Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 14

Thread: Jackie Chiles: Random bets in neutral situations

  1. #1
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: Random bets in neutral situations

    On page 175 of Mason Malmuth's "Blackjack Essays" there is a brief discussion of what he calls "opposition betting." This is an idea that has intrigued me for a long time, but I have yet to find any sort of rigorous study of the topic.

    Assume the player uses Kelly betting or a fraction of Kelly. When the count is neutral or only slightly positive or negative, the player randomly jumps his bets up and down. This appears to be senseless because it is senseless. As long as the game is truly in "coin toss territory" the player's expectation on these bets is break even. In my opinion this is great cover, especially if the house is really studying you and tracking your moves precisely.

    As Mason mentions, though, the player's fluctuations are going to increase and his bankroll must be larger than it would otherwise be. This is easy enough to understand. But how much? Has anyone ever done a computer simulation on this? Can anyone give me some guidance?

    Jackie Chiles

  2. #2
    Rockky176
    Guest

    Rockky176: Doubt cover value

    The issue with all these cover plays or betting, they will only work if you are observed by real experts. If this is the case they will still figure it out. If you are being observed by non experts they will see it as threatning bet variation and will speed up heat. This method by the way can be also used at positive counts, for example if you plan on betting 6 units at +3, you can instead alternate between 11 and 1 unit.

  3. #3
    WallStRunoff
    Guest

    WallStRunoff: (Message Deleted by Poster)


  4. #4
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: Re: Doubt cover value

    Rockky176:

    Thanks for your input. I highly suggest that anyone interested in this topic read pages 107-115 of Arnold Snyder's "Blackbelt in Blackjack." I am going to re-study this section and do some thinking over the weekend. Mr. Snyder, for one, does not really seem to believe that casinos would be able to penetrate an effective "opposition betting" strategy.

    My take on this is that the casinos are not so much looking for the way a player plays his cards. (Yes, the most deadly tipoff is correct insurance betting.) In fact, I have never seen a boss become concerned when a player is using a basic strategy card at the table. Players who deviate from BS are intitially thought of as poor players who don't really understand the game. (It never ceases to amuse me how much dealers question my play!) Suspicion rises when: (1) the player who does this is winning; and/or (2) the player is moving his bets up and down with what might be moves in the count. Then you've got a potential problem and scrutiny is possible. But if your betting is nonsensical and unrelated to the count why would the bosses still peg you for a counter? I guess I just don't give them that much credit. How can they differentiate a counter using random betting from a regular player who knows a little about the game and plays hunches? After all, the later person is exactly who the casinos WANT to see at the tables.

    Jackie Chiles

  5. #5
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: Re: Random bets in neutral situations

    WallStRunoff:

    Thanks for the input. As I suggested to Rockky176, careful study and thought on pages 107-115 of Arnold Snyder's "Blackbelt in Blackjack" is a good idea. Snyder is of the belief that "it would require HOURS of PERSONAL observation" (emphasis added) to nail a counter using a properly implemented random betting strategy.

    It sounds as if you are ahead of me on this. I understand the logic, and I simply do not believe in the brilliance of the casinos to see through this strategy, IF it is properly executed. I hesitate to use it because I do not have a handle on just how much fluctuation this tactic causes. I introduce new things into my "game" only when I know I am on firm ground. This is not the case with random betting until I know the math.

    I only wish I knew how to shuffle track!

    Jackie Chiles

  6. #6
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Heat

    Heat is a multi-stage process. First, something attracts scrutiny. Generally only then does actual good play come into the equation. That is how the Heat function in CV4 works. Even then terrible play can cause heat

    As for the strategy in question, it depends on the level of cover play you are talking about. It sounds like the cover is too heavy, and that would destroy the advantage. So, the casinos would be right in ignoring the player as he has thrown away his advantage anyhow.

  7. #7
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: Re: Heat

    Norm:

    This is my problem. You and Rockky176 pooh-pooh this idea. Others, including Arnold Snyder and Mason Malmuth, have good things to say about it. (To the best of my knowledge neither of these two writers has recanted.) I am sitting in the middle. As I stated in another post, I am not about to make a change in my "game" without really understanding what it is that I am doing from a strictly mathematical viewpoint. Apparently, nobody has done any serious work in this area that would stand up to criticism and scrutiny - my search has turned up nothing.

    You write that the cover is probably too heavy and that such a player would give away his advantage. I just do not understand how introducing "coin toss bets" into the mix in any way gives away whatever advantage a player might have. It's a long-term break-even proposition, is it not? What I do grasp intuitively is that bankroll fluctuation/variance is going to take a leap. Quantifying that leap is the knowledge that I am after.

    Am I wrong in assuming that variance alone does not effect long-term expectation? Doesn't the expectation remain the same, even though it should be pursued with a bigger cushion? Arnold Snyder certainly thinks so. The house, of course, has no inkling of the fact that the player's variance has risen. What it sees in the here and now is a player whose bets jump around with neither rhyme nor reason, and that is exactly the point of the strategy.

    Jackie Chiles

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: The problem

    I just do not understand how introducing "coin toss bets" into the mix in any way gives away whatever advantage a player might have. It's a long-term break-even proposition, is it not?

    No. You said that the count is neutral. When the count is neutral, you are at a disadvantage. Most of the time the house has the advantage. If you start making large bets when the odds are against you, you may seriously damage your game. Even if these bets were coin tosses, overall EV would drop.

    Of course it depends on the degree of bet jumping you are talking about. I'd need a better sense than "random" betting since obviously that would give random results

  9. #9
    kc
    Guest

    kc: Re: The problem

    > I just do not understand how introducing "coin
    > toss bets" into the mix in any way gives away
    > whatever advantage a player might have. It's a
    > long-term break-even proposition, is it not? No. You
    > said that the count is neutral. When the count is
    > neutral, you are at a disadvantage. Most of the time
    > the house has the advantage. If you start making large
    > bets when the odds are against you, you may seriously
    > damage your game. Even if these bets were coin tosses,
    > overall EV would drop.

    > Of course it depends on the degree of bet jumping you
    > are talking about. I'd need a better sense than
    > "random" betting since obviously that would
    > give random results

    I agree. If you wager more on an even money wager and assuming your non even money wagers are made with a positive EV, you are getting the same return but are risking more money. This would tend to obfuscate your EV. In fact if you were to wager enough on the even money opportunites, you could virtually negate your positive EV altogether.

    kc

  10. #10
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Clarification

    First, I want everyone to understand something, because I am the last person on the face of the earth to be a Mason Malmuth fan, when it comes to BJ information. I have always said that as a blackjack "expert," Mason is a great ... poker authority. :-)

    That said, if you go all the way back up to the original post of this thread, I think you'll see that we've gone a bit astray here. The original post is correct, as it stands, because it essentially calls for random bets in virtually neutral-edge situations, AND, it clearly states that, although e.v. will remain, essentially, the same, variance will increase, thereby requiring substantially more bank to maintain the same ROR. And, that is accurate.

    Suppose, to make things very simple, you bet optimally, and that at TC = 0, the edge is exactly zero. Instead of betting 1 unit there, you decide, instead, to bet, whimsically, either 1, 5, or 10 units there. What will happen? 1) Your e.v. will remain exactly the same, and 2) Your s.d. (and, therefore, your ROR) will increase dramatically. What to do? Make your bank large enough so that the ROR returns to what it was before. You now have the same e.v. and ROR as you did betting one unit all the time at TC = 0.

    Do I recommend that? No. Is the above analysis mathematically correct? Yes.

    Don

  11. #11
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: My mistake

    Norm:

    I misspoke. What I meant was that when the deck/shoe is neutral.

    Jackie Chiles

  12. #12
    Jackie Chiles
    Guest

    Jackie Chiles: Thanks Don

    Don:

    Thanks for the reply. As I stated above, I messed up and confused things by stating neutral count for a neutral deck/shoe. I still wish there was some work on this. I'm quite curious about just how out of control things could get with this strategy. But I don't know so I guess I won't use it.

    Jackie Chiles

  13. #13
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: No simple answer

    There has been plenty of work on the cost of cover. But, cover methods vary enormously. Are you saying double your bet in a neutral count 10% of the time or 16 units 30% of the time? The difference is enormous.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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.