Bet variation concept confusion

Hello, I am a new card counter. I immediately chose the Halves system for fun and have gained the ability to count using the halves system. But that is where the fun stops for me. I know from reading BAsic Blackjack book and Professional Blackjack book that just playing basic strategy will lose you money; playing basic strategy and card counting will not do much help, but using basic strategy, counting cards, and varying bets is what helps draw the money in.

I am confused here on one thing , and this is the varying of bets. In reading Professional Blackjack, I am unable to understand what varying bets is. Stanford Wong says tha the standard bet is about $24.68 or something like that. This is the neutral normal bet. When the count goes low, one is supposed to lower bet size to minimize losses as the edge is with the dealer. However, when the count is high, the player is supposed to increase bet size as the edge is with the player and the player will win.

This is where the confusion arises for me. I am unable to determine how much and by what multiplier to raise and lower the bets. i looked through both books and was unable to find the instructions on bet variation. That is, suppose all of a sudden my true count is +3, how much should I increase my bet?

I am not very keen with statistics and thus the book will take me some to accomodate, but until then, this concept is essential, it is something I am unable to derive from t he text within the book.

Iw oudl appreciate some help for a beginnner.

Thankyou

thinkmaster@gmail.com

What amount to wager at each True Count varies according to the Count being used and the conditions one is playing under.

With "Halves" and a fairly standard "shoe" game of 6 or 8 decks You would want to spread your bets from 1 units to 20 + units - depending on your Bankroll size and the paranoia displayed in the casino of choice. I prefer 32 units, but I have a huge bankroll.

If the above is correct, then bet one unit ( the table minimum) at all negative counts and True Counts of 0 and +1 and +2 T + 3 bet 2 units, At +4 bet 3 units etc. Your (personal) max bet (predetermined by the size of your Bankroll -- 1% of your cash is a good approximation for most of us) can be reached at + 12
If you are in a 2 decker with decent rules and penetration, bet as above but set your max bet at SIX units and never attempt to play 2 hands.

There has been a lot done on the whole subject of betting theory. I won�t try to summarize it here.

There are tools which will compute your optimal bet spread for various games, given rules and bankroll information, etc.

For shoe games with reasonable rules (S17 DAS) , a simple approximation could be to bet 2 �units� for each point of true count and avoid negative counts . If you betting 1 unit on each of two spots, then your unit can be about 1/8 of your bankroll. For example, with a 20K bank, your unit would be $50, so you could bet 2x$25 for each point of true count. In neutral situations, I would bet 1 unit total. If possible, bet 2 x � unit on each spot.

You want to bet as little as possible in negative counts. If you are forced to play negative counts, and you cannot Wong out, then bet fractions of units. If the table minimum does not allow this, and you cannot won gut, then you have to play short sessions and leave on negative counts.

With surrender, you can accelerate the ramp slightly in higher counts. In some games, you can bet 2x4 at a true count 3 and not 4, and 2x5 at 4.

The size of your betting unit depends on your bankroll and risk preferences. Some ar prepared to take more risk, and take less. The system I am outlining has a Risk of Ruin of about 2%. This is a bit conservative for some part-time players: however, you are actual RoR will be higher because of errors.

In my edition of Prof BJ, SW describes the �Benchmark Betting� that was used in his simulations. In this edition, it is in Chapter 1, in a box entitled �Benchmark Rules�. It 25 at 0,1; 50 at 2, 75 at3 and 100 at 4 and beyond. $10 as bet at all negative counts. The biggest difference between this approach and what I have said here is that his off-the-top and negative bets are relatively larger.

If you want to Panama Rick�s excellent suggestion of using KO, then you will need to learn a different betting strategy.

Early in my AP career/hobby, I started with sizing/ramping my bet based on my Bankroll and my advantage as determined by the True Count. The basic idea is your bet should be the % of your Bankroll as defined by your advantage. I'm no academic/expert, but this is the basics of the Kelly Criterion as applied to bet sizing.

I play Hi/Lo, where each unit of True Count represents approximately 0.5% advantage. I determined the incremental advantage based on the True Count, adjust for the starting advantage of the game and then multiply that figure times your Bankroll. In a 6D, s17 game with a starting advantage of approximately a -0.5%, a True Count of +3 would translate into an advantage of 1.0% after adjusting for the -0.5 starting advantage(3x0.5-0.5 =1.0%) Assuming a Bankroll of $10K, the bet would be $100. At a True Count of +5, the bet would be $200. On the lower end, of the True Count scale, you either bet the Table minimum or bet zero i.e, walk away, Wong out. At a $10 minimum table, your range would be $10-$200 for a True Count range of negative to +5.

What makes it more complex is manging your Risk of Ruin and Win Rate based on a Unit Size for your Bank. The above method was simple enough for me to carry around as a tool when I got started, but using my full Bank amount in the computation is aggresive from a Risk of Ruin standpoint. Over the years I've been able to learn a lot more from books and tools such as Blackjack Risk Manager to better size my bets and manage risk. It's a lifelong pursuit, so best of luck.