Don't think of BR or cash-on-hand requirements as multiple of your min bet, but your max bet. Lots of stuff online and in books, at least that's dated, is talking about playing strong single deck games with a smaller spread. If you're playing a shoe game, how much is that 50x min bet gonna get you, if you're spreading 1-10? 5 max bets?
IMO have at least 100 max bets (in BR) and 20 max bets when you sit down.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
Flash,Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash
I couldn't see any difference for an advanced count compared to a level 1 count like Hi-lo in terms of bankroll. In Blackjack we need to come up with money in order to play. Say for example you need $100000 to play with. Does using an advanced count make you bankroll requirements lower? How much lower is the risk of ruin using an advance count compare to a level 1 count? I am talking about playing SOLO.
The question you ask reveals that you fall to understand how using an
anemic count and/or an anemic bankroll cripples your play.
The weaker the count the more cash you'll need. Not only is your e.v.
reduced, but you must bet more aggressively to earn the same amount;
and that raises the Risk of Ruin, which drives your Bankroll computations.
Another, often unrecognized fact, promulgated by Tthree is the
reduction in the volatility and variance of your actual results.
Tthree ? Are you there ? Could you enlighten this youngster ?
All due respect ZMF, I consider the above quote narrow in that you are implying that one size fits all, and that everyone plays the same way period. You give the impression that learning a high rated count system solves most of the problems, and in fact it does not, considering all the possible variables. Sorry but no two players play the same way, even though they may very well in fact use the same counting system. Some players do not have to bet more aggressively to earn the same amount! In fact some players that use a level one counts, play an outstanding game, above and beyond some of the players who use better supposed systems.
Last edited by BoSox; 08-21-2016 at 01:47 PM.
What is happening is you change the gain per decision playing with a more accurate playing count and you for betting each count has a very similar looking bell curve of advantage for individual deck compositions that are averaged to get the mean of the bell curve which is what you bet all your bets at. Everything you do is equating a bunch of deck compositions and taking the average. The tighter the bell curve around the decision the more accurate the overall decision is. You must remember everything is an average of equating a bunch of situations. Your EV is never based on the specific deck composition but on hitting the average in the long term.
For playing the common misconception is the difference is defined by the number of times the hand is played differently. This would be true if your decision was unique for each individual deck composition. But your decision is based on the average of all the deck compositions that is equated (Usually equated to the same TC). You make a bunch of that playing decision over time at that TC and eventually the average true gain of each individual deck composition approaches the average gain for that decision bin. So if you change the correlation of your decision bin increments to the decision by using more powerful information the gain per decision for that bin increases. So the gain from a more powerful playing count is being accumulated with every decision made not only when the decision changes since the more powerful info increases the EV gain for making a single decision. The more different decisions made the higher the gain potential. Like in games with lots of bonus draws a powerful system while use a different index for each bonus draw. The more specific you can get the more gain. A hand total of 13 would have 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6+ card indices for each upward and also 6,7 bonus draw indices for mixed suited and spaded draws. If rather than using the general adjustment for all hands you learn the specific bonus draw adjustment for each you are adding significant EV increases on almost every playing decision you make. Needless to say the gain from the accumulation of decisions with more specific indices is more than most would believe is possible. In BJ there are fewer decisions but accumulation of gain is still a function of the number of times you make the decision and is real gain even if the decision never is changed once because you never know the specific deck composition. Your gain is defined by the average gain for the bin you are in and will approach that as enough decisions are made. This seems paradoxical to some but if they think about how counting works it should make perfect sense. Think about how some counts are very strong for certain plays while others are very weak for the same playing decision. You may make 10,000 decisions with the weak correlated count index and hardly accumulated any EV. And with 500 decisions with a strong correlated count to the playing decision has accumulated much more EV. It doesn't matter if no decisions change this is still true.
For betting you have a count that might have a very high BC but has a wide range of actual advantage around the average that each group of equated situations gives as the appropriate advantage to base your bet on. A stronger count has a much smaller range of advantage around the average for it's equated situations in the betting bin. If you can imagine the former counts extremely over bet situations were bet less for the left tail of the former's bell curve and the right tail that was under bet are bet more. Now the bell curve is tighter like the bell curve of the latter. While both have almost identical BC's the latter bets far more accurately.
Now what happens with more accurate bets and plays is not only do you gain more from the bets and plays but you can bet more at the same RoR and spread for the same BR. This increases EV about as much again as the original gain for the more accurate bets and plays. The tighter bell curves around both decisions decrease the range of extremes experienced on the way to the long run. So you have a significant gain in EV and you tend not to try as far away from that EV. Tightening the bell curves means increased certainty of the outcome.
If you have an anemic BR you are best off with a count that has a higher EV to outrun ruin and a higher certainty of results to keep results from straying too far from expectation assuming you are proficient at the count. In my opinion it is where the strong counts are most important.
Thank you for your response but your major focus seem to be on accurate plays. I would agree more if you are talking about playing primarily single or double deck games. But in shoe games betting is more important. There is more gain to improving the betting strategy than playing strategy in shoe games.
I laugh every time I here this. What gets you more accurate betting can also increase playing decisions. everything works together. Why would you want to bet more accurately and lose more big bets than you need to. An ace neutral count can help both playing decisions and betting accuracy with the required side of aces.
When I buy a car I don't think the highest speed limit is 65 MPH and this cheap car that has no power will get me from point A to point B just fine even if the electronics suck and it shakes when you hit 50 MPH etc. I will get that because it will bet me there even though much slower. Want a car that has acceleration and can do 120 if I want it to and the shakes smooth out to feel like the car is standing still at 55 MPH. I want it to handle like it is on rails and be safe when some idiot crashes into me or something else bad happens that is out of my control. Sure that guy that drives that ridiculous golf cart looking car or whatever it is will also get where he is going but but he is dead as soon as something unexpected happens. I don't want to have my car totaled because a sparrow flew into it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks