Mark: How do I size my bets here ?

[Mark]

I play 30+ hours of Blackjack per week.
Some of the casinos that I play at occasionally allow me to make a very advantages bet.
When the dealer busts and accidently draws an extra card when one is not needed the casino insists that this card is to be the first card dealt in the next round. Hence if this card is a 9, 10 or A then I have the oportunity to make a really great bet.

If its a ten or a nine its seems beyond everybodys understanding just how much of a good thing im getting. I come right out say "hold it if that guys going to get a ten for his next card then I want to bet on him" nobody seems to care the dealer laughs and the other guy doesn't even change his bet. When its an Ace I have gotten a few scowls and dirty looks from the pit and the ploppy has even increased his bet by a few chips on account of me but on no occasion have I been stopped.

I think its to appease the ploppys (and half the dealers and floor staff) who believe the natural order of the cards has been destroyed.

These things don't come up all that offen though, some times a couple of times a day but other times I can go for days and not see one. Its really impossible to put a figure on it.

So how do you think I should size my bets when they come up. I'm relutant to just bet my edge because its a bet that I can't be sure I can keep making. Imagine if three aces came up in one day I bet them all and lost and then didn't see another one for weeks.

Also when I see an ace although I have the strong urge to just cash in everything on my person and go for it I don't want to look like to much of an angle shooter at have them change their policy.

Any suggestions on how I should size my bets for these situations ?

[Don Schlesinger]

The 9 is no advantage. The ten and ace are great advantages. Bet as much as you can afford -- up to 30% of your bankroll -- if you dare, for the ace. For the ten, at the very minimum, make what is normally a max bet for you.

Don

[Magician]

> I'm relutant to just bet
> my edge because its a bet that I can't be
> sure I can keep making. Imagine if three
> aces came up in one day I bet them all and
> lost and then didn't see another one for
> weeks.

I don't follow your logic here. How many time or how often you get to make the bet doesn't enter into the optimal bet equation.

[Bill]

> The 9 is no advantage. The ten and ace are
> great advantages. Bet as much as you can
> afford -- up to 30% of your bankroll -- if
> you dare, for the ace. For the ten, at the
> very minimum, make what is normally a max
> bet for you.

> Don

Who much should I bet, if I know, that within the next four cards there will be a ten dealt. Is it in this case ok, to bet on the next four spots? Do I have an advantage?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Who much should I bet, if I know, that
> within the next four cards there will be a
> ten dealt. Is it in this case ok, to bet on
> the next four spots? Do I have an advantage?

The edge is diluted, of course, but it is still substantial. You have to be certain that you get the ten and not the dealer. So, one hand will have a 14% edge, while the other three will have the negative edge of the game you're playing, plus a little extra, because a ten is known to be missing. Globally, you might enjoy 12% for the four hands combined, so an average of 3% per hand is still substantial (although the variances per hand are no longer identical).

Don

[Mark]

> I don't follow your logic here. How many
> time or how often you get to make the bet
> doesn't enter into the optimal bet equation.

In theory it doesn't but in reality I think it does.

Imagine if I offered you a 50/50 bet with a massive advantage (say 70%) but you could only make it once in your life. Would you really want to bet 70% of you life savings on it. ?

If I started to bet heavily on these aces and things didn't work out then I could reverse a months work in a couple of hands and then get no oportunity to get it back execpt by grinding away for another month.
If I new they would come up with a certian regularity then things might be different.

If you think my line of thinking is incorrect then let me know. I'm not quite sure about how to bet it myself thats why I posted the question.

The 30% Don has suggested sound ok but its still going to make me nervous putting that kind of money on one single hand.

[Mark]

> The 9 is no advantage. The ten and ace are
> great advantages. Bet as much as you can
> afford -- up to 30% of your bankroll -- if
> you dare, for the ace. For the ten, at the
> very minimum, make what is normally a max
> bet for you.

> Don

I had a look at the edge on the nine and it looks like your right. Another counter told me that the 9 had a positive edge a couple of years ago and I always just assumed his figures were true because they sounded about right.
The oportunity to make these bets has only come up recently.
Luckly i've only bet on one nine so far and it won so no harm done.

What makes you choose up to 30% of bankroll for the Ace ?

[Don Schlesinger]

> What makes you choose up to 30% of bankroll
> for the Ace ?

The actual edge is over 50%. But, the variance, because of the increased likelihood of a natural, is about 1.5 (I think). So, you'd bet about .50/1.5, or 33%, if you dare to be "optimally."

As for me, I wouldn't go anywhere near such a high percentage. But, that is the math.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

> In theory it doesn't but in reality I think
> it does.

> Imagine if I offered you a 50/50 bet with a
> massive advantage (say 70%) but you could
> only make it once in your life. Would you
> really want to bet 70% of you life savings
> on it. ?

> If I started to bet heavily on these aces
> and things didn't work out then I could
> reverse a months work in a couple of hands
> and then get no oportunity to get it back
> execpt by grinding away for another month.
> If I new they would come up with a certian
> regularity then things might be different.

> If you think my line of thinking is
> incorrect then let me know. I'm not quite
> sure about how to bet it myself thats why I
> posted the question.

> The 30% Don has suggested sound ok but its
> still going to make me nervous putting that
> kind of money on one single hand.

Mathematically, your reasoning is incorrect, but I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't make the bet, either. And, the bottom line is: no matter what the math says, if you feel uncomfortable, and are going to be miserable if things don't work out -- don't do it!!

So, the guideline is: you should bet the 30%. Now, bet whatever percentage of that value you can live with.

Don

[Magician]

> In theory it doesn't but in reality I think
> it does.

> Imagine if I offered you a 50/50 bet with a
> massive advantage (say 70%) but you could
> only make it once in your life. Would you
> really want to bet 70% of you life savings
> on it. ?

No, but not because I could only make the bet once. Suppose I could bet an infinite number of times. If I had an infinitely divisible bankroll I would be guaranteed to win. In reality, the prospect of having to grind it out after an initial loss would be just as daunting as the loss itself.

So I'd bet the amount I was comfortable, regardless of how many oppurtunities I had.

Fortunately, table maximums prevent most of us from risking large portions of our bankrolls. Could you stomach losing a table max bet knowing you had a 50% edge? How about a 10% edge?

[Parker]

> Mathematically, your reasoning is incorrect,
> but I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't
> make the bet, either. And, the bottom line
> is: no matter what the math says, if you
> feel uncomfortable, and are going to be
> miserable if things don't work out -- don't
> do it!!

> So, the guideline is: you should bet the
> 30%. Now, bet whatever percentage of that
> value you can live with.

Assuming that you are playing at green chip level or above, and that you are properly bankrolled for that level, the answer may become very elementary, especially in smaller casinos.

You simply bet the table limit.