Backcounting without ramping your bets?

I was wondering if someone could tell me in general, how much EV I'm losing if I backcount, but don't ramp up my bets with the count when I sit and play, or at least not past 3 units.

Example: Wong in at a count of +2, then flat bet my maximum of 2 hands of $300 as long as the count remains +2 or greater, then leave when it drops below 2.

Or, in another example, bet $100 at +2, $200 at +3, then max bet of $300 if the count is +4 or better.

Do you not have the BJA3 chapter 10 charts?

Don

So I guess I'll have those charts soon

"So I guess I'll have those charts soon."

More than you'll ever know what to do with! :-)

Enjoy.

Don

So I dove into your book this week. Quite a mountain of knowledge, thank you for compiling it! My question is about spreading to two hands when you're playing heads up with the dealer. In chapter 2, you determine in this situation that the optimal play is to only bet one hand when the count is high. I just can't seem to wrap my brain around this. For every round that is dealt when the count is high, good cards are wasted on the dealer. For that reason alone, isn't it best to play multiple hands, so you can take advantage of all of those high cards, make sure that most of them are dealt to you rather than half of them dealt to the dealer? I've also found when I practice on software, that I do MUCH better when I spread to two hands, when I am heads up with the dealer.
Additionally, with regard to back counting, I noticed you talk a lot about starting to bet when the true count is plus one. Why is that? With a true of one, you're more or less even with the casino, isn't it better to start betting when you have an advantage, at +2?

"So I dove into your book this week. Quite a mountain of knowledge, thank you for compiling it!"

You're welcome.

"My question is about spreading to two hands when you're playing heads up with the dealer."

Single-most asked question in the history of blackjack forums! :-)

"In chapter 2, you determine in this situation that the optimal play is to only bet one hand when the count is high. I just can't seem to wrap my brain around this. For every round that is dealt when the count is high, good cards are wasted on the dealer. For that reason alone, isn't it best to play multiple hands, so you can take advantage of all of those high cards, make sure that most of them are dealt to you rather than half of them dealt to the dealer?"

If you bet the two hands optimally, each hand gets roughly 75% of the one-hand wager. So, one hand of $100, or two hands of $75. Alone, there are two hands on the table (yours and the dealer's). Playing two hands, there are three hands on the table. So, you bet $100 per round of two hands, or $150 per round of three hands. Mathematically, there simply is no difference.

"I've also found when I practice on software, that I do MUCH better when I spread to two hands, when I am heads up with the dealer."

Either you aren't betting the two hands optimally with respect to the one-hand wager, or you're looking at results that give you 100 rounds per hour, which isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, because it takes longer to deal a round when you play two hands than when you play one. Or, your samples are much too small. Or, all of the above!

"Additionally, with regard to back counting, I noticed you talk a lot about starting to bet when the true count is plus one. Why is that?"

Because, in many games, that's where the edge is sufficient enough to play.

"With a true of one, you're more or less even with the casino, isn't it better to start betting when you have an advantage, at +2?"

If your premise were true ("you're more or less even with the casino"), then, yes, you'd be right. But take a look at some of the chapter 10 charts, such as a 6-deck game with good rules (say, p. 240, Table 10.51), and note that the edge at +1 is almost half a percent (0.49%). So, the correct entry point depends on the rules of the game.

Clear?

Don

Well, the part about betting on counts of +1 is clear, and about what I suspected. And as far as my experience on the software, your first suggestion is right: that I'm not betting the two hands optimally with respect to my one-hand wager. I was spreading my $300 hand, to two hands of $300. I'm understanding now though that not reducing the wager when I spread would require an increase in bankroll, right?

I'm afraid I still don't understand the disadvantage of spreading to two hands though. Maybe the explanation is just too heavy on statistics for me and I'll never get it, but I'm just hung up on wasting high cards on the dealer. Let's say for example you play three separate single hands (so three rounds) of $100 against the dealer. That's three hands dealt to the dealer, with $300 total that you got on the table. Then let's say instead that you bet two rounds of two hands each of $75, that's the same total of $300 on the table, but you did it over two rounds instead of three, so only two hands were dealt to the dealer (rather than 3).

You either accept Don's thesis or you do not.

"Well, the part about betting on counts of +1 is clear, and about what I suspected. And as far as my experience on the software, your first suggestion is right: that I'm not betting the two hands optimally with respect to my one-hand wager. I was spreading my $300 hand, to two hands of $300."

So, of course you'll win more; you're betting twice as much. And, I'll bet you're also betting 100 rounds per hour for both, which is also wrong.

"I'm understanding now though that not reducing the wager when I spread would require an increase in bankroll, right?"

Yes.

"I'm afraid I still don't understand the disadvantage of spreading to two hands though."

It's not a disadvantage; it's simply not an advantage either.

"Maybe the explanation is just too heavy on statistics for me and I'll never get it, but I'm just hung up on wasting high cards on the dealer."

That's a good explanation; you're hung up on something that doesn't matter. It's YOUR cards that matter, not the dealer's.

"Let's say for example you play three separate single hands (so three rounds) of $100 against the dealer. That's three hands dealt to the dealer, with $300 total that you got on the table. Then let's say instead that you bet two rounds of two hands each of $75, that's the same total of $300 on the table, but you did it over two rounds instead of three, so only two hands were dealt to the dealer (rather than 3)."

Easiest answer: so what? You used up precisely the same number of cards in the process and bet precisely the same amount of money, so how can it possibly matter?

Don

It's more clear to me now. Thanks.

Thank you Don for your insite regarding Marco's interesting questions.
I may stand corrected on this, maybe.
When I'm playing heads up against a true +1, I do exactly as you state. That is most always.
Now when someone comes up to crash my party or more than one more and the count is T+2 or more, I increase my spots . I try to figure this by the count and amt of additional players. Seems to work for me. I don't lower my bet per spot. I know my spot sread is still not perfect.
Thanks again Don for any comments on this.

Good Cards, LWC