betting question

I'm trying to determine what is the best way to bet as the count rises. I know that if the TC is +1 it really puts you about even since the casinos have about 1/2% advantage off the top. I believe that betting the table below will help my bankroll have tighter swings and give me more piece of mind. What do you think? Any other suggestions.

TC -1, 0 or 1 = 1 unit
TC 2 = 2 units
TC 3 = 3 units
TC 4 = 4 units
TC 5+ at 4 units

What sort of game are you playing? Is it single deck, double deck, six deck, eight deck or something other than that? What are the rules and what is the penetration? Are you using a play-all approach or are you using a Wonging or exit strategy?

If you are using a play-all approach, then a 1-4 spread isn't enough for anything other than a single deck game. If you are using an exit strategy, it may be enough if the game is good enough.

2D, DOA, DAS, Hit on soft 17, 65% penetration, No wonging, just play-all.

Also why is there less of an advantage at playing 8 decks instead of like 1 or 2 decks? I read something about because of the number of blackjacks you receive. Your information is helpful.

I practice a lot and do keep track of the true count. I'm just looking for ways to not have the wild swings and have my bankroll increase as I continue playing.

Fish

I'd recommend at least a 1-6 spread for the game you describe, 1-8 being better. Believe it or not, 1-4 will not "save" you money in the long run, it will cost you money.

Why are 8-deckers worse than 1- or 2-deckers? While it is true you get blackjacks slightly more often in a single-deck game, that isn't the real reason. The more decks you have in play, the more time you will spend in neutral or negative counts. The house has the advantage more often than the player does as the number of decks increase.

First, on the game you describe, the betting should be as follows:

<+1: 1
+1: 2
+2: 3
+3: 5
+4: 6
+5: 8

This is because the H17 rule lowers the expectation at each TC. The schedule use cited is more suitable for the S17 game. After all, the idea is to bet in proportion to your advantage; and the advantages are different between the S17 and H17 games.

The wild swings you complain about are just part of the game. You can reduce them substantially by simply parlaying up to the indicated bet, but doing this is going to cut your average per hour earnings by 35% to 45%.

The parlaying works as follows: after a loss, you go back to 1 unit if the tc is <+1; or to 2 units if the tc is >=+2. You then parlay up to the correct bet for the tc only with the $$ on the square + any winnings.

This is great for dispelling heat, but you must remember it means underbetting your advantage more than 50% of the time, which is why it is so expensive in the long run (though it can really save your ass in many short run situations, like when you lose 3 or 4 hands in a row at extremely high counts).

After making that post, with the numbers off the top of my head, I went back to check on those numbers, and found I posted wrong.

Assuming DD, DAS, DA2, the bets SHOULD be as follows:

H17:
<+2: 1
+2: 2
+3: 3
+4: 5
+5: 7
+6: 8
+7: 10

S17:
<+2: 1
+2: 2
+3: 3
+4: 4
+5: 6
+6: 7
+7: 9
+8: 10

You have to bet a bit more agressively in the H17 game because the house edge is higher.

They were definitely NOT to maximize log(bankroll growth)!

I ran a sim w/3 players at the table, 500MM rounds (i.e., 1.5 billion total hands), with the rules previously described plus playing the I18.

At a TC of +2, the RORs, including push, were as follows:

1st Base: +0.6276%
2nd Base: +0.6367%
3rd Base: +0.6547%

I then averaged all the RORs at each TC, and using +2 as a base for 2 units, calculated the bets for other counts in the same proportion. For example, the average ROR at +3 is about 1.163%, and the average at +2 is about 0.640% 2 * 1.163 / 0.640 = 3.634. This was truncated to 3, to avoid overbetting.

The same methodology was used for both the S17 and H17 lists.

You can go to the Blackjack "school" available on this site, and see the betting for the H17 game w/o the I18, which is a little bit different.