Floating Bet Spread

[Anton20]

Hello everyone! I'm cross posting this topic on Blackjack Square as I believe it would also be nice to get feedback from a larger audience.


I'm in the middle of reading Arnold Snyder's book, Black belt In Blackjack, and I was particularly interested in betting camouflage techniques, especially about "taking a handful of chips betting $225 or $175 instead of carefully counting chips to bet $200" thus giving the impression to bet randomly.



I was wondering what the impact would be of varying bets around a certain value.


Let's say you're betting 2 units for a True Count of 2, so you need to play n hands between 1.7 units and 2.3 (+- 25%)
If (and this is a big if because it would require the player to accurately track the average of his bets) the player implements this technique, perfectly thus attaining an average bet of 2 units in the long run, what would be the impact on his EV?


I see many limitations to this technique, such as
- difficult to track optimal bets to keep the average bet at 2 units.
- not very effective camouflage, as the casino's surveillance will not track the exact amount of the bet, but “only” the increase or decrease in the amount of the bet.


So it was more out of interest and curiosity that I wanted to know the possible outcome of such a simulation. I'd be inclined to say that it would only modify the standard deviation with a slight increase, but I could be forgetting other factors.

[DSchles]

Since the average bet would remain, ostensibly, the same as betting two units all the time, the EV shouldn't change at all. But, as you correctly surmise at the bottom of your post, variance would increase, which, in turn, would lower the SCORE. The effect surely won't be dramatic, but it will be there.

The decision as to whether or not to implement the technique is, as always, open to debate. Do you gain more by the alleged "camouflage" than you lose from the lowered SCORE? Not surprisingly, I imagine the answer is, "It depends."

Don

[Anton20]

Hello Don,

Thanks a lot for your thorough answer.
As you said, it depends. Having said that, the more I read about camouflage the more I love the topic, I would be open to any book/podcast/article recommendation to widen my knowledge on the topic!

Anton

[Freightman]

First, your quoted example is to my view the most interesting chapter in Snyders book. It refers to the jovial guy who never ratholes who throws more chips to the pile in declining counts. If memory serves, you’re in the area of page 147. It is a form of opposition betting, a concept I believe in though use it in a different way.

Two examples, though one is not as described. Depending on where I’m playing , I’ll either use a dual ramp or single variable ramp. Regardless of approach, the variable bet spread is dependant on factors not based on true count specifically, but rather on that concept I refer to as QTC - Quality of True Count. In essence, just as higher true count relates to higher success rates on doubles and splits, higher QTC gives a higher success ratio to those high count doubles and splits.

Now, before going more to the point, the gambit normally doesn’t apply to high stakes slash and burn players who tend to be robotic to the count. Just in the last couple of days, we had that profit differential cited between counts of true 1.0 and 1.5 - half true counts and their effect on higher profitability. I have seen more than 1 high stakes pro jump from 1x25 to 2x200 or 300 at exactly true 1.0. Now, for myself, I have no issues going to 2 units at break even, but to 16x is in fact a mistake and likely made by totally believing the CVCX ramp increase on some sims in the true 1 bucket.

And now the point - more likely after an analysis of a played shoe is the potential ability to recognize patterns still existing after a shuffled shoe. You have won 2 or 3 hands in a row and the declining count no longer justifies your unchanged wager - but - what if you’re in a rich card clump. As the sing says - Carry on my wayward son.

https://youtu.be/2X_2IdybTV0?si=64K9vW3miP0YgwNL

It happens, just as the risk averse 10 v 10 double I made scoring a stiff leading to a less than desirable result.

[Sharky]

...And now the point - more likely after an analysis of a played shoe is the potential ability to recognize patterns still existing after a shuffled shoe. You have won 2 or 3 hands in a row and the declining count no longer justifies your unchanged wager - but - what if you’re in a rich card clump. ...

OMG...away for what seems like a year or two....but some things never change.....LMFAO


patterns??? you say....HAHAHAHA

streaks??? you say....more HAHAHAHAHAH

rich card clumps, from an admitted non-tracker???? up say.....HAHAHAHAHAH

I guess some things just never change

Put this puppy in VODOO QUICKLY, I MIGHT ADD

GOOD LUCK!!!!

Sharks

[Freightman]

OMG...away for what seems like a year or two....but some things never change.....LMFAO


patterns??? you say....HAHAHAHA

streaks??? you say....more HAHAHAHAHAH

rich card clumps, from an admitted non-tracker???? up say.....HAHAHAHAHAH

I guess some things just never change

Put this puppy in VODOO QUICKLY, I MIGHT ADD

GOOD LUCK!!!!

Sharks

https://youtu.be/j28IjNRnZfQ?si=6IqX9RVqzHVSCEsA

After a pleasant absence of your snarkish stalking behaviour, I note your return with your obvious desire to once again insure your foot insertion up your anal cavity.

For your benefit, the link attached should encourage you to seek the procedure noted allowing for relief of your clogged neural pathways.

You may require additional relief which may be learned by execution of the following link.

https://youtube.com/shorts/gBwOImv_S...nnSeYTTbdBOmVj

[Freightman]

On a more intellectual level, your snarkish stupidity seems to be a function of your inability to understand cranial mechanics. On a more functional level in line with your limited abilities, perhaps you may understand the basic meaning of ”Go fuck yourself”, which I proffer to you with the utmost disrespect.

[Anton20]

First, your quoted example is to my view the most interesting chapter in Snyders book. It refers to the jovial guy who never ratholes who throws more chips to the pile in declining counts. If memory serves, you’re in the area of page 147. It is a form of opposition betting, a concept I believe in though use it in a different way.

Two examples, though one is not as described. Depending on where I’m playing , I’ll either use a dual ramp or single variable ramp. Regardless of approach, the variable bet spread is dependant on factors not based on true count specifically, but rather on that concept I refer to as QTC - Quality of True Count. In essence, just as higher true count relates to higher success rates on doubles and splits, higher QTC gives a higher success ratio to those high count doubles and splits.

Now, before going more to the point, the gambit normally doesn’t apply to high stakes slash and burn players who tend to be robotic to the count. Just in the last couple of days, we had that profit differential cited between counts of true 1.0 and 1.5 - half true counts and their effect on higher profitability. I have seen more than 1 high stakes pro jump from 1x25 to 2x200 or 300 at exactly true 1.0. Now, for myself, I have no issues going to 2 units at break even, but to 16x is in fact a mistake and likely made by totally believing the CVCX ramp increase on some sims in the true 1 bucket.

And now the point - more likely after an analysis of a played shoe is the potential ability to recognize patterns still existing after a shuffled shoe. You have won 2 or 3 hands in a row and the declining count no longer justifies your unchanged wager - but - what if you’re in a rich card clump. As the sing says - Carry on my wayward son.

https://youtu.be/2X_2IdybTV0?si=64K9vW3miP0YgwNL

It happens, just as the risk averse 10 v 10 double I made scoring a stiff leading to a less than desirable result.

Hello Freightman,

Yes, I also believe it to be of high interest, although something technical that a rookie like myself should use with great caution.
Is there anywhere I can read more about the things you've mentionned such as the dual ramp or QTC?

Anton

[DSchles]

the more I read about camouflage the more I love the topic, I would be open to any book/podcast/article recommendation to widen my knowledge on the topic!

Entire chapter in BJA3, pp. 91-109.

Don

[Freightman]

Hello Freightman,

Yes, I also believe it to be of high interest, although something technical that a rookie like myself should use with great caution.
Is there anywhere I can read more about the things you've mentionned such as the dual ramp or QTC?

Anton

Just leaving the house now - will respond this afternoon sometime. The concept in my view is pretty simple though it’s execution is quite difficult. Further, the theories have not been proven by simulation which is a no no for some guys - though don’t be concerned about negativity from some loons displaying Snarkish tendencies.

[G Man]

Anton, one thing to remember... If there was a lot written/posted on camouflage... it would not be camouflage anymore ! For an expert or pro player; it's important that you develop your own approach/method of camouflage. Did you ever read MI6 new techniques posted or written for general public ?

[Anton20]

Anton, one thing to remember... If there was a lot written/posted on camouflage... it would not be camouflage anymore ! For an expert or pro player; it's important that you develop your own approach/method of camouflage. Did you ever read MI6 new techniques posted or written for general public ?

Hello G Man, I completely agree with you. The goal here is not to apply blindly Andersen's Ultimate Gambit for instance or any other betting camouflage but rather to get an understanding of the mathematics behind proven techniques.

As I work in the aviation industry, I like this parallel : you almost never develop a new plane from a clean sheet, you always develop it based on previous designs. I believe it's the same for camouflage at Blackjack, you need a good understanding of the main ideas to start building you own strategy

[Anton20]

Entire chapter in BJA3, pp. 91-109.

Don

Thank you Don! Really appreciated