I'd like to share with you the betting scheme I created in comparison to the well known 1-12 Kelley Criterion scheme. With it, you only bet when you have the advantage, so even the true count of 1 is not enough for you (except when the house edge is lower than 0.5%). Both tables apply to the SIX- AND EIGHT-DECK games and the counting systems are HI-LO.

Here's my table:

Screenshot_231.png

And here's the famous Kelley Criterion table:

Units_Table.png

As you can see, with the average house edge of 0.5%, Kelley Criterion scheme says you to bet 1 unit even when you're at the disadvantage. Is this one of the camouflage techniques or what? Becasuse I don't see any point of betting when the house has the edge.

Instead, using my table, you only bet when the true count is 2 or more. I modified the true count to the +6 or higher, however, could someone tell me, why is the limit of the true count is only +5 or higher in the Kelly Criterion table? Shouldn't it continue to the true count of 10 or more? I know it's quite unrealistic to reach the count that high, however, playing the SINGLE-DECK games such situations can occur. It might be because of the risk of ruin, so if the luck isn't on your side, you won't get broke, right?

What do you think about my strategy? I don't see why it shouldn't work even with the flat betting approach, of course, the profits will be smaller compared to the progressive betting strategies, such as those two above