Advice Needed

Currently I play the following game: 8D,H17,DAS,LSR 6.5/8 pen.

I am using a play-most aproach (with occasional wong-outs from negative shoes). I typically wong-out up to once every hour (bathroom breaks), and also try to end my session on a negative count. In both cases, TC of negative 2 is sufficient for wonging-out. My bet spread is as follows:

TC <2 = 1 unit
TC 2 = 10 units
TC 3 = 15 units or 2 hands of 10 units
TC 4+ = 30 units or 2 hands of 20 units

Any suggestions on how to improve my plan?

A few things to note: I am NOT worried about heat/barrings, I am limited to 2 hands at most, and the table max (per hand) is 25 units. My bankroll is 4,500 units, which gives me a pretty low ROR I believe (5% or so?). I use Hi-Lo with the I18 and fab 4 indexes as well as a few others. Assume that I play with no errors.

on how you can spread 1 to 30 units without the concern of heat/barring? If I did that more than one time in the same session I would have a cab waiting out front of the joint to carry my butt away. Why, because I can't get away with a 1 to 15 spread without three pit critters forming a huddle and eyeing me like I just had sex with their 15 year old daughters.

... how are you betting 30 units at +4 if the table max is 25 units?

At any rate, with 4500 units of bankroll, I believe you can go up to 25 units immediately at TC >= +1, and still keep ROR a fraction over 5%. You would be pulling down about 6.5 units per 100 hands. You did say no consideration should be given to heat/barrings.

Or if you scale back to 10u at +1 and can get out 2x25 at +2 and above you can almost double your win rate!

ETF

With eight decks and the Hard 17 rule we are still in negative territory at TC+1, house edge from the top being around 0.6%. So betting 25 units at that point would just produce enormous swings without having any positive expectation.
An attack should not be launched until TC>1.5, may be with the exception of the end of the shoe where you can take advantage of the FA-effect. On the whole, I think that Ace man's approach is not too bad.

Francis Salmon

Sorry for the typo ET Fan. The max is 25 units per hand, so I would bet 25 units (not 30). Of course, the preference would be to bet two hands at that point if possible.

To answer your question, I am not sure why I have been able to get away with this spread so far. I play at low limit tables and have a decent act. Also, the level of heat in my local area seems to be alot lower than in Vegas (based on what I have read here and elsewhere). It seems like the level of heat must vary quite a bit from place to place.

The reason I am not concerned with barrings is that there are alot of decent games for me to choose from and the overall quality of this game is alot worse than most of the other options (decent DD, etc). Part of my plan is to use this place to test of the quality of my act. I plan to continue spreading more and more brazenly until I get barred so that I can identify the upper limit.

Personally, I would not attempt to play-all vs a 6/8 deck shoe with less than a 20 unit spread at a minimum.

One other point. Most of the dealers and PC's in my local area do not know correct basic strategy (soft 18 v 9/10 usually gets them). So when they see perfect BS, they think you don't know how to play the game. Also, I have discovered that certain playing variations look especially stupid to the pit (hitting 12 vs 4-6, etc). These also seem to have the effect of the pit thinking that I have no clue about how to play, or that I am drunk. I believe that certain play variations are more likely than others to make you look like a complete idiot to the typical PC. It may be valuable to take this "cover value" into consideration when deciding which indexes to use.

"With eight decks and the Hard 17 rule we are still in negative territory at TC+1, house edge from the top being around 0.6%. So betting 25 units at that point would just produce enormous swings without having any positive expectation."

Agree.

"An attack should not be launched until TC>1.5, may be with the exception of the end of the shoe where you can take advantage of the FA-effect. On the whole, I think that Ace man's approach is not too bad."

Agree on the 1.5 figure but have doubts on the validity and "usefullness" of the Floating Advantage. The way I understand it, it is more "theoretical" than "practical"!

Salmon... you are the "chess" player out here, right? Maybe we should have a "go" at that game... hmmm? (I'm 2166 postal)

With eight decks and the Hard 17 rule we are still in negative territory at TC+1, house edge from the top being around 0.6%.

I don't know where you get your figures, but at +1, Ace Man has an positive EV of about +.35%. You need to look at this with some professional software, such as CVX/CVDATA. It's not a simple linear correlation between count and advantage.

The point is not that he needs a big bet out at +1, it's that with 4500 units of BR, and an apparant comfort level at ROR = 5%, there's really little need to size bets so carefully.

ETF

First of all, I would like to remind you of the main assumption on which the idea of counting cards is based:
It is the correlation (roughly linear!) between count and advantage.
If you don't believe in this assumption, I don't see why you should count cards in the first place.

Now let's talk about the figures. I hope you agree with the following is do the most prominent author's on Blackjack:
House edge from the top with US-standard rules 0.42%
Additional advantage due to the Hard 17 rule 0.20%
Additional advantage due to the eight decks 0.03%
Discount due to the late surrender rule -0.08%
Actual edge for the house from the top: 0.57%

I wonder why a software which claims an advantage of +0.35% for the player at TC+1 should be called professional. I have been a professional programmer before I became a Blackjack professional and my own professional (in both senses!) software tells me that at TC+1 the player's disadvantage is reduced by exactly 0.48% which would leave him still with a disadvantage of 0.09%.
I don't know whether the mistake lies with the software you cite or with you having entered wrong parameters but it simply cannot be true.

Your last remark about big bankrolls and bet sizing comes round to saying that a professional doesn't need a betting scheme. You don't really mean that, do you?

Francis Salmon
Francis Salmon

If you believe that the FA-effect exists in theorie than you should also acknowledge that it can possibly be exploited in practice.
I admit that in our example with 8 decks from the start and a cut-off of 1.5 decks this effect is rather limited and that's why I'm dismissing ET Fan's proposal.But it's still enough to give you a slight edge in the last deck of the shoe at TC+1.

Francis Salmon

PS. I don't know what you mean with your 2166 postal. Is that your FIDE-rating? Mine is 2354.
I have never played a correspondance game in my life. I have always felt that it would take up too much of my time and nowadays with the use of computers, it isn't a fair contest anymore.

For H17,DAS,LS 6.5/8, you have a 0.36% advantage at +1 (page 268).

... exactly what I said in the post, no more no less. Your figures, (and your terminology -- "Hard 17 rule"?) are out of step with the rest of the blackjack community. Adding .48% for each TC is incorrect at the 0 to 1 level. It's especially wrong when LS is in effect.

ETF

Your last remark about big bankrolls and bet sizing comes round to saying that a professional doesn't need a betting scheme. You don't really mean that, do you?

I don't have a copy of BJA2 at hand but I can imagine that Don meant the advantage at a penetration level of 6.5/8 with which I agree entirely as you can see by carefully reading my previous posts.
But this doesn't mean that you have the advantage when only one deck has been dealt as ET Fan implies.

Francis Salmon

Even in a 100 years there will still be roughly 0.5% for each TC particularly at the 0 to 1 level. The LSR rule is negligible in this instance.The Laws of nature dont change over the years,likewise the laws of Blackjack.

Francis Salmon

Francis friend!
I don't have the slightest idea where the hell did you get your
figure of -.57 for USA rules 8dks, H17, DAS and LS and 6.5/8 delt out.
I've got these numbers:

BSE = -.49
TC1 = .355

So, I'm forced to agree with ET FAN relative this point.

On the other hand, consider also that I've here with me precisely
a simulation vs. a disadvantage off the top of -.57 for an European
6dks game, with these results:

TC 1 = .204 with a SE = .0074 (74 ths. of a percent)

I'd add here, that this TC is floored and not rounded.
Rounding TCs are not 'in vogue' Francis.

Congrats btw for your FIDE Elo points, 2400 is the boundary for IM,
I guess.

Regards
Z

... I came on here tonight to throw Francis the flooring bone. Probably better you mentioned it, since he thinks my posts are "ridiculous." ;-)

I don't know for sure whether advantage is > 0 precisely at +1. I think it would be very, very close. However, if I had a BR of 4500 units, and a target ROR of 5%, I really would put out a sizable bet at +1. Dealer error is always a factor where I play. If a dealer is perfect, it's time to make like the white rabbit.

Surrender makes a difference. Near zero, you can add about +.57% per TC, and after +3, it's c. +.68%.

Regards,
ETF

I don't know for sure whether advantage is > 0 precisely at +1. I

think it would be very, very close.

This is quite a way from your initial claim that advantage is 0.35% at +1.

However, if I had a BR of 4500 units, and a target ROR of 5%, I really would put out a sizable bet at +1. Dealer error is always a factor where I play.

This is a completely different issue. We would have to ask Ace man whether he has to deal with novice dealers at his place. You shouldn't forget that we also make mistakes and may be we don't detect all the dealer errors, which have a clear tendency to be at our expense.
That's why I don't attack before the theoretical advantage is 0.2%.
Below this margin the gain in EV would anyway be in no relation to the additional variance.

Surrender makes a difference. Near zero, you can add about +.57%

per TC, and after +3, it's c. +.68%.

Are you sure you're talking about Late surrender? I haven't programmed late surrender but with ES10 I noticed a delta of 0,58% per TC.

Francis Salmon