Should you smooth a betting ramp

[PancakeStacks]

Lets say the optimal betting method would look like:
0 - 40
1 - 40
2 - 120
...

Would you change the bet for 1 to something like 75 or 80?
On one hand, this would smooth out the betting ramp and maybe, just maybe, look more natural. On the other hand, you could say that you don't want to tip your hand with a count of 1. If you keep 1 at 40, then they would have no way of knowing you're counting until it hit true 2. But once you move your bet up that much it's gonna be pretty obvious.

[Cacarulo]

Lets say the optimal betting method would look like:
0 - 40
1 - 40
2 - 120
...

Would you change the bet for 1 to something like 75 or 80?
On one hand, this would smooth out the betting ramp and maybe, just maybe, look more natural. On the other hand, you could say that you don't want to tip your hand with a count of 1. If you keep 1 at 40, then they would have no way of knowing you're counting until it hit true 2. But once you move your bet up that much it's gonna be pretty obvious.

Optimal is optimal. If you modify any of those values, your SCORE will cease to be optimal.
Your Win Rate will likely increase, as well as your risk of ruin.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

Optimal is optimal. If you modify any of those values, your SCORE will cease to be optimal.
Your Win Rate will likely increase, as well as your risk of ruin.

Sincerely,
Cac

SCORE is great for any number of reasons. However, optimal betting tends to be robotic and is an invitation to the house to boot you. Now - keep in mind (assuming .5 house edge) that you’re even with the house at TC 1.0 and have an advantage at TC 1.5. That being said, decisions should be made based on strength of bankroll.

If no issues with size of roll, do what you want. I have no issues with roll, but typically bet $25 and $50 at TC0 and TC 1. Note that increase in bet at TC 1.0 is in itself not a moneymaker - rather it’s simply a trade in variance and allows you that additional ramp as TC increases. Optimally, the issue is not what you do between TC 0 and TC 1, rather it’s what you do between TC 1 and TC 2 where your edge has increased exponentially with lesser increases on subsequent increases in TC.

Interesting stuff - should be differing opinions.

[aceside]

Optimally, the issue is not what you do between TC 0 and TC 1, rather it’s what you do between TC 1 and TC 2 where your edge has increased exponentially with lesser increases on subsequent increases in TC.

There is no exponential increase in blackjack. Trust me. It’s just more gambling here.

[Freightman]

There is no exponential increase in blackjack. Trust me. It’s just more gambling here.

Much to the chagrin of 21forme, I will respond to this ridiculous comment as it is a good learning lesson for those to improve - possibly to learn how to sim on the fly.

Again, assuming .5 house edge, you are even with the house at TC 1.0. Our existing sim (not using half true counts) will sadly tell you to keep your minimum 1 unit bet over the entire True 1 bucket. . The sad reality is that you have definite profit potential at TC 1.5.

Even if you don’t increase wager at TC 1.5 for profit) or increase to 2 units at TC 1.0 (trading variance with the house in preparation of the next ramp) your advantage at TC 2.0 (since you started at a zero point) is infinitely greater at TC 2.0 over TC 1.0. Assuming your bankroll can handle, the increase in edge TC 3.0 over TC 2.0 (.5% to 1.0%) is double, therefore your optimal bet is double that at TC 3 over TC 2.

Expanding the example one more level, your 1.5% edge at TC 4 is 50% greater than your TC edge of 1.0% at TC 3, therefore your optimal increase in wager at True 4 is 50% greater than your wager at TC 4 - and on it goes.

[Cacarulo]

SCORE is great for any number of reasons. However, optimal betting tends to be robotic and is an invitation to the house to boot you. Now - keep in mind (assuming .5 house edge) that you’re even with the house at TC 1.0 and have an advantage at TC 1.5. That being said, decisions should be made based on strength of bankroll.

If no issues with size of roll, do what you want. I have no issues with roll, but typically bet $25 and $50 at TC0 and TC 1. Note that increase in bet at TC 1.0 is in itself not a moneymaker - rather it’s simply a trade in variance and allows you that additional ramp as TC increases. Optimally, the issue is not what you do between TC 0 and TC 1, rather it’s what you do between TC 1 and TC 2 where your edge has increased exponentially with lesser increases on subsequent increases in TC.

Interesting stuff - should be differing opinions.

The OP proposed a scheme that supposedly was optimal and wanted to know our opinion about changing the $40 he was betting at TC +1 to $75 or $80.
My opinion was given in my previous response. I understand that you may have a different perspective, which could be valid, but I believe it does not directly address the OP's question.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Intermediate]

If no issues with size of roll, do what you want. I have no issues with roll, but typically bet $25 and $50 at TC0 and TC 1. Note that increase in bet at TC 1.0 is in itself not a moneymaker - rather it’s simply a trade in variance and allows you that additional ramp as TC increases. Optimally, the issue is not what you do between TC 0 and TC 1, rather it’s what you do between TC 1 and TC 2 where your edge has increased exponentially with lesser increases on subsequent increases in TC.

I support this view. I think one of the biggest challenges for a new counter is getting the bigger bets on the table at the higher TC's . They are either timid, not used to the larger amounts (like going from red to green), or they are concerned big jumps in their bet are going to bring heat. The key is to get more money on the table at TC =1+ so that it's easier to ramp as the TC rises by pressing or doubling your bet. Pressing your winning bet looks like normal gambling, as does doubling your bet after a loss.

Sure it's a departure from optimal, but you don't make any money if you don't get the big bets out there at the higher TC's.

[Freightman]

I understand that you may have a different perspective, which could be valid

Absolutely valid

but I believe it does not directly address the OP's question.

Absolutely does, though you have to read between the lines.

Now, some interesting shit.
Simulations take for example, deck pen, ror, tolerance to risk etc into account and provide optimal ramps for various spreads. Whoopdedoo. Most counters (a poll would be interesting here) don’t actually achieve their simmed win rate. Optimal ramps provide maximum win rate and for that matter, maximum loss rate. Sims have absolutely no idea whether count is going up, or going down - and that is the vital information one needs in order to maximize win and to minimize loss - the answer to which the average competent counter can increase their 1% return by winning 60% of sessions along with a higher win rate and lower loss rate. Now, just for jollies - consider a higher win rate, but I digress.

One point of SCORE is the knock it out of the ballpark strategy per session - which is great when winning but totally sucks when losing. For those who can expand their paradigms - forget knock it out strategy per session and think about maximizing revenue over n number of sessions. Now, SCORE gets twisted and isn’t in the front seat anymore. Just a different way of thinking which has become quite successful for me.

And just for the record - I personally think SCORE is the cats ass. You must have a basis upon which to standardize and nothing (in my humble opinion) is more suited for that purpose than SCORE. I’m simply expanding upon that thought. It’s unfortunate I haven’t kept proper records last few years - earlier this year, I stated my own personal goals for this year which have been achieved - and I don’t bet (my choice) optimally by any means and have easily surpassed simulated numbers - and for that matter don’t really need the fearsome FBM ASC.

Enough for now as this should elicit some interesting response.

[aceside]

Again, assuming .5 house edge, you are even with the house at TC 1.0. Our existing sim (not using half true counts) will sadly tell you to keep your minimum 1 unit bet over the entire True 1 bucket. . The sad reality is that you have definite profit potential at TC 1.5.

When a player starts to have a positive EV edge depends strongly on the rules. For an S-17 game, most likely the critical point is at HiLo TC=+0.5. Therefore, you are supposed to at lease double up your bet at TC=+1.

[PancakeStacks]

Absolutely valid

Absolutely does, though you have to read between the lines.

This thread has become wild. My question was mostly about cover and heat. I understand that the simulation numbers, theoretically, are absolutely optimal, but its gonna look weird if I go from 40 to 120.

With most of the games I'm simulating, I actually have a small edge on TC1. On some double deck games out here, I have a 0.5 edge on TC 1. Changing the bet from 40 to 80 on TC 1 increases EV by ~50 cents and increases risk by ~1%, which definitely isn't negligible, but it's small enough to be worth it for cover, I think at least.

So, with ONLY cover and heat in mind, would you smooth the ramp? Would making the ramps smoother actually be better for heat? Again, if you ramp your bet up at TC1, then they can begin to see what you're doing as soon as the TC moves up. If you keep TC1 the same as TC0, then they have absolutely no way of knowing what you're doing until you hit TC2.

If I keep TC1 at $40, then I can hide what I'm doing for longer, but when I do begin to move my bet it's going to look much more suspect. If I change TC1 to $80 then I'm tipping my hand and showing them that I'm ramping earlier but the ramp is going to look less suspect.

[Intermediate]

If I keep TC1 at $40, then I can hide what I'm doing for longer, but when I do begin to move my bet it's going to look much more suspect. If I change TC1 to $80 then I'm tipping my hand and showing them that I'm ramping earlier but the ramp is going to look less suspect.

Question is who do you think is watching? You'll tip off another counter at the table, but unless the pit and/eye already suspect you are a counter and are tracking your bets with their own count, doubling your bet looks like normal gambling behavior. Your act can make a difference. Act like a gambler. Talk up the dealer. Vary your bet around the low end of the ramp. Look like you're steaming.

[Freightman]

This reply is on the fly From the sounds of it, your bankroll is in good shape. Further, you need less of a bankroll at double deck. Also, volatility is far greater at Double deck than shoe and that volatility is your friend.

Try this (I’ll use numbers that I normally use) - at $25 min table, start with $50 off the top reducing to $25 at TC-2. If count remains at 0 or above, go to $100 at TC 1. use whatever ramping you can get away with thereafter - whether 1-6 or 1-8 or more depending on factors. As long as you’re not playing a shit hole, the house won’t be concerned till you hit 1-5, or 6 or more.

Using the strategy indictated, sim should show a mild decrease in SCORE, but in positive shoes will show less of a spread. Coupled With some nice double deck strategies, you’ll be just fine.

SCORE is not the end all be all - it’s a great basis upon which to define and create new strategies.

[Freightman]

Talk up the dealer. Vary your bet around the low end of the ramp.

I can play my absolute A game, or fool around like no tomorrow with minuscule impact (which is admittedly a lot of fun).