Twisted Bet Spread

[Kaiser11]

Good Day Everyone,

This might be a silly question but I will still shoot it...

How crazy, normal , or right, would be to, instead of doing a regular bet spread like:

<1= 1 unit
TC1= 4 units
TC2= 6 units
TC3=8 units
TC4= 10 units

... change it to a random spread like:

TC<-1= 1 unit
0= 1-2 units
TC1= from 5 to 7 units
TC2= 8-9 units
TC3=10-11 units
TC4=12 units

Extra Data: 2 spots are not an option, most of the time (busy tables). The unit is something similar to $6 usd (Mexican Pesos). Game Rules are great: 83% pen,S17, DAS, RSA, 3-2, ES10. Heat did not start yet, but that is what I am trying to extend. HpH are rarely over 80/hr. Usually wong out at <-1 or <-2, since leaving the seat would mostly make me lose the spot and leave me with no many chances to sit again soon.

I wonder if RoR and EV are not much affected, as, for the conditions I play at, I am sure this would bring me longevity and ghostliness (and the fact that raising my max bet would be more blended), as much as I understand that doing such randoms bets will cost me a few more hands per hour, due to the amount and different denomination chips used per bet.

Would you guys be ok with it or definitely not recommend it?

Thanks in advance.

[Blackjack player]

Cvcx

[Norm]

CVCX can't do random changes. CVData could switch back and forth between two betting strategies using the Multi-Betting Strategy, Alternate function.

Actually what you are describing is somewhat like Richard Reid's multi-tiered betting strategy, which is what the CVData Alternate function was designed for.

[Cacarulo]

Good Day Everyone,

This might be a silly question but I will still shoot it...

How crazy, normal , or right, would be to, instead of doing a regular bet spread like:

<1= 1 unit
TC1= 4 units
TC2= 6 units
TC3=8 units
TC4= 10 units

... change it to a random spread like:

TC<-1= 1 unit
0= 1-2 units
TC1= from 5 to 7 units
TC2= 8-9 units
TC3=10-11 units
TC4=12 units

Extra Data: 2 spots are not an option, most of the time (busy tables). The unit is something similar to $6 usd (Mexican Pesos). Game Rules are great: 83% pen,S17, DAS, RSA, 3-2, ES10. Heat did not start yet, but that is what I am trying to extend. HpH are rarely over 80/hr. Usually wong out at <-1 or <-2, since leaving the seat would mostly make me lose the spot and leave me with no many chances to sit again soon.

I wonder if RoR and EV are not much affected, as, for the conditions I play at, I am sure this would bring me longevity and ghostliness (and the fact that raising my max bet would be more blended), as much as I understand that doing such randoms bets will cost me a few more hands per hour, due to the amount and different denomination chips used per bet.

Would you guys be ok with it or definitely not recommend it?

Thanks in advance.

Clearly, this is an excellent game, so betting optimally is ideal. Adjusting bets away from the optimal scheme
can affect the RoR and SCORE, either increasing or decreasing them.
Here's an idea I haven't tested:
Instead of always betting 8 units at a TC of +3, we could vary the bets, sometimes placing 7, sometimes 8,
and sometimes 9 units, but aiming to maintain an average of 8 units.
I believe this could work, but I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

Clearly, this is an excellent game, so betting optimally is ideal. Adjusting bets away from the optimal scheme
can affect the RoR and SCORE, either increasing or decreasing them.
Here's an idea I haven't tested:
Instead of always betting 8 units at a TC of +3, we could vary the bets, sometimes placing 7, sometimes 8,
and sometimes 9 units, but aiming to maintain an average of 8 units.
I believe this could work, but I'd be interested in hearing other opinions.

Sincerely,
Cac

He’s also wonging out which he doesn’t need to do especially if seats are hard to come by. That being said - does the random variable spread work? Of course it works - for lots of reasons - I do it all the time.

The only caveat I would proffer would be to play with a stronger vs shoestring bankroll to handle the variance issue. One last point - everyone gets wrapped up with SCORE - OP consciously or not, is not betting optimally in any case.

[Archvaldor]

That being said - does the random variable spread work? Of course it works - for lots of reasons - I do it all the time.

One last point - everyone gets wrapped up with SCORE - OP consciously or not, is not betting optimally in any case

Depending on how you definite the word random betting IS optimal.

If you look it as a game where the casino is trying to eliminate unprofitable players without eliminating profitable players randomization extends the n hours a given counter can play without getting bounced. It generally increases the value of n which means you win more cash than you lose from sub-optimal betting in the traditional sense. Even if the casino knows what to look for randomization means they will take longer identifying you as an AP. There would be exceptions: if the casino doesn't care whether you count or conversely can identify you from play of the hands alone randomization won't help. But in most common count scenarios randomization will increase n to some extent.

Poker players understand this: it is why they randomize bluffing decisions. Most good card counters like yourself understand the value of randomization on an intuitive level even though it is only covered on a very superficial level in the literature.

[Norm]

Reid's method was to use two optimal betting ramps with two bankrolls, one double the size of the other, alternating the two with every round. The resulting pattern does not look like counting. One of the clues that someone is counting a shoe is periods with all min bets occasionally followed by increases. These periods are even longer with unbalanced strategies. Reid's method has no such periods.

[Freightman]

Reid's method was to use two optimal betting ramps with two bankrolls, one double the size of the other, alternating the two with every round. The resulting pattern does not look like counting. One of the clues that someone is counting a shoe is periods with all min bets occasionally followed by increases. These periods are even longer with unbalanced strategies. Reid's method has no such periods.

Multiple choice
“A master of any martial art does not conquer his opponent - he lets his opponent beat himself”

a. Sun Tzu
b. Arnold Snyder
c. Don Schlesinger
d. Freightman

You're referring to Dynamic Blackjack. For a period of time, I thought that what I was doing was Dynamic. However as Norm points out - different ramps per shoe. My offshoot variation was variable ramps within the shoe or depending where I was, a single variable ramp. Of course, my play is influenced by my own pet theories.

Oh! Study material for multiple choice above - Blackbelt in Blackjack, chapter 15.

[Cacarulo]

Reid's method was to use two optimal betting ramps with two bankrolls, one double the size of the other, alternating the two with every round. The resulting pattern does not look like counting. One of the clues that someone is counting a shoe is periods with all min bets occasionally followed by increases. These periods are even longer with unbalanced strategies. Reid's method has no such periods.

That's a good one. Using double the bankroll would imply doubling the bets to maintain the same RoR. Another idea that comes to mind, while still betting optimally, is to alternate between two hands and one hand with each shoe.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

That's a good one. Using double the bankroll would imply doubling the bets to maintain the same RoR. Another idea that comes to mind, while still betting optimally, is to alternate between two hands and one hand with each shoe.

Sincerely,
Cac

Again, the need for a strong bankroll for this approach. It’s very much like the player who plays variable stakes games. The potential exists for short term havoc though things tend to even out in the long run.

[Cacarulo]

Again, the need for a strong bankroll for this approach. It’s very much like the player who plays variable stakes games. The potential exists for short term havoc though things tend to even out in the long run.

Well, playing two hands all the time requires a bankroll 37% larger than if we played just one hand. That doesn't seem so strong to me. Reid's approach, however, talks about a bankroll that is double the size of the other.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

Well, playing two hands all the time requires a bankroll 37% larger than if we played just one hand. That doesn't seem so strong to me. Reid's approach, however, talks about a bankroll that is double the size of the other.

Sincerely,
Cac

The issue is not the 37% larger bankroll for 2 hands vs 1 hand - rather the number of max bets available.

[Archvaldor]

Multiple choice
“A master of any martial art does not conquer his opponent - he lets his opponent beat himself”

Off-topic but this is mostly true of eastern martial arts. With western styles such as boxing and wrestling there is more implicit focus on dominating the opponent with superior physical strength and speed.