Quote Originally Posted by VonDox View Post
I was following Ian Anderson's green chip strategy.. On the START of the previous hand the TC had been at 3.5 and I had a $100.00 bet out and I won and parlayed up to $200.00 when the TC was 5, RC 10 with at least a 2 maybe 2-1/2 decks left in the show ( the place I play at cuts to basically 1 deck which is nice, decent penetration ) Overall for green chip play I have been very succuesful with that betting strategy and style of game play. I don't like sitting at a table longer than 2 hours, just enough to get it credited to my comps unless I win big earlier in the game where I play for practice. I then slink off to play some baccarat for awhile then come back or grab a drink and watch some football.. Then come back if I had a good first session and play again. I can't argue against what you are saying.. I do try to play strictly to basic strategy and I really know how important it is to do so. I would be kicking myself even more if I had won all 4 hands and missed out on two opportunities to double that I passed by because I had a 'bad feeling'.. I think it hurts the worst when you do misplay a hand and lose out on an opportunity to win more money than it does to simply lose that is for sure. My bankroll can take the hit and I learn and move on and I have lost more than that before playing at the $100.00 tables but that's another story.. So a question do you think Anderson's Green Chip strategy/betting-game play is wrong or ??? Would like hear any opinions on it?
Granted I don’t know your strength of bankroll or your spreads etc. - here are the flaws of your strategy.

Sounds like a 6 deck shoe - As I recall, Anderson’s strategy was based on high stakes with the math of his “playing errors” calculated by Wong and given the assurance by Wong that his game was +EV. I guarantee that Anderson knew his indices inside out. So, when you say you play strictly to basic strategy, you are giving away on those indices that Anderson is not giving away. Further, Anderson would never ever split 10’s (no direct knowledge, however his persona and act would never ever allow that).

Now, a 2 hour session is usually (not always) sufficient to overcome any initial negative variance, so leaving about then or earlier with positive variance is fine. You also mention $500 max, so depending on where you are, you are either playing a $10 or $15 min game or a $25 min game. Now, you also suggest your bankroll can handle a $100 min. It’s not a problem playing varying min games as long your bankroll is sufficient to handle the potentially brutal variance that can occur provided your patience in knowing that everything pans out in the end - do you have that patience?

From the sounds of things, I think you’ve been lucky. Andersons strategy was good (for him) at the time but I don’t really think it relevant in today’s environment. However. You’re giving away to much additional equity without indices. Now, I do mix varying minimums and seldom play an optimal ramp in stores that are geographically close to me and are important - but I do carry lots of tools in my arsenal which overcome those “supposed” deficiencies.