Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Knight of Dawn: Advantage of multiple boxes on -TC's (long)

  1. #1
    Knight of Dawn
    Guest

    Knight of Dawn: Advantage of multiple boxes on -TC's (long)

    Don suggested that this discussion be posted on the MB, so here it is! =) My original email to Don has Don's pargraph by paragraph responses interspersed between my own. These are followed my my resonse.

    Me:

    Yep, the operating principle on the two box idea
    would be to spread one unit over two boxes through negative counts. This is, of course, is usually only possible with a unit that is 4 times the table minimum since most places I've been in only allow the play of 2 boxes at 2x minimum each.

    Don:

    So, what's the point? Why use a unit four times as large as it has to be, just to spread to two boxes, when you can bet the table min on one box?

    Me:

    This is probably something you already know about, but I haven't heard of it before: Suppose we flat bet many times the table minimum. (7 spots times 2 units each is 14, so 14x the min could be a good working figure) We index the number of boxes used to the count such that as the count becomes more negative the number of boxes increases. (say 1 box at T 0+, 2 at T -1, 4 at T -2 and 7 at T -3) I'm not sure how to do the math on this, but could this effect generate an advantage all by itself? It, if it works, would be kind of like a 'seated Wong' except instead of sitting out negative counts, we burn them away. Perhaps this has already been explored... if not perhaps it could be useful to you or someone else. The idea came to me while thinking out the logical extention of the two box theory.

    Don:

    I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Why do you insist on betting MORE money as the count get smore negative. Instead of betting one unit on one hand you want to bet 14 units on seven hands? Why would you want to do that? The first way costs one unit for 5.4 cards, while the second costs 14 units for 21.6 cards. On a dollar-per-card basis, the second way is 3.5 times as expensive as the first. Makes no snese at all.

    My response:

    I suppose I didn't explain this properly. The _total_ bet on each round is _exactly_ the same. If we were betting 12 times the table minimum and the table minimum was $5, then the bet on every round would be $60. If the TC is greater than +1, then we bet one box of $60. If the TC is between 0 and -1, then we bet 2 boxes of $30. (Note that the bet hasn't changed, just the number of boxes.) If the count drops further to T -2, we then spread to 4 boxes of $15 and so forth.

    The idea is to use the card eating effect to burn our way through negative counts. On average, we would receive 100 rounds per hour when betting $60 on one box, 66.6 rounds per hour with 2 boxes of $30, 40 rounds per hour with 4 boxes, etc. We are still seeing the same number of _cards_ on each TC that the normal distribution calls for but, and this is the key, our _effective_ wager on each -TC goes _down_ because each unit wager uses more cards. Thus, if we see a TC of -1.5, on average, 6 out of every 100 hands we would have an anticipated turnover of 6x$60=$360, on average, in every 100 rounds. However, due to the card eating effect, we actually only receive 2/5ths as many rounds if we have that same $60 wager on one box. Thus, our total turnover at TC -1.5 becomes (6x$60)x(2/5) = $360x0.4 = _$144_. This, statistically speaking, has the exact same effect as reducing our wager to $24 on TC -1.5.

    In the most extereme theoretical form, we would spread to 7 boxes (if the casino's tables have 7 boxes), on TC's equal to or lower than 0. We would use only one box at TC +1 and higher. In this instance, the total loss at all negative counts would be multiplied by 2/7. (ratio of minimum card usage to maximum card usage) This is a reduction in loss at -TC's of 5/7th's or 71.4%... a rather significant reduction.

    According to some preliminary calculations I did, this effect can yield a very slight advantage even on an 8-deck shoe with S17, D11, DAS, nS. On more favorable games the gain would be larger.

    Now for practicality... First off, how often do we bet twelve or fourteen times the table minimum as our main bet? Not too often. Also, if we spread from 1 box straight to 7 and then back again we would most likely attract some unwanted attention. But this is an extreme example meant so show potential value. More practical use would be for someone who wants to make a reduction in his losses if he is a play-all and bets 4x the table minimum as his lowest bet. On any TC lower than +1 they would spread to two hands. This alone would reduce losses when at a disadvantage by 33%. This is, I think, significant.

    KOD

  2. #2
    Dog Hand
    Guest

    Dog Hand: Re: Advantage of multiple boxes on -TC's (long)



    > Now for practicality... First off, how often
    > do we bet twelve or fourteen times the table
    > minimum as our main bet? Not too often.
    > Also, if we spread from 1 box straight to 7
    > and then back again we would most likely
    > attract some unwanted attention. But this is
    > an extreme example meant so show potential
    > value.

    > KOD

    KOD,

    Maybe what you need here is the inverse of the Big Player concept: call it the Little Player concept. When the count goes negative, you, the BP, call in the Little Players to fill the table with minimum bets! Then, when the count goes positive, you signal the LPs to exit. If you have enough LPs, you can always play just one spot. Furthermore, since the LPs are always making table minimum bets, they should be immune to heat. Of course, it would look somewhat odd to have the same group of players encamp and then decamp in unison, so in practice you would probably need a gaggle of LPs to pull this off.

    Dog Hand

  3. #3
    mondo21
    Guest

    mondo21: Re: Advantage of multiple boxes on -TC's (long)

    > Don suggested that this discussion be posted
    > on the MB, so here it is! =)

    I assume that if Don asked you to post this , he would like for one of us to respond. So, I'll give it a shot!

    > Me:

    > Yep, the operating principle on the two box
    > idea
    > would be to spread one unit over two boxes
    > through negative counts.

    I cannot think of any reason why spreading your bet over two hands would be of any benefit to a player. The only reason that makes sense for playing multiple hands is when the deck is positive.

    > Don:

    > So, what's the point? Why use a unit four
    > times as large as it has to be, just to
    > spread to two boxes, when you can bet the
    > table min on one box?

    If you want to "ride out" a negative shoe a minimum bet is your best bet. However, a better strategy is to visit the bathroom!

    > Me:
    >
    a 'seated Wong' except
    > instead of sitting out negative counts, we
    > burn them away.

    I would love to see Stanford Wong's ideas on the "seated Wong"!!

    > The idea is to use the card eating effect to
    > burn our way through negative counts. On
    > average, we would receive 100 rounds per
    > hour when betting $60 on one box, 66.6
    > rounds per hour with 2 boxes of $30, 40
    > rounds per hour with 4 boxes, etc. We are
    > still seeing the same number of _cards_ on
    > each TC that the normal distribution calls
    > for but, and this is the key, our
    > _effective_ wager on each -TC goes _down_
    > because each unit wager uses more cards.
    > Thus, if we see a TC of -1.5, on average, 6
    > out of every 100 hands we would have an
    > anticipated turnover of 6x$60=$360, on
    > average, in every 100 rounds. However, due
    > to the card eating effect, we actually only
    > receive 2/5ths as many rounds if we have
    > that same $60 wager on one box. Thus, our
    > total turnover at TC -1.5 becomes
    > (6x$60)x(2/5) = $360x0.4 = _$144_. This,
    > statistically speaking, has the exact same
    > effect as reducing our wager to $24 on TC
    > -1.5.

    I see two problems with the analysis above. You seem to be assuming that a negative shoe can be a predictor that the shoe will at some point turn positive. I don't see why this should be true. Your idea of burning up a negative shoe seems to be related to predicting streaks. Not a good idea! A shoe that is negative 4 could easily be negative 6 when the cut card is reached!

    Also, I don't see why the number of "rounds" matters at all. What matters is the number of hands. The number of hands per hour is not going to change due to palying multiple boxes.

    Good luck... Mondo 21

  4. #4
    Ed Tice
    Guest

    Ed Tice: I'll take a crack at this.

    I see what you are trying to accomplish. If you are in a play-all situation, you need to chew up cards in a negative count. Therefore most of us flat-bet one hand in order to use them up the "cheapest" way possible. This gives us the maximum % total EV. However, it is not necessarily the fastest way to make money.

    If you can play 2 hands at low counts (especially if you can get away with two at table minimum, which is possible at low stakes), then you will lose more money on the negative counts. But if you are using a large enough spread, this might still make more $/hr, because you will get more positive counts/hr and this will more than offset the extra losses you endure in the negative counts.

    In positive counts if you are alone, you want to play one hand so you get hte most out of each card. Unless you hit a table limit or something. (There are other conditions I know, but they dont apply to low stakes players like me).

    So in essence by playing multiple hands at negative counts, you are giving up %EV in exchance for faster play.... you have to work out if its better for you.

    The *good* thing I see about this is that if you are spreading to multiple hands in negative EV situations, it might very well be heat-deflecting! But this depends on your style as well. As a red-chipper I don't get much heat, so I wont add any other comments on that matter.

    Ed

  5. #5
    Knight of Dawn
    Guest

    Knight of Dawn: Re: I'll take a crack at this.

    > I see what you are trying to accomplish. If
    > you are in a play-all situation, you need to
    > chew up cards in a negative count. Therefore
    > most of us flat-bet one hand in order to use
    > them up the "cheapest" way
    > possible. This gives us the maximum % total
    > EV. However, it is not necessarily the
    > fastest way to make money.

    > If you can play 2 hands at low counts
    > (especially if you can get away with two at
    > table minimum, which is possible at low
    > stakes), then you will lose more money on
    > the negative counts. But if you are using a
    > large enough spread, this might still make
    > more $/hr, because you will get more
    > positive counts/hr and this will more than
    > offset the extra losses you endure in the
    > negative counts.

    > In positive counts if you are alone, you
    > want to play one hand so you get hte most
    > out of each card. Unless you hit a table
    > limit or something. (There are other
    > conditions I know, but they dont apply to
    > low stakes players like me).

    > So in essence by playing multiple hands at
    > negative counts, you are giving up %EV in
    > exchance for faster play.... you have to
    > work out if its better for you.

    > The *good* thing I see about this is that if
    > you are spreading to multiple hands in
    > negative EV situations, it might very well
    > be heat-deflecting! But this depends on your
    > style as well. As a red-chipper I don't get
    > much heat, so I wont add any other comments
    > on that matter.

    > Ed

    Thanks for the response Ed!

    On thing that people seem to keep forgetting, however, is that in this example the total bet is the same whether it is one box, two boxes or twenty. People seem to keep missing this crucial point. If I were at a $5 table my unit bet would be $10. This means that on any positive TC I would spread $10-$120 just like any other standard betting schedule. When the TC is negative I would bet $5 on two hands. This is the crucial point. I am betting half a unit on two hands. Since I eat up 50% more cards this way it means that, on average, I lose only 2/3rds what I would lose had my bet remained $10 on one hand. And, yes, I had considered the camo implications of this as well... thus we turn the card eating effect into an ally rather than an adversary. We increase camo, reduce loss, and potentially reduce time spent at negative counts. The only downside I see is that the half unit bets would make the wagers made on +TC's look twice as big.

    Again, on negative TC's I do not increase my bet. I spread it across two hands. It is the card eating effect itself that reduces the average bet at those negative TC's.

    Most people are interpreting the concept this way: min bet is $10 on one box, on negative TC spread to two boxes of $10. Doing the math: 2x$10 = $20 total bet. Multiply this by the ratio of card usage with one box open to card usage with two boxes open (2/3) and we obtain 13.333. Thus, my effective wager at negative TC's is higer, thus increasing my loss. In this instance, and only this instance would it be valid to say that I wager more on negative TC's. But this is exactly not the method i propose. The approach I propose, again, is spreading a half unit across two boxes rather than one unit across two boxes.

    I the extreme example of my orginal post I spread 1/7th of a unit across 7 boxes. The math, again, is the total wager (7x1/7= 1) times the ratio of card usage for one box to card usage for seven boxes (2/8) and we obtain and effective wager of .25 units. This reduces the expectation (a loss) at negative TC's by %75.

    Whether multiple boxes speeds up the number of rounds per hour is another subject. Playing heads up with a competent dealer it just might, but I can't say this for certain.

    Thanks for reading,

    KOD

  6. #6
    Dick Dale
    Guest

    Dick Dale: Re: I'll take a crack at this.

    I always play two hands in a shoe game, regardless if I'm heads up or not. By playing multiple hands, you are able to get through the negative counts quicker, which means there will be more high counts - which is good. By doing this, you manipulate the frequency of high counts. It also helps decrease variance due to the co-variance the two hands have with the dealers up card. I think.

    Good post Ed.

    Dick Dale

  7. #7
    mondo21
    Guest

    mondo21: Re: I'll take a crack at this.

    > If you can play 2 hands at low counts
    > (especially if you can get away with two at
    > table minimum, which is possible at low
    > stakes), then you will lose more money on
    > the negative counts. But if you are using a
    > large enough spread, this might still make
    > more $/hr, because you will get more
    > positive counts/hr and this will more than
    > offset the extra losses you endure in the
    > negative counts.

    Here is why I am having trouble seeing the value in this idea. Why will you get more + counts per hour??

    Let's just look at an example. Let's say that the shoe is at a TC of -2. Let us also assume that it will take exactly 18 cards to return this shoe to a zero count. Now let us also assume that on average 3 cards per hand will be dealt.

    If I play a minimum bet of $25, I will be betting a total of $75 on three hands. The dealer will also play three hands of 3 cards each. Six total hands dealt = 18 cards played. For an experienced dealer this would have taken 5 minutes.

    Now suppose I play two hands at $25 each. Of the six required hands I will play four and the dealer will play two. My total money bet will be $100. Six hands will still have been dealt and the elapsed time will still be 5 minutes.

    The shoe is now at zero. The probability that this shoe will be negative after the next few cards is equal to the probability that it will be positive.

    My question is, what did I buy with my extra $25 bet?

    Maybe you can help me understand.

    Thanks... Mondo 21


  8. #8
    suicyco maniac
    Guest

    suicyco maniac: Re: I'll take a crack at this.

    > Here is why I am having trouble seeing the
    > value in this idea. Why will you get more +
    > counts per hour??

    > Let's just look at an example. Let's say
    > that the shoe is at a TC of -2. Let us also
    > assume that it will take exactly 18 cards to
    > return this shoe to a zero count. Now let us
    > also assume that on average 3 cards per hand
    > will be dealt.

    > If I play a minimum bet of $25, I will be
    > betting a total of $75 on three hands. The
    > dealer will also play three hands of 3 cards
    > each. Six total hands dealt = 18 cards
    > played. For an experienced dealer this would
    > have taken 5 minutes.

    > Now suppose I play two hands at $25 each. Of
    > the six required hands I will play four and
    > the dealer will play two. My total money bet
    > will be $100. Six hands will still have been
    > dealt and the elapsed time will still be 5
    > minutes.

    > The shoe is now at zero. The probability
    > that this shoe will be negative after the
    > next few cards is equal to the probability
    > that it will be positive.

    > My question is, what did I buy with my extra
    > $25 bet?

    > Maybe you can help me understand.

    > Thanks... Mondo 21

    Playing multiple hands on one round is quicker then playing the same # of hands spread out over multiple rounds. If you are a fast player you will already anticipate what is the play of the hands to the left of you current hand and this will speed it up a bit however the main reason playing playing multiple spots speeds the game up is it makes the dealers motions more efficient kinda like an assembly line they only have to go into the rack once for all the payouts they only have to check for blackjack once etc. I am not saying that what has been proposed is the most lucrative strategy but it is interesting to talk about styles of play that the "average" counter would never do. SM

  9. #9
    Sonny
    Guest

    Sonny: Consolidation betting

    > We index the number of boxes used to the count
    > such that as the count becomes more negative
    > the number of boxes increases.

    It sounds like you're asking about "consolidation betting". The down side of this technique is that it requires a game with great penetration and will tend to increase your variance when compared to the standard bet spread approach. I'm not sure if it is even effective in shoe games.

    For more information check out the "Grifter's Gambit":

    http://www.cardcounter.com/main.pl?read=299

    -Sonny-


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.