newtobj: Winning during negative counts

[Flyboy]

Occasionally betting two units off the top won't hurt EV to any significant degree, and it might pay back a bit in terms of cover and comp levels (PC tend to pay attention to the amount of those first bets). However, you seem to imply that you leave you leave a two-unit bet out there on the felt if you are winning those first few hands, despite a negative count. Consistantly doing so, in the long run, will indeed hurt your EV.

> What's about betting 2 units on the first
> hand of a shoe?

> I mainly do it for cover reasons. If I lose
> it I go back to one unit until the count
> calls for a bigger bet. If I win I continue
> with those two units until I lose the bet or
> the count is high enough for the next level.

> Doing this I realize that I lose a lot of
> this first hands or the second hand (which
> makes it even) but there are several times
> were you run into this counts that go down,
> and down and down...and you are winnning,
> winning, winning...

> Has there ever been make a calculation about
> the cost of this off-the-top unit? Might
> there be even a slight advantage by running
> into some positive situations that can't be
> found by cardcounting?

> Don't understand me wrong - that is no
> progression scheme! Just a cover play that
> makes me think more and more that it at
> least may be without any additional costs.

> Thanks
> Shadow

[Don Schlesinger]

> What's about betting 2 units on the first
> hand of a shoe?

Yes, this is a good idea, especially with excellent rules that give just 0.26% off the top for the house, as is the case on the Strip.

You will, of course, simply lose, on average that extra unit times 0.26%, but, as you say, it may look a little better, and you will catch the occasional streak where you "steal" the extra money for a while. I write about this in BJA3, in the Chapter 7 camouflage discussion.

Don

[Victoria]

If you are receiving comps and go 2 units off the top, they may consider you a $50 better instead of a $25 better for instance, since pit eyes tend to watch the shuffle.
Also reading your true spread becomes a little more difficult for the pit. Are you spreading 12-1, $25-$300 or 6-1, $50-$300?
To keep things looking even stranger you can throw some red chips on top to increase or decrease a bet. Negative count $25 bet and win, you can bet $30 or $35 and be a known progression better of some sort. The math guys might say you should be precise in your bet calculations but I think for cover if the count says bet $100, betting $95 or $105 can make you look like someone who thinks that red chips are lucky.

[Don Schlesinger]

>I wish there was a way to reach the long run
>quicker and make variance less of a factor.

There is: It's called team play!

Don

[Shadow]

> Consistantly doing so, in
> the long run, will indeed hurt your EV.

That exactly is the point I am unsure!

In a game with good rules the disadvantage on a freshly shuffled shoe is very low.
If I lose this first bet I lose an extra unit for this shoe. If I win and lose the second bet I have exactly the same result as if I had bet 1 unit each round.
And if I win the third round I made additional money. And more with each more winning round.

The question is if this "additional" money will offset the costs of losing the first round several times (and of course losing this additional unit later in the game except in the few cases were the count reaches a level that justifies 2 units).

Shadow

[Fuzzy Math]

> That exactly is the point I am unsure!

> In a game with good rules the disadvantage
> on a freshly shuffled shoe is very low.
> If I lose this first bet I lose an extra
> unit for this shoe. If I win and lose the
> second bet I have exactly the same result as
> if I had bet 1 unit each round.
> And if I win the third round I made
> additional money. And more with each more
> winning round.

> The question is if this
> "additional" money will offset the
> costs of losing the first round several
> times (and of course losing this additional
> unit later in the game except in the few
> cases were the count reaches a level that
> justifies 2 units).

> Shadow

If you're playing single or doubledeck (especially with other players at the table), the 2 unit initial bet is helpful for progressing to your max bet more quickly when the count jumps up a lot on the first round. (These games also generally have a lower house edge on the first round anyway than you'd get in a shoe game.)

If you're slugging away at an 8 deck shoe, then of course the initial 2 unit bet is not helpful to you except for cover/comps, as you won't have situations where you want to bet 4 or more units by the second round.

If you have the software, you should sim your playing with 2 units off the top with various numbers of decks and other players at the table and compare it to the same playing style with just 1 unit off the top.

[Flyboy]

> That exactly is the point I am unsure!

> In a game with good rules the disadvantage
> on a freshly shuffled shoe is very low.
> If I lose this first bet I lose an extra
> unit for this shoe. If I win and lose the
> second bet I have exactly the same result as
> if I had bet 1 unit each round.
> And if I win the third round I made
> additional money. And more with each more
> winning round.

> The question is if this
> "additional" money will offset the
> costs of losing the first round several
> times (and of course losing this additional
> unit later in the game except in the few
> cases were the count reaches a level that
> justifies 2 units).

> Shadow

In short, yes. A small disadvantage is still a disadvantage -- no grey areas in math :{. If you consistantly place higher wagers in negative EV situations without corresponsingly increasing your wagers in plus counts, you cannot help but affect your long term EV. Only a sim will tell you how much.

[Dancer]

> Winning 12 minimum bets is not the same as
> winning one 12 unit max bet. The minimum
> bets have a negative expectation where as
> the max bet has a positive expection. In
> essence the negative bets were won by
> luck, the max bet was won by skill.

I think you missed my point, Brick. 12 units is 12 units. Regardless of whether you won them by "luck" or "skill", they still represent the same amount of money.

[ZOD]

> If you are receiving comps and go 2 units
> off the top, they may consider you a $50
> better instead of a $25 better for instance,
> since pit eyes tend to watch the shuffle.
> Also reading your true spread becomes a
> little more difficult for the pit. Are you
> spreading 12-1, $25-$300 or 6-1, $50-$300?
> To keep things looking even stranger you can
> throw some red chips on top to increase or
> decrease a bet. Negative count $25 bet and
> win, you can bet $30 or $35 and be a known
> progression better of some sort. The math
> guys might say you should be precise in your
> bet calculations but I think for cover if
> the count says bet $100, betting $95 or $105
> can make you look like someone who thinks
> that red chips are lucky.

I think betting 2 units off the top is esssential for comps purposes. I find that the perception of my average bet is often doubled with this one play.

Also, in casinos where I'm known, I use the "lucky" chips play all the time. I've been known to ask for that $300 win in red just to keep lots of luck on my side of the table. As soon as I sit down, the dealers and pit personnel usually start joking about needing another fill. Not a bad thing to hear from the casinos (grin).

Best,

ZOD