I have a question regarding the potential impact of betting on what I would call the rate of change. Here's the scenario: I typically play Vegas double-deck, stand on 17, can double anything, can't resplit aces. I prefer unbalanced counts, because, for me, I am less prone to error, and I don't like the True Count division of a balanced count. For the purpose of the scenario, I'll use KO.
There are plenty of times when the overall running count does not specifically justify increasing my initial bet, however the running count has shifted significantly in the previous hand (versus a slow increase over time). Take, for example, the count shifts from -6 to -1 in a single hand. -1 is not high enough for me to warrant adjusting my initial bet; however, what obviously happened is that a bunch of low cards just played in bulk.
My question would be: are there scenarios where the rate of change (say a 4 or 5 point running count adjustment in the previous hand) would justify an increased bet when the overall count does not. And, is there any way to simulate this?
My hypothesis is that either:
1) The inability to capture this scenario is an inherent weakness of an unbalanced count, or
2) This is closer to a case of gambler's fallacy (it looks like a lot of low cards came out, but the odds are still not in your favor).
