What type of spread for this game?

[Three]

Don't quite agree. Assuming the simulator is based on floored results, the true 1 bucket contains results for true 1.00 to 1.99. So, for the sale of argument, true 1.5 yields an advantage, and should be capitalized on.

Example, heads up after 1 hand if a 6 deck shoe, RC is 6. There is no advantage, so, a raise to 2 units Is essentially trading variance with the house. At RC 9, there is a clear advantage, and justifies a larger bet.

Don't necessarily agree. The advantage shift is not linear. Decimal TC frequencies are not changing linearly but as their part in a bell curve. If the average of all TC between 1.00 and 1.99 show no advantage then there is little or no advantage at TC +1.5. The mean advantage for the bin should fall just prior to TC +1.5 at something around TC +1.45. The average advantage for TC +2 bin will fall around TC +2.45. That makes TC +1.5 have an advantage very similar to the average for the TC +1 bin not significantly more.

If you assume linearity in shifting advantage as TC changes (an assumption we know is wrong) and waining TC frequencies as you move away from TC 0, The average advantage should be found just prior to TC +1.5 due to the waning TC frequencies as each decimal TC is increased within TC +1 bin. If it were not for the frequency bias and an assumption of constant frequency is made the average advantage for TC +1 bin would be the advantage at TC +1.5.

[Freightman]

Don't necessarily agree. The advantage shift is not linear. Decimal TC frequencies are not changing linearly but as their part in a bell curve. If the average of all TC between 1.00 and 1.99 show no advantage then there is little or no advantage at TC +1.5. The mean advantage for the bin should fall just prior to TC +1.5 at something around TC +1.45. The average advantage for TC +2 bin will fall around TC +2.45. That makes TC +1.5 have an advantage very similar to the average for the TC +1 bin not significantly more.

If you assume linearity in shifting advantage as TC changes (an assumption we know is wrong) and waining TC frequencies as you move away from TC 0, The average advantage should be found just prior to TC +1.5 due to the waning TC frequencies as each decimal TC is increased within TC +1 bin. If it were not for the frequency bias and an assumption of constant frequency is made the average advantage for TC +1 bin would be the advantage at TC +1.5.

Agreed as to your linear comment. We're talking generalities though, and for this purpose, it's good enough.

[Norm]

Norm, could you show a few calculations of how this applies when it does involve card counting.

It can't be calculated.

[BoSox]

6D / 80% penetration / H17 / DAS / Resplit A

Please feel free to rip apart any part of this scheme. Im not interested in the preservation of feelings so be as candid as you'd like with any critiques. Im only interested in improving my game and EV.
Ive been using 1-12 thus far for HI-Lo count.

True count:
>1 = 1U
1=2
2=4
3=8
4=10
5=12 or 2x75

At TC < 0 bet 1 unit. Sit out some hands at TCounts of -1 This also helps drive ploppies off the table, who believe in the flow. At TC of -2 and worse refuse to play them period, do what you got to do. REMEMBER it is a balancing act for every dollar bet/ hands played in negative situations the more risk/variance will be required and necessary to make it up plus, which requires a bigger spread and easier exposure an possibly going over tolerance levels. Another side note you are going to win 43.3% of all the hands played,(even in good counts) and lose 47.8 % on average the rest is pushes. So do not think you will be immune to any negative flux.

At TC of 0 bet 1 unit.

At TC of +1 and going by the flooring method, when the count is much closer to +2 around 1.7 or higher start adding partial units to a $5 unit, bet 6,7, or a pink chip,8, even 9 dollars.

At TC of +2 bet 2 units at the low end of the flooring raising all the way up to 6 or 7 units at the high end.

At TC of +3 I like where you start with at 8 units but continue raising it up again to 11 units

AT TC of +4 max bet time 12 units, I would prefer two hands of 9 units, any time to one hand of 12 units.

[BoSox]

Jc3, I would also add to my above post regarding one more aspect of just what you are up against and that is true count frequency percentages.
Here is one example of a good game with 83.3% pen taken from BJ Attack 3rd Edition by Don Schlesinger, in chapter 10, "The World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation" table 10.60 on page245
5.0/6 H17 DAS
The TC Freq. % at <0 is 45.21%, at a TC of 0 is 25.91% taken together that is 71.12% of the time you are at a distinct disadvantage, and it gets worse. The TC Freq.% at TC of +1 is 10.74% where even if you know the Illustrious 18 you are at a very tiny edge, almost a break even point. Adding this total with the other two TC Freq. you are now at 81.86% of the time you will either be chasing losses or spinning your wheels. Still think the game is easy?

I would like to add, the book I took this from is simply a work of art, that is loaded with knowledge that will pay for itself thousands of times over its bargain price.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Kudos to Botox.

I hope that everyone reads your post #18.

There was a series of books entitled "The World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation"

each with tables - from sim's for Zen, Advanced Omega II, Red Seven, T.K.O., etc.

They are hard to find, but are great if you want to compare your win rate, R.O.R.,

average bet, etc. for a fairly wide set of rules, number of decks, common spreads,

etc. as opposed to running many simulations on your own. I have used these books

for many years.

[BoSox]

Kudos to Botox.

I hope that everyone reads your post #18.

There was a series of books entitled "The World's Greatest Blackjack Simulation"

each with tables - from sim's for Zen, Advanced Omega II, Red Seven, T.K.O., etc.

They are hard to find, but are great if you want to compare your win rate, R.O.R.,

average bet, etc. for a fairly wide set of rules, number of decks, common spreads,

etc. as opposed to running many simulations on your own. I have used these books

for many years.

Zen Master Flash, thanks for the kudos reply. I would like to add one of the main reasons I joined this board is because I have followed your valuable work for years, as I admit I am a big fan. In the short time I have been here, I have discovered many extremely knowledgeable participants that I am very grateful for to learn from and participate with, including the very humble moderator Norm.