betting schedule variance for single deck

So I've been playing single deck for a while with a 1-4 betting spread, and then I realized that since I have an edge already at a count of 1 (casino edge is .17% @ 0), why not adjust for that? So the new schedule I've made is as follows:

1 unit @ 0 or lower
2 units @ 1
4 units @ 2
6 units @ 3
8 units @ 4

I figured by doing this, I keep the 1-4 betting spread, but stick closer to the 0 optimal bet when the deck is not in my favor.
I understand that an 1-8 spread at single deck will bring heat, but compared to some of the gamblers I see, my betting is child's play. So assuming I have no concern for RoR, would this be bad at all compared to the traditional 1-8 spread? Also, since single deck is in my favor at +1, would it be wise in general to start increasing the bet at 1?

For example:
1 unit @ 0
2 units @ 1
4 units @ 2
8 units @ 3

So assuming I have no concern for RoR, would this be bad at all compared to the traditional 1-8 spread? Also, since single deck is in my favor at +1, would it be wise in general to start increasing the bet at 1?

If you want only to maximize your EV. In that case, pass until the TC is +1 or better. At that time, bet 1/4 of your bankroll. (This allows splitting up to 4 hands, assuming no doubling after split.) Adjust your bet size after each hand and hope you don't lose four hands in one round.

I'm purposely being ridiculous to illustrate that you do need to be concerned about ROR. More precisely, you need to worry about variance. There is an optimal amount you should bet based on your bankroll, advantage, and variance. You should read Blackjack Attack or at least join greenchip and read the archives to gain a better understanding of this concept.

To answer your questions:

I meant I don't have concern for RoR because I have a full time job, so I can just replenish my losses when variance is not on my side. What I'm more concerned about is whether or not the betting schedule will make the game swing back in the casino's favor...in the long run, wouldn't I be making money anyway?

I meant I don't have concern for RoR because I have a full time job, so I can just replenish my losses when variance is not on my side. What I'm more concerned about is whether or not the betting schedule will make the game swing back in the casino's favor...in the long run, wouldn't I be making money anyway?

You will win in the long run. But then so will the betting ramp I gave in the previous post.

Since you can replenish your bankroll, you need to consider how much money you are prepared to lose over your lifetime. Use that number as your bankroll. Now worry about ROR.

Sounds like your new betting schedule is a spread of 1-8. Just bet 2 units or more when ever you have an edge. Stick to 1-4 for less attention. If you want to spread more then maybe go to 2 hands if you can when the count is right. (2 hands of 4 is 8 units but not noticable). If you arer with other players with more action on the game then you can increase your spread if your not being watched. If you always bet 1 unit off the top it may look like a counter or that you know something so you can bet 2 units off the top sometimes and you might have an edge if you see the burn card or can cut a card out of play or see other players hands for decisions. Bet according to your BR. Interesting game! You don't need much of a spread to beat it.

you can bet 1 unit at 0 or below, max bet at +1 or better. You'll look less like a counter than with a 4-1 bet spread. Variance will be higher.

scvMello,

Assuming the game is SD, H17, for a heads-up HiLo counter getting 5 rounds to 1 hand (RO6), and betting in $25 units, I found with CVCX that the optimal schedule is 1 unit at 0 & below, 2 units at +1, 3 units at +2, 5 units at +3, 6 units at +4, and 8 units at +5 & up. This optimal schedule provides a win rate of $95.07/hr (assuming 100 rounds per hour: rather slow for the stated conditions) and a SCORE of 109.66. With a $10K BR, the RoR is 9.9%.

Now using your first schedule (with 8 units at +4), the WR rises to $104.65, but the RoR rises even more to 12.6%. Thus, the SCORE falls to 107.97.

With the second schedule you gave (8 units at +3), the WR rises a bit more to $105.29, but the RoR increases to 12.9%, driving the SCORE down to 107.55.

Of course, different conditions will alter these results, so if you'd care to be more specific, I can repost.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Dog Hand,
Thank you so much for your reply, it was extremely helpful! I would love to know how it would do with the Hi-Opt I count instead, since according to Stanford and Gamemaster, it is the better choice to go for SD. Thank you once again!
-scvMello

scvMello,

Assuming the game is SD, H17, for a heads-up Hi-Opt1 counter getting 5 rounds to 1 hand (RO6), and betting in $25 units, I found with CVCX that the optimal schedule is 1 unit at 0 & below, 2 units at +1, 4 units at +2, 5 units at +3, 7 units at +4, and 8 units at +5 & up. This optimal schedule provides a win rate of $91.86/hr (assuming 100 rounds per hour: rather slow for the stated conditions) and a SCORE of 101.34. With a $10K BR, the RoR is 10.9%.

Now using your first schedule (with 8 units at +4), the WR rises to $95.58, but the RoR rises even more to 12.1%. Thus, the SCORE falls to 100.66.

With the second schedule you gave (8 units at +3), the WR rises a bit more to $96.12, but the RoR increases to 12.3%, driving the SCORE down to 100.27.

Note that the previous HiLo results are uniformly better than these Hi-Opt1 results.

If you're looking for a better SD system, you might consider Advanced Omega II with the Ace sidecount (described in Bryce Carlson's Blackjack for Blood), which with optimal betting under the given conditions gives a win rate of $99.67/hr, a RoR of only 8.3% for a $10K BR, and a SCORE of 123.28.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand