Should I continue playing as AP?

[Freightman]

I was following Ian Anderson's green chip strategy.. On the START of the previous hand the TC had been at 3.5 and I had a $100.00 bet out and I won and parlayed up to $200.00 when the TC was 5, RC 10 with at least a 2 maybe 2-1/2 decks left in the show ( the place I play at cuts to basically 1 deck which is nice, decent penetration ) Overall for green chip play I have been very succuesful with that betting strategy and style of game play. I don't like sitting at a table longer than 2 hours, just enough to get it credited to my comps unless I win big earlier in the game where I play for practice. I then slink off to play some baccarat for awhile then come back or grab a drink and watch some football.. Then come back if I had a good first session and play again. I can't argue against what you are saying.. I do try to play strictly to basic strategy and I really know how important it is to do so. I would be kicking myself even more if I had won all 4 hands and missed out on two opportunities to double that I passed by because I had a 'bad feeling'.. I think it hurts the worst when you do misplay a hand and lose out on an opportunity to win more money than it does to simply lose that is for sure. My bankroll can take the hit and I learn and move on and I have lost more than that before playing at the $100.00 tables but that's another story.. So a question do you think Anderson's Green Chip strategy/betting-game play is wrong or ??? Would like hear any opinions on it?

Granted I don’t know your strength of bankroll or your spreads etc. - here are the flaws of your strategy.

Sounds like a 6 deck shoe - As I recall, Anderson’s strategy was based on high stakes with the math of his “playing errors” calculated by Wong and given the assurance by Wong that his game was +EV. I guarantee that Anderson knew his indices inside out. So, when you say you play strictly to basic strategy, you are giving away on those indices that Anderson is not giving away. Further, Anderson would never ever split 10’s (no direct knowledge, however his persona and act would never ever allow that).

Now, a 2 hour session is usually (not always) sufficient to overcome any initial negative variance, so leaving about then or earlier with positive variance is fine. You also mention $500 max, so depending on where you are, you are either playing a $10 or $15 min game or a $25 min game. Now, you also suggest your bankroll can handle a $100 min. It’s not a problem playing varying min games as long your bankroll is sufficient to handle the potentially brutal variance that can occur provided your patience in knowing that everything pans out in the end - do you have that patience?

From the sounds of things, I think you’ve been lucky. Andersons strategy was good (for him) at the time but I don’t really think it relevant in today’s environment. However. You’re giving away to much additional equity without indices. Now, I do mix varying minimums and seldom play an optimal ramp in stores that are geographically close to me and are important - but I do carry lots of tools in my arsenal which overcome those “supposed” deficiencies.

[DSchles]

The new basic strategy call for that double. When it was basic to pass, I passed - I still pass preferring to think of it as a low cost error.

Can you explain what you mean by "the new basic strategy" and "when it was basic to pass"? In a multi-deck H17 game, any BS, since time immemorial, is double A,8 vs. 6. There is no new version of basic strategy! The play was in Griffin 45 years ago.

Don

[BW987]

Can you explain what you mean by "the new basic strategy" and "when it was basic to pass"? In a multi-deck H17 game, any BS, since time immemorial, is double A,8 vs. 6. There is no new version of basic strategy! The play was in Griffin 45 years ago.

Don

yes, I would like to hear this also.

thanks

[Freightman]

Can you explain what you mean by "the new basic strategy" and "when it was basic to pass"? In a multi-deck H17 game, any BS, since time immemorial, is double A,8 vs. 6. There is no new version of basic strategy! The play was in Griffin 45 years ago.

Don

“New” to simply signify that double is now basic
See Wong’s Professional Blackjack 1994 Appendix B A8v 5 & 6 starting around page 275
H17 double 1 & 0 respectively Kinda sorta implies that negatives don't attract the “basic” double
S17 double 1 & 1 respectively As above

Time immemorial doesn’t seem to apply post 1994. Wong and Griffin can duke it out.

[Freightman]

yes, I would like to hear this also.

thanks

See above

[Freightman]

any BS, since time immemorial, is double A,8 vs. 6.

Brings up some interesting logic. Soft 19 is a winning hand. The purpose of doubling is, at the end of the day, increase your long term take home. Now, I’m not going to bother looking up the tables, but logic dictates that doubling soft 19 will

A. Improve your hand - roughly 24%
B. Maintain your superior hand - roughly 28%
C. Evaluate your devalued 17-18 hand against dealer achieving tie or win - don’t know the exact probability off the top
D. Evaluate your new sub 17 value against dealer bust probabilities

Now, again without the probabilities in front of me, I would suggest that you will win fewer hands doubling, but will make more money doubling overall by finding that sweet spot. To find that sweet spot is the reason we have indices. If H17 has a strike point of 0 doubling A8 v 6, then computer simulation has determined that doubling below 0 as being an overall money loser increasing in its destructive bankroll effect the lower the true count becomes.

Now, don’t forget that 0 is the strike point, which means that it is a break even long term event - so why double at 0 simply to increase variance (there are valuable break even strategies - doesn’t apply here). So, therefore if one practices this by doubling, one should look at the risk averse index (which I don’t know since I don’t use it) which is likely around +2 or +3 in order to capture a greater percentage if the Expected Value. Others can verify. FWIW

[VonDox]

No, I have memorized the top 12 of my index plays for the HI-LO counting system I am using based on the table rules and I use them. So whatever additional EV I am giving up by not memorizing a dozen more is something I am willing to live with and I can still add a few more but the returns after you hit index # 16 or 20 is so small I am not sure if it's worth the effort. At what point are you do you say enough is enough? .03 to .041 or even lower? I think investing my time in a working on side counts or something like that might be more profitable than index play #32? Just my thinking on the subject, right or wrong.

In Anderson's book he details 2 strategies: the crazy surrender and the green chip strategy ( 2 different systems ) I am playing the green chip strategy. Crazy Surrender takes a LOT of practice to get that right and I have it on my list to try out and on CVBJ to simulate what that would look like...

This is the GREEN CHIP strategy in essence: The table rules were $25.00min/$500.00 max. DAS to 4 hands, double 9-11 only, no surrender H17. The betting strategy is really simple. First, play as perfect basic strategy as you can w/index plays, no cover play at all. At negative counts to 0 you bet table min ($25.00 in my case) no wonging/play all. At +1 you raise to $50.00 if the TC goes to +2 you go to 2 spots of $50.00 At +3 you go to one spot of $100 by parlaying up. Then 2-spots of $100.00. If the count climbs higher +3 and above you parlay up or bet to $200.00/ 2-spots and raise by $25.00 each time you win to a max bet of $250.00. You play until you hit ( basically ) a couple of max bets on 2 spots and/or the shoe ends. Walk away, play another game then come back.. Repeat. So far, I have found it a useful strategy to play when I green chip. I don't like setting at a BJ table for hours at a time, I like to leave take a break.. clear my head and come back so I am sharp. Wonging where I play is hardly an option most of the time. Not enough tables and not enough action and the 4 deck games don't allow mid-deck entry. 6-deck shoe games either $15.00-$300.00max or $25.00 @ $500 max do allow entry at any time but I was playing head to head, no other players. Yes, since I have a very well paying job for the past 30 years, I can replenish my bankroll if need be on a loss and I do add monthly to my bankroll too beyound whatever I win I am working to build a $50k bankroll. On black Friday I played 2 45-min sessions and I walked away just above $500.00 to the positive. My run for the past 7 weeks has been that amount or more with 1 other losing session but overall I had 9 sessions that total up to $6,500.00+ (minus NOW my $800.00 = $5700 ) to the positive. I guess I was due for a really bad round.hand and variance is real, so taking an $800.00 hit wasn't going to break the bank ( or $1000 or $1200 if I had played PERFECT and doubled those 2 hands as I should have ).. But I seem to remember the losses clearer than the wins...Loss happens...

[DSchles]

“New” to simply signify that double is now basic
See Wong’s Professional Blackjack 1994 Appendix B A8v 5 & 6 starting around page 275
H17 double 1 & 0 respectively Kinda sorta implies that negatives don't attract the “basic” double
S17 double 1 & 1 respectively As above

Time immemorial doesn’t seem to apply post 1994. Wong and Griffin can duke it out.

Sigh. I'll try again. We don't determine BS from index numbers. We DERIVE it. BS for A,8 vs. 6 in H17 games is DOUBLE. It has ALWAYS been double. It has never been anything else but double, and Wong didn't say otherwise. The OP wasn't using indices. He was playing BS, and I merely pointed out that he should have doubled A,8 vs. 6. Do you really think that Wong didn't know what BS was?

Please don't answer. There's nothing further to be said about the matter.

Don

[Freightman]

No, I have memorized the top 12 of my index plays for the HI-LO counting system I am using based on the table rules and I use them. So whatever additional EV I am giving up by not memorizing a dozen more is something I am willing to live with and I can still add a few more but the returns after you hit index # 16 or 20 is so small I am not sure if it's worth the effort. At what point are you do you say enough is enough? .03 to .041 or even lower? I think investing my time in a working on side counts or something like that might be more profitable than index play #32? Just my thinking on the subject, right or wrong.

In Anderson's book he details 2 strategies: the crazy surrender and the green chip strategy ( 2 different systems ) I am playing the green chip strategy. Crazy Surrender takes a LOT of practice to get that right and I have it on my list to try out and on CVBJ to simulate what that would look like...

This is the GREEN CHIP strategy in essence: The table rules were $25.00min/$500.00 max. DAS to 4 hands, double 9-11 only, no surrender H17. The betting strategy is really simple. First, play as perfect basic strategy as you can w/index plays, no cover play at all. At negative counts to 0 you bet table min ($25.00 in my case) no wonging/play all. At +1 you raise to $50.00 if the TC goes to +2 you go to 2 spots of $50.00 At +3 you go to one spot of $100 by parlaying up. Then 2-spots of $100.00. If the count climbs higher +3 and above you parlay up or bet to $200.00/ 2-spots and raise by $25.00 each time you win to a max bet of $250.00. You play until you hit ( basically ) a couple of max bets on 2 spots and/or the shoe ends. Walk away, play another game then come back.. Repeat. So far, I have found it a useful strategy to play when I green chip. I don't like setting at a BJ table for hours at a time, I like to leave take a break.. clear my head and come back so I am sharp. Wonging where I play is hardly an option most of the time. Not enough tables and not enough action and the 4 deck games don't allow mid-deck entry. 6-deck shoe games either $15.00-$300.00max or $25.00 @ $500 max do allow entry at any time but I was playing head to head, no other players. Yes, since I have a very well paying job for the past 30 years, I can replenish my bankroll if need be on a loss and I do add monthly to my bankroll too beyound whatever I win I am working to build a $50k bankroll. On black Friday I played 2 45-min sessions and I walked away just above $500.00 to the positive. My run for the past 7 weeks has been that amount or more with 1 other losing session but overall I had 9 sessions that total up to $6,500.00+ (minus NOW my $800.00 = $5700 ) to the positive. I guess I was due for a really bad round.hand and variance is real, so taking an $800.00 hit wasn't going to break the bank ( or $1000 or $1200 if I had played PERFECT and doubled those 2 hands as I should have ).. But I seem to remember the losses clearer than the wins...Loss happens...

With those rules, you don’t have an edge at +1
Your +1 bet of 1x50 is still not break even though the wager is fine in your bankroll stated and provided the wager is in preparation of + 2 bet - you need to sim this. Your +2 bet if 2x50 is okay with significant bankroll. However, your edge not what you think it is. My bankroll is significantly more than yours and I wouldn’t entertain 2x50 on those rules.

Your overall betting strategy is okay with others at the table, however you are hurting yourself if you are heads up. Exception to that comment is if your 1 spot wager is beginning to butt up to table max.

To compare dollars if you like, last month I made about $5500 on about 16 hours on 8 sessions. Six of those sessions were 4/6 $25 min low 1-7 occasionally 8 spread with non optimal ramping making about $2275 winning 5/6. Results on those hours were about $150/hour. Played 2 8 deck games, 1 a shitty 8 deck 2 hours dealing 6/8 making with higher spread than above mak8ng about $1600, the other 7+/8 earning $2150 with higher spread (about 2 hours maybe 2.5) on the better pen game than the other shittier game. Those 2 earned about $800 per hour with the overall mix of about $300-$330 an hour. Didn’t mix mins but did mix different ramps. I would have to look at my notes (which I seldom record) to provide the exact numbers.

Clearly, I don't follow the accepted “rules”, but there is a basis for everything that I do. Positive criticism only - learn the plus and minus of the rules you are playing. On the positive side of things, despite my (constructively made) comments - something tells me judging by your posts that you will figure it out.

[Freightman]

Sigh. I'll try again. We don't determine BS from index numbers. We DERIVE it. BS for A,8 vs. 6 in H17 games is DOUBLE. It has ALWAYS been double. It has never been anything else but double, and Wong didn't say otherwise. The OP wasn't using indices. He was playing BS, and I merely pointed out that he should have doubled A,8 vs. 6. Do you really think that Wong didn't know what BS was?

Please don't answer. There's nothing further to be said about the matter.

Don

WTF - let’s clarify.
[QUOTE]

Sigh. I'll try again. We don't determine BS from index numbers.

Where did I say that?
Seems to me the big fucking argument is A8 v 6 is semantically a basic strategy double which doesn't change the fact that for the counter - an index is attached to it - not unlike any other index double - and further for the counter, it is improper to double when TC < 0. Would you agree with that or is there other bullshit to be addressed.

[DSchles]

"Where did I say that?"

You quoted index numbers from Wong (which were correct) and referenced my mention of Griffin (who was also correct) and implied that the two of them should duke it out, as if one of them had said something wrong. Since Griffin was furnishing BS, I pointed out that we don't use index numbers (Wong) to determine BS. So what, exactly was your point?

"Seems to me the big fucking argument is A8 v 6 is semantically a basic strategy double"

My God, you're dense and embarrassingly stubborn. It isn't SEMANTICALLY a BS double (why do you feel a need to qualify "BS"?); it is simply BS--no qualifier needed!!

"which doesn't change the fact that for the counter - an index is attached to it - not unlike any other index double - and further for the counter, it is improper to double when TC < 0."

Which is relevant to WHAT, exactly, in the original post? Or did you just want me to know that you knew what the H17 index was ?

Don

[Freightman]

"Where did I say that?"

You quoted index numbers from Wong (which were correct) and referenced my mention of Griffin (who was also correct) and implied that the two of them should duke it out, as if one of them had said something wrong. Since Griffin was furnishing BS, I pointed out that we don't use index numbers (Wong) to determine BS. So what, exactly was your point?

"Seems to me the big fucking argument is A8 v 6 is semantically a basic strategy double"

My God, you're dense and embarrassingly stubborn. It isn't SEMANTICALLY a BS double (why do you feel a need to qualify "BS"?); it is simply BS--no qualifier needed!!

"which doesn't change the fact that for the counter - an index is attached to it - not unlike any other index double - and further for the counter, it is improper to double when TC < 0."

Which is relevant to WHAT, exactly, in the original post? Or did you just want me to know that you knew what the H17 index was ?

Don

Believe I made this recent reference to your keen eye and pursuit of minutiae bordering on the microscopic.

Nitpick

• find or point out minor faults in a fussy or pedantic way.
  "the state is nitpicking about minor administrative matters"
  

Now

My God, you're dense and embarrassingly stubborn.

You’re way out of line. I have too much respect for your work to tell you where to get off, but it’s close.

[G Man]

Freightman, you clearly err on this one and Don rightly corrected you. Why don't you just take it ?