Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 17

Thread: SP21/Pontoon Bet Spread Sizing?

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    SP21/Pontoon Bet Spread Sizing?

    Why is it that the consensus for these two blackjack variants calls for massive bet spreads?

    I understand that 8D blackjack games for example, typically require a larger spread of at least 1-16+ when taking a play-all approach to overcome the increase of negative expectation hands. But I've read in various places that 8D SP21 requires a spread of at LEAST 1-20+, sometimes even as high as 1-40, when using play-all to pull a reasonable profit. Its SD is slightly lower than traditional blackjack too. Wouldnt its various bonus multi-card payouts somewhat negate initially negative expectation hands somewhat too? You're more likely to pull 2-6 and hit 19-21, as is the dealer, but they're not getting paid out 3:2, 2:1 or 3:1. Plus you have the advantage of being instantly paid out when you do. Surely this must offset the need for using a huge spread somehow?

    Anyway, I brought this up for my specific case. I'm using a wong out point of -1.5/-2 TC on 8D H17 Pontoon. The HE is .40%. Whereas blackjack is around .58%. Why would I need to use a 1-16 bet spread even when I'm wonging out of most negative shoes? Obviously the return of using higher spreads with wong out increases profitability dramatically, but my BR isnt overly large currently and I need to balance EV with my calculated RoR. Surely using either a 1-10 spread, or 1-12 spread would suffice when wonging out at -2 TC in this case?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    if your bankroll can't sustain a large spread then use a smaller spread

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jabberwocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Agharta
    Posts
    1,868


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Meistro123 View Post
    if your bankroll can't sustain a large spread then use a smaller spread

    Sound advice ONLY if you are willing to Wong out.

  4. #4
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    These three points will explain it to you:


    • Your game is far more volatile than blackjack.
    • It is commonplace to suffer "losing streaks."
    • The dealer's bust percentages are rather low.

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Sound advice ONLY if you are willing to Wong out.
    Even if you were to play all it would make no sense to over bet your bankroll in the name of playing with a large spread.

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I guess my actual question is: is a 1-10/12 spread with wong out at -2 enough to "beat" this game?

    I use "beat" very loosely, as I'm aware of the fact that such a spread isn't going to generate enormous amounts of EV p/hr. However, I have a period of time in the near future where this can be overcome by the volume of hands I'll be able to play (1 month of annual leave coming up, plenty of spare time to burn). Heat shouldn't be an issue. My goal at the moment is just to build my BR up so I can lower my RoR, and hopefully build it to a point where I can place larger bets with lower risk.

  7. #7
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushie View Post
    " ... is a 1-10/12 spread with wong out at -2 enough to "beat" this game?"
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    Last edited by ZenMaster_Flash; 06-16-2017 at 10:42 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jabberwocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Agharta
    Posts
    1,868


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    Kat Walker didn't follow your advice.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post
    Yes, (but not spectacularly).
    In this gameyou should not Wong-Out.
    Rather, you should bet minimally on one (1) spot.
    Play Two (2) spots otherwise. Three (3) if permissible.
    Understand that with two (2) spots you bet about
    75% of your optimal sum in each box. With three (3)
    boxes use 60% of your optimal bet in each box. This is
    how you reduce variance and R.O.R. while gaining e.v.


    After reading Walker's book, I was under the impression that when playing heads up, one box is ALWAYS optimal. You only play two boxes with 75% of your standard bet in each at positive counts when there are other players (1-2) and three boxes of 60% when there are 3 or 4 other players.

    Otherwise you just have more money out on two independent hands against the same dealer upcard in disadvantageous counts.And my BR isnt large enough to sustain inverse spreading (Grifter's Gambit).

  10. #10
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No


    With all due respect, Katarina Walker was wrong in some spots;
    I am not one
    to criticize a pioneer, to whom I am deeply indebted.
    Her book is an introductory text. She fully intended to progress with
    a second volume, when her life, sadly, drew to an untimely conclusion.

    There exists a tiny coterie of A.P.'s whose dogged work on Spanish21
    far exceeds the seminal work of the inestimable
    Ms.Walker, but does
    NOT address Pontoon, as that game is not found outside of Down Under.


  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post


    With all due respect, Katarina Walker was wrong in some spots;
    I am not one
    to criticize a pioneer, to whom I am deeply indebted.
    Her book is an introductory text. She fully intended to progress with
    a second volume, when her life, sadly, drew to an untimely conclusion.

    There exists a tiny coterie of A.P.'s whose dogged work on Spanish21
    far exceeds the seminal work of the inestimable
    Ms.Walker, but does
    NOT address Pontoon, as that game is not found outside of Down Under.

    With all due respect, Pontoon isn't exclusive to Australia. Its also found in a number of Asian countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Japan and in Macau. Its essentially SP21 without a dealer hole card and is the unpatented version, with the patented version being played in the US.

    Anyway, surely NOT playing in negative counts outperforms playing in them. I just brought up the various multi card bonuses because they must have some effect at negative counts, but not enough to warrant using a play-all approach regardless.

    And isnt the concept of playing two boxes of 75% is that you are wagering the same amount of units across less rounds at positive counts? I was aware that this is optimal when not playing heads up. One box means that you can play more rounds in positive counts (heads up), especially when theres no dealer hole card and naturals pay out immediately.

    Although its covariance is slightly lower than BJ, its still not low enough to warrant playing multiple boxes when heads up.

  12. #12
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Post #13 by
    Tthree is extraordinary in its scope.
    Mere mortals are incapable of learning, (no less
    executing),Tthree's brilliant methodology; but
    merely reading Post #13 is exciting. If nothing
    else, it should certainly alert amateur players
    that
    Tthree's knowledge is very very deep. In my
    experience, the vast majority of Card Counters
    imagine that they have expert level knowledge
    when nothing could be farther from the truth.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    My research into SP21 says to the contrary. Covariance is high in high playing counts compared to low playing counts and low when my balanced ace side count is high (this is different than surplus and deficit aces). As for the combined betting count covariance is higher with when the count is higher.

    Now for bet sizing, which is extremely accurate with my 2 count system, it is almost always better to bet 2 spots. Of the 260 TC pair bins that aren't simply catchall max bet or min bet bins 2 of them are better bet with 1 spot, the other 258 are better bet as a 2 spot bet. There isn't much difference until you get to large bets which are much better bet as 2 spots. Below are the averages that would be bet at each betting level and the fraction of the optimal 1 spot bet bet optimally on each of 2 spots.

    AP unit bet made at 0.5% advantage: not betting optimally at this point so irrelevant.
    Second advantage bet size: 0.76%
    Third advantage bet size: 0.79%
    Fourth advantage bet size: 0.80%
    Fifth advantage bet size: 0.77%
    Sixth advantage bet size: 0.81%
    Seventh advantage bet size: 0.83%

    Disadvantage bets would be bet optimally with a bet of 0 so this is also irrelevant.

    For 1 spot to be the better choice the ratio of the optimal bet on each of 2 spots to the optimal 1 spot bet would need to be 0.75% or less. The sims say that per card eaten the results are fairly equivalent for playing 1 spot or 2 when you take into account that you get 50% more rounds out of the shoe heads-up with the dealer playing one spot rather than 2 spots. Game speed would be the determining factor. I have had dealers that have a long pause between rounds where 2 spots would clearly play through a shoe faster than 1 spot. For dealers with no lag I am not certain whether playing 1 spot or 2 spots would play through a shoe faster. I think 2 spots would play through the shoe faster if the dealer played his hand out every round but since he won't have to play his hand out more often if you play 1 spot that might make 1 spot faster. It might also get an extra round or 2 in rather than simply 50% more rounds which would also help make up the small difference in optimal bets per card eaten that favors playing 2 spots to get more money out per card eaten and therefore more money out across the entire advantage situation.

    3 spots bet optimally is very rarely best heads-up. Again it is not best by much. Most gains in optimal betting are less than the error range so there is no clear winner despite the stats saying you are almost always best off playing 2 spots for less than half of the time. The bulk of the time 2 spots is a clear statistical winner.

    Of course all of this is count dependent so your count may have different results.
    So the difference between 1 spot and 2 is so marginal that it hardly makes a difference? And disadvantageous bets are optimally 0 aka wong out?

    If thats correct you're both giving me contradicting analysis here. I'm not sure what to think..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Little help with bet sizing/spred I should be using.
    By DickFer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-18-2015, 02:41 PM
  2. Aleatoric: Spanish 21 bet sizing
    By Aleatoric in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 01:13 AM
  3. Myooligan: bet sizing question
    By Myooligan in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 08:42 PM

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.