'm just wondering if anyone makes changes to their betting ramps based on current penetration in the shoe? Example, if CVCX optimum bet shows to bet 5x at TC=1, that CVCX derived statistic covers the entire shoe range (i.e. early on, and late into the shoe). However, TC=1 is statistically more accurate late into the shoe than early on. Just wondering what adjustments anyone's made for that. Thanks in advance. -Nascent

**DSchles** · 03-20-2018, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Nascent Norm

Being a newbie, I'm just wondering if anyone makes changes to their betting ramps based on current penetration in the shoe? Example, if CVCX optimum bet shows to bet 5x at TC=1, that CVCX derived statistic covers the entire shoe range (i.e. early on, and late into the shoe). However, TC=1 is statistically more accurate late into the shoe than early on. Just wondering what adjustments anyone's made for that. Thanks in advance. -Nascent

It's not a question of the count's being more "accurate"; it's a question of the fact that, deeper into the shoe, the same true count confers a greater advantage than at the beginning.

See the entire "Floating Advantage" chapter of BJA3.

Don

**Nascent Norm** · 03-21-2018, 07:12 AM

Thanks Don. I was able to quickly get a copy of BJA2 (not 3) but assume the tables / data haven't changed. First, let me say very impressive work that you and Professor Gwynn accomplished. Second, I (like you when you published the Floating Advantage results) am surprised by the results. Setting aside the zero and negative counts (tables 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15; 4.5/6 decks), the positive counts appear to have a detrimental effect late into the shoe. Example; Table 6.13 reveals at TC=3 the Per Hand Contribution is + 0.040 at 0-4deck range, but drops later in the shoe to + 0.006 at 4.0-4.25 and 4.25-4.50 ranges. This is counter-intuitive to my general belief that high counts are more favorable later in the shoe. OR, am I reading the data incorrectly?

**DSchles** · 03-21-2018, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Nascent Norm

Thanks Don. I was able to quickly get a copy of BJA2 (not 3) but assume the tables / data haven't changed. First, let me say very impressive work that you and Professor Gwynn accomplished. Second, I (like you when you published the Floating Advantage results) am surprised by the results. Setting aside the zero and negative counts (tables 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15; 4.5/6 decks), the positive counts appear to have a detrimental effect late into the shoe. Example; Table 6.13 reveals at TC=3 the Per Hand Contribution is + 0.040 at 0-4deck range, but drops later in the shoe to + 0.006 at 4.0-4.25 and 4.25-4.50 ranges. This is counter-intuitive to my general belief that high counts are more favorable later in the shoe. OR, am I reading the data incorrectly?

You don't want to look at the per-hand contributions, which are also a function of the frequencies of the hands/counts. Rather, you want to look at the per-hand expectations. More often than not, these increase for the same true count, as we go deeper into the shoe -- but not always. Simply due to sampling size and randomness earlier in the shoe, these just aren't monotonic functions; that is, they jump around a bit. But, when you get to the 5-deck or deeper level, the increases are general and pronounced.

Don

P.S. You really do need to have BJA3, not BJA2.

**Frank Galvin** · 03-21-2018, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

P.S. You really do need to have BJA3, not BJA2.

Some of us want BJA4!

**DSchles** · 03-21-2018, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Galvin

Some of us want BJA4!

What do you want in it that isn't already in BJA3?

Don

**Freightman** · 03-21-2018, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

What do you want in it that isn't already in BJA3?

Don

I've got a suggestion

**SiMi** · 03-24-2018, 07:08 AM

Hi
I've noticed this effect a lot. I re-read Chapter 6 "The Floating Advantage" and found it fascinating, as usual. Unless I'm missing it, I can't see a discussion of WHY this happens.
Also, did you compare the per-hand expectations from only the first 1/4 deck of the shoe to the PHE for the last 1/4 deck? If so, would it show a bigger difference than comparing the entire shoe to the last 1/4 deck? That might, at least, show that I'm not crazy for noticing that the 0-3 positive TCs work out better at the end.

Thanks!
SiMi

**Freightman** · 03-24-2018, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by SiMi

Hi
I've noticed this effect a lot. I re-read Chapter 6 "The Floating Advantage" and found it fascinating, as usual. Unless I'm missing it, I can't see a discussion of WHY this happens.
Also, did you compare the per-hand expectations from only the first 1/4 deck of the shoe to the PHE for the last 1/4 deck? If so, would it show a bigger difference than comparing the entire shoe to the last 1/4 deck? That might, at least, show that I'm not crazy for noticing that the 0-3 positive TCs work out better at the end.

Thanks!
SiMi

An excellent question. Sorry, just getting up, so short answer - good observation, especially at true 0. Further answer - you're definitely not crazy.

Just to clarify, fliating advantage rears its lovely head in deeply dealt shoes - towards the end. Also, Don stated in a recent post, that advantage gained per true count increases in the latter parts of a shoe.

**SiMi** · 03-24-2018, 07:43 AM

Hi, FM
Thanks for the sanity check! Yep, that's exactly what I've been observing. The OP suggests (perhaps) that one adopt a two-tier bet ramp. The first tier is used early on and it is less aggressive, more toward flat. The 2nd tier kicks in if you have a deeply dealt shoe for some reason and the TC begins to eke its way up from 0. The PHE Don shows in chapter 6 is very interesting because the effect at TC = 0 to +3 seems to be much bigger than the effect at TC = +3 to +>=5. Again, this is what I've been seeing for years.

Thanks for your feedback!
SiMi

**Freightman** · 03-24-2018, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by SiMi

Hi, FM
Thanks for the sanity check! Yep, that's exactly what I've been observing. The OP suggests (perhaps) that one adopt a two-tier bet ramp. The first tier is used early on and it is less aggressive, more toward flat. The 2nd tier kicks in if you have a deeply dealt shoe for some reason and the TC begins to eke its way up from 0. The PHE Don shows in chapter 6 is very interesting because the effect at TC = 0 to +3 seems to be much bigger than the effect at TC = +3 to +>=5. Again, this is what I've been seeing for years.

Thanks for your feedback!
SiMi

You're not describing a 2 tiered ramp. What you are describing is simply increasing an existing ramp as you go deeper in the shoe.

I use a 2 tiered ramp, and it has nothing to do with what you're describing.

**SiMi** · 03-24-2018, 08:16 AM

Hi, FM
Ok, thanks, I didn't realize the term "2 tiered ramp" was already taken. Can you share an example of what a 2 tier ramp is like?
Also, is there a more concise term for "increasing an existing ramp as you go deeper in the shoe?" (IAERAYGDITS)
Also, I don't see how to sim IAERAYGDITS in Norm's software. Are you aware of a way to do this?

Have a great weekend!
SiMi

**Stealth** · 03-24-2018, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by SiMi

Hi, FM
Ok, thanks, I didn't realize the term "2 tiered ramp" was already taken. Can you share an example of what a 2 tier ramp is like?
Also, is there a more concise term for "increasing an existing ramp as you go deeper in the shoe?" (IAERAYGDITS)
Also, I don't see how to sim IAERAYGDITS in Norm's software. Are you aware of a way to do this?

Have a great weekend!
SiMi

Refer to Dynamic Blackjack book for better understanding.

This is not the place to discuss two tiered ramp in any detail.