See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 19

Thread: Optimal Betting

  1. #1
    Senior Member dalmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    290


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Optimal Betting

    I noticed in CVCX that the optimal betting is usually a lower spread than the "EV maximizing" one. I seem to like this as I am playing a low edge game currently and I dont need to spread a lot to crush the game.

    As my bank is growing I'm becoming more pressured to increase my max bets. However, it seems to be increasing my chances slightly of having more terrible sessions if I get screwed on the big counts and my mins, who are an ever decreasing fraction of my maxs, no longer come through to save me. Is it prudent to have "optimal minimum bets" or do most pros favor EV maximizing mins.

    As an extreme example that's illustrates my point imagine doing a 5$ min to 2×$1000 max spread. Your mins would never save your ass if you have a terrible losing session. However, of instead you did 200$-2×1000$ you might not fare so bad even if you have some bad luck at the big counts.

    I understand in the long run the EV maximizing spread will win more money but it isnt optimal and if you have a few bad sessions in the beginning you might have to drastically reduce your bets which again isnt optimal and wastes EV.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Optimal betting usually means rapid ramping way way before you get to your tremendous ramp spread example given, and I question wheather the hypothetical spread youve given would find its way into an optimal betting ramp.

    In your sim set up, you should be able to discern between EV maximizing ramps , and risk averse ramping. Interestingly enough (i haven’t tested this), your risk averse max bet should be higher than your EV max bet, and with lower variance.

    To be “pressured” into increasing your max bet, your suggesting significant growth in your bankroll. I think it was you who mentioned a while back about some tough variance and it’s negative impact. Keep in mind that optimal growth is based on certain statistical parameters. Also, keep in mind that the only one you have to satisfy is yourself. Only a thorough review if your goals, bankroll, mindset etc., can guide you into what is right or not right for you.

    FWIW, I don’t come close to optimizing bankroll growth - I just simply wouldn’t last long in any venue by attempting to optimize growth, and further, I am not dissatisfied with my current scenario.

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I don't know what you're saying by your mins "come through to save you" when you lose max bets. The mins are only there to hopefully only lose a bit of money, wait for the edge, and make up for it and then some with the big bets. The smaller you bet in the poor counts the better. So of course the smaller min is better, if you can get away with it of course. That's why back counting/wonging is the best "min bet" of all. The only caveat really is what you can get away with
    Last edited by CountinCanadian; 10-24-2018 at 06:08 PM. Reason: reread question

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Dalmatian
    You need to do some reading. Understand that youre seldom, if ever, going to be a favourite to win the next hand. You will prevail over the house because you get 3-2 on blackjacks, are able to split, double - all of which are more successful in higher counts.

    In fact, it would be fair to say that there is not much of a difference between the number of hands won or lost in positive anD negative counts. You will never win 50% of the hands, though, excluding ties, in high counts (hi lo plus 5 and more) you can surpass the number of hands lost.

    Just because you have a winning streak in negative counts, does not negate the voluminous mounds of data supporting min bets in minus counts - the corollary, of course, just because you have a losing streak in high counts, does not negate the voluminous mounds if data supporting big bets in higher counts.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    I think my point is "playing all" (with a lot of indices to cover not wonging out) with a smaller spread is less volatile than having a bigger spread and wonging a lot.
    You need to understand that big bets, properly managed are good, and that the spread is your friend.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    I think everyone missed my point. I understand that a bigger spread makes you more money. But as your bank increases cvcx keeps slowly upping the min in the optimal bets category. All I'm saying is keeping your min the same but increasing your max bets isnt optimal growth according to cvcx. Have a bad swing with your max to min ratio too high and you might be out a lot more than if you slowly raised your min as well. The chances of you running bad the few times you peak your bets isnt that unlikely.
    Try this, assume table min max 5-200
    Run 2 sims, the first starting min 5 maxing at 200. The second starting at 10, maxing to 200, and dropping to 5 at minus 1 or 2. While you’re at it, run some variations in th3 custom bets column.

    Sim 1 will have a higher as SCORE than sim 2. Sim 2 is better for several reasons, which I’ll leave you to figure out after you’ve run the sims.

    Further, cvcx will give different Ramps, which will vary based in the data it is given. The critical point, which you have missed in all of your comments, is that you need the bigger bets in the higher counts to compensate for single unit losses in the lower counts.

    In other words, the sum total of your advantage bets needs to surpass the sum total of your waiting disadvantage bets.

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


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Interestingly enough (i haven’t tested this), your risk averse max bet should be higher than your EV max bet, and with lower variance.
    Nobody has been very good at making their points clear here. But if you want to increase the edge you have on your total amount bet you are more conservative at raising your small advantage bets compared to your high advantage bets. This increases the advantage you have on the amount bet in the long run. It would maximize EV to raise your bets quicker but that increases variance more than it increases EV. Those large bets are the real EV producers and always have a big contribution toward total variance. That is why they are subject to RA plays. If you maximize SCORE by hand tweaking bets it will have you do one thing. If you maximize your advantage on the total amount you bet you will decrease your small advantage bets or in other words be more patient to raise your bets. If you want to maximize EV you will increase all your bets aggressively. I find it best to consider all three in a balance that keeps them all strong but maximizes none of them. You are not maximizing any one statistic but they are all near their zenith. The nature of TC frequency and EV will have you earning a lot higher percentage of your total bet (have a higher percentage advantage) if you bet less in the lower advantage TCs. Going to hard at maximizing any one of SCORE, EV, or total bet advantage will hurt the others. That last little bit in the maximizing process has you giving up a lot more for a small move to get to the maximum.

    Being less aggressive at the top of your spread will cost a lot of EV and crush your total bet advantage.
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    In the garbage counts you still win a decent amount of your bets.
    Especially in falling counts because each round that causes the count to fall was an advantage round representative of a high TC.
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    If your min is higher in the prevalent scenarios of losing every single one of your max bets you wont really have as bad of a situation as if your mins were as low as possible. I've had sessions where I lost 20 max bets and since I was doing a 40 to 1 spread no amount of good fortune in the min bets would have saved me from wanting to split my wrists......
    Counting works in the long run. If you play enough hands you will win a certain percentage of your total amount bet for each TC. You will have winning clumps and losing clumps but getting the bets down when appropriate generates its portion of the total EV. It is the long run that will save you not anything that happens in the short run. Each TC has its own n0. The larger the advantage the lower the n0. But the other side of the coin is TC frequency. The larger the advantage the lower the TC frequency. The product of these two factors determines how many total rounds of play each TC has to reach its n0. n0 is variance divided by the square of EV, so the smaller the EV the higher the n0. The n0 for a marginal advantage may be tens of millions of rounds. That isn't going to have a stabilizing effect. It is basically gambling because you will never play enough rounds to expect to approach EV.

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    Bigger spread and more wonging out wins more in the long run but you open yourself up to more crap along the way when things inevitably go miserably wrong
    you got the concept wrong and this is fatal to your game . if losing the big bets is ruining you that means your bankroll and emotion is not proper . even with 1% - 2% advantage ,you will need a 10k and a few more 10k of hands to be highly likely to come out ahead . that is why after few thousand hours of decent blackjack , a counter is very likely ahead . If they are playing a decent winning game that is.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    As my bank is growing I'm becoming more pressured to increase my max bets.
    If your bank is growing the game must have turned around for you. I believe you mentioned you switched to "halves". Do you think that had anything to do with your game turning around?

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    dalmation: Consider nesting your quotes, rather than responding per post.

    Hit "Reply with Quote" to select what post you wish to comment on. Makes it much easier to read!

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dalmatian View Post
    My bets are based off of cvcx and a 2% ror. I doubled my bank in 4 weeks. I'm just worried about raising my bets and running into a losing streak. I think ur right about my emotions. They're very much strained when you literally need your bank to survive........I've got about 1500 a month in gas, food, and credit card mins to cover. Very very on edge when things dont go my way.....
    So, just to be clear, you’re paying your living expenses, or at least a portion therefore, from blackjack play. Does your 2% ROR calculation factor in the $1500 per month expense of living. If not, you will need to recalculate.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    You need to understand that big bets, properly managed are good, and that the spread is your friend.
    I'll always remember this quote of yours.
    It burned into my memory for eternity.
    "Spread is your friend."


    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I've been taught that when having 3 or 4 percent of advantage (or more) I should bet at it more aggressively.
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    Nobody has been very good at making their points clear here. But if you want to increase the edge you have on your total amount bet you are more conservative at raising your small advantage bets compared to your high advantage bets. This increases the advantage you have on the amount bet in the long run. It would maximize EV to raise your bets quicker but that increases variance more than it increases EV. Those large bets are the real EV producers and always have a big contribution toward total variance. That is why they are subject to RA plays. If you maximize SCORE by hand tweaking bets it will have you do one thing. If you maximize your advantage on the total amount you bet you will decrease your small advantage bets or in other words be more patient to raise your bets. If you want to maximize EV you will increase all your bets aggressively. I find it best to consider all three in a balance that keeps them all strong but maximizes none of them. You are not maximizing any one statistic but they are all near their zenith. The nature of TC frequency and EV will have you earning a lot higher percentage of your total bet (have a higher percentage advantage) if you bet less in the lower advantage TCs. Going to hard at maximizing any one of SCORE, EV, or total bet advantage will hurt the others. That last little bit in the maximizing process has you giving up a lot more for a small move to get to the maximum.

    Being less aggressive at the top of your spread will cost a lot of EV and crush your total bet advantage.

    Especially in falling counts because each round that causes the count to fall was an advantage round representative of a high TC.
    Counting works in the long run. If you play enough hands you will win a certain percentage of your total amount bet for each TC. You will have winning clumps and losing clumps but getting the bets down when appropriate generates its portion of the total EV. It is the long run that will save you not anything that happens in the short run. Each TC has its own n0. The larger the advantage the lower the n0. But the other side of the coin is TC frequency. The larger the advantage the lower the TC frequency. The product of these two factors determines how many total rounds of play each TC has to reach its n0. n0 is variance divided by the square of EV, so the smaller the EV the higher the n0. The n0 for a marginal advantage may be tens of millions of rounds. That isn't going to have a stabilizing effect. It is basically gambling because you will never play enough rounds to expect to approach EV.
    Sent from my SM-J730F using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Optimal betting
    By ZeeBabar in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-12-2016, 02:05 PM
  2. hi opt 1 optimal betting
    By steveistheman84 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-19-2014, 05:25 PM
  3. buddha: Optimal Betting versus TC betting
    By buddha in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 10:46 AM
  4. 98%: Optimal Betting
    By 98% in forum Theory & Math
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-30-2004, 11:44 AM

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.