> The max bet or the min bet? Increasing your spread by
> increasing the max bet is a disturbing development to
> say the least. With backcounting your spread is
> technically infinity.
True. But I was talking about the min and max bet excluding zero. Neither min or max bet is fixed. The entire betting ramp is recalculated.
> True. But I was talking about the min and max bet
> excluding zero. Neither min or max bet is fixed. The
> entire betting ramp is recalculated.
OK I got it. So I guess the bet is Kellyized for each count, and the max represents how high up the ladder you have to go.
My favorite metric for comparing games and systems is big bets/100 hands. Most of the shoe games I play give around 0.2-0.25 BB/100. It tends toward eliminating the effects of spread and backcounting to give a more fair comparison.
> My favorite metric for comparing games and systems is
> big bets/100 hands. Most of the shoe games I play give
> around 0.2-0.25 BB/100. It tends toward eliminating
> the effects of spread and backcounting to give a more
> fair comparison.
Not bad for a rule of thumb. And required for yourself if you have a fixed betting methodology. In the usual charts I post, I 'Kellyize' all betting. That way you standardize for risk and optimize all compared systems fairly.
A certain person claims this is false because you end up with unrealistic bets. This is incorrect for two reasons. The first is that both strategies are treated in the same manner. The old method was to pick a betting ramp for the strategy that you want to 'win' and then apply the same ramp to the other strategy. Obviously this is biased. The point is that for every penetration by the card, two close systems will vary as to which wins by each penetration card under this method. Calculating SCORE by betting ramps to the penny essentially averages all of this out and provides an honest, unselected circumstance, comparison.
Secondly, using rational betting ramps instead of ramps to unrealized penny denominated bets actually makes far less difference than people think. Play around with CVCX Online and this becomes obvious. By rational betting I mean reasonable chip denominations and reasonable bet jumps. But, CVCX doesn't just round the bets to reasonable numbers of chips. It uses a repetitive feedback mechanism to adjust all bets. This provides a rational betting ramp that is nearly Kelly optimal.
Still, for system comparisons, pure Kelly calcs make more sense, unless you somehow know exactly how many cards of penetration you will have and exactly how many other players exist and how they will play
CVCX Online
> Although I predict this concept will not exactly catch
> on and spread like wildfire, it is a very original and
> interesting idea.
At least, not until it gets a catchy acronym.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks