I bet two hands of unequal amounts because I'm a masochist and enjoy a stiff on my table max and a 2 unit blackjack
I understand... I have yet to get banned at any casino nor have I ever been backed off yet in a confrontational manner. My only experience to date is when a pit boss came over and had the dealer twice re-shuffle the deck at the 50% and then 25% dealt amount and I got the message very quickly, I colored up and then went and played some baccarat. Luckily, this was not where I play locally and I was several states away so the chances of my going back anytime soon are slim at best. I will be more careful and I see the wisdom in your advice.
One SPOT or two SPOTS?
Finally, I conducted the sims that recreate the optimal TC from which it is convenient to play two spots instead of one.
For this analysis, I assumed a heads-up game. Speed is not taken into account. The analyzed model was:
6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,4.5/6,50 billion rounds for each of the 18 sims carried out using CAC2 with 22 indices (R22).
The analysis was conducted on the SCORES of three different betting spreads: 1-8, 1-12, and 1-16.
Initially, the sim uses the single-spot game. Then, the game with two spots was simulated, and starting from the third sim,
various TCs ranging from +5 to -10 were evaluated. As can be observed from the analysis, for each betting spread there is an optimal TC,
resulting in a higher SCORE than if we play two spots all the time.
Sincerely,Code:One spot ALWAYS 1- 8 = 17.13 1-12 = 23.66 1-16 = 27.73 Two spots ALWAYS 1- 8 = 25.42 1-12 = 34.88 1-16 = 40.75 Two spots at TC >= +5 1- 8 = 22.76 1-12 = 28.63 1-16 = 32.12 Two spots at TC >= +4 1- 8 = 22.84 1-12 = 28.78 1-16 = 32.31 Two spots at TC >= +3 1- 8 = 23.14 1-12 = 29.20 1-16 = 32.79 Two spots at TC >= +2 1- 8 = 23.56 1-12 = 29.77 1-16 = 33.46 Two spots at TC >= +1 1- 8 = 24.30 1-12 = 30.76 1-16 = 34.60 Two spots at TC >= 0 1- 8 = 25.45 1-12 = 32.52 1-16 = 36.73 Two spots at TC >= -1 1- 8 = 26.07 1-12 = 33.59 1-16 = 38.09 Two spots at TC >= -2 1- 8 = 26.37 1-12 = 34.33 1-16 = 39.14 Two spots at TC >= -3 1- 8 = 26.53 1-12 = 34.85 1-16 = 39.89 Two spots at TC >= -4 (Optimal TC for a spread 1-8) 1- 8 = 26.54 1-12 = 35.13 1-16 = 40.37 Two spots at TC >= -5 1- 8 = 26.48 1-12 = 35.28 1-16 = 40.66 Two spots at TC >= -6 1- 8 = 26.35 1-12 = 35.32 1-16 = 40.82 Two spots at TC >= -7 (Optimal TC for a spread 1-12) 1- 8 = 26.26 1-12 = 35.34 1-16 = 40.93 Two spots at TC >= -8 1- 8 = 26.13 1-12 = 35.31 1-16 = 40.97 Two spots at TC >= -9 (Optimal TC for a spread 1-16) 1- 8 = 26.01 1-12 = 35.27 1-16 = 40.98 Two spots at TC >= -10 1- 8 = 25.91 1-12 = 35.22 1-16 = 40.97
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
So if I am looking at that correctly then with a 1-8 spread I should be playing 2 hands with any true count above -4 as long as I stay within my bankroll tolerance for ROR? Also does it make any difference in places that make you double your bet if playing 2 spots? Thanks
You've got it right. With a 1-8 spread, you play two hands when the TC is -4 or higher, and one hand when it's lower. To maintain the same ROR, your unit size needs to decrease. Typically, it's around 75%, but this can vary between 72% and 80% with precise adjustments. Though I aimed to keep the post non-technical, mentioning the unit value could have been beneficial. For instance, with a 1-8 setup, playing one hand consistently sets the unit value at 11.389. Playing two hands constantly reduces it to 8.358, while optimal play (TC >= -4) adjusts it to 9.041. Comparing the percentage between one hand and two hands, it yields approximately 73%. In the latter scenario, it's around 79%.Originally Posted by 8675309
I don't think it's possible to apply these criteria in places where you're required to double your bet if you play two hands.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Probably it's -3 or -2. The simulations I have are old but still valid. For a spread of 1-12, I can tell you it's -4.
The problem with this type of analysis is that it requires a lot of trial and error for the specific conditions of your game.
What is noteworthy is that contrary to popular belief, the value of TC that maximizes the SCORE is negative.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
That's kind of hard to understand for me. Depending on the rule set, the player advantage does not kick in unit somewhere between TC of 1 to 1.5.
How does having more money on the table in negative counts result in a better score? Does have to do the optimal unit is smaller with two hands and the covariance.
If a smaller unit is not possible due to table min bets would this still apply?
If you play two hands in all counts (positive and negative), you would also be putting more money on negative counts. However, the resultant SCORE is higher. It's not double due to the covariance effect.
The reduction of the unit is clearly necessary, otherwise, you would be increasing ROR, and the idea is to keep it the same.
Regarding the minimum bets on the table, if you decide to play two hands, you should design your betting scheme based on the smallest unit.
Hope this helps.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
I don’t understand. If I am in negative true count, I am at a disadvantage as a player. In this situation, instead of leaving the table, I should play 2 hands (putting more money on the table).
My head is hurting and I didn’t drink last night.
Thanks!
We're not talking about leaving the table when the count is negative or entering when the count is positive. This strategy is for the case where we decide to play through the entire shoe.
If we play a single hand, we'll get a certain SCORE, but if we play two hands consistently, the SCORE will be higher without increasing ROR.
What I'm saying is that between playing one hand all the time and playing two hands all the time, there exists a more optimal strategy.
Sincerely,
Cac
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks