Between 0 to 1.

6 decks ,S17 . As Wong said. Negative count 10 dollar. 0 to 1 25 dollar. I was doing that Before, but I found out the Problem now.

House has 0.39% edge. every TC 1 bring Us 0.5% adv. so we will have 0.1% adv.

there is one thing I do not understand. For example, (i play 8 decks game) 2 decks used, 6 decks left.3 low cards out. That means TC is 0.5 and adv is 0.25%. (since TC 1 = 0.5%) okay, let's do the Maths. Negative 0.39 Plus 0.25 Equal NEGATIVE 0.14. House still has 0.14 edge. why do we put 25 dollar on it but not 10?

i bet 15 dollar on Postive but under TC 1 last night. anyone can tell me what is the Right bet b/w 0 to 1?

There's been a lot of discussion recently about how Stanford (and others) computed TCs and their advantage. He may have used rounding (as opposed to flooring or truncation) for his. I don't remember. I seem to recall that he changed his method in later books.

If he used rounding, then his advantage figures apply to "actual" TCs of [-.49 to +.49] which would equate to a TC of zero, and [.5 to 1.49] which would equate to a TC of 1. Therefore, Stanford would increase his wager when he encounters your TC of ".5", which he sees as a TC of 1.

At least, I think that's how it works. :)

a TC of +2 is where the player starts to have the advantage. You would not increase your bet until at least a TC of +2. Put out tweni fi dolla when the count get to plus two.

JB

"there is one thing I do not understand. For example, (i play 8 decks game) 2 decks used, 6 decks left.3 low cards out. That means TC is 0.5 and adv is 0.25%. (since TC 1 = 0.5%) okay, let's do the Maths. Negative 0.39 Plus 0.25 Equal NEGATIVE 0.14. House still has 0.14 edge. why do we put 25 dollar on it but not 10?"

"i bet 15 dollar on Postive but under TC 1 last night. anyone can tell me what is the Right bet b/w 0 to 1?"

I don�t think Wong�s PBJ advocates this type of betting. What Wong has said was that this was his Benchmark betting schedule. That is, it is the betting schedule he sued to do the simulations.

You could bet 10 in these situations, and it would be a stronger game mathematically. However the betting of many players is more similar to Wong�s: with higher bets in the neutral count. There are several reasons for this.

One is cover. If you bet $10 whenever the TC<1, you will have LOTS of $10 bets. Then your $100 bets will seem very large in relative terms. It will draw heat.

The second thing is comps. If you use Wong�s betting, you will probably be rated as a quarter player. If you use the other schedule, you will be probably rated at $12 or $13. You will only get half as much in comps and cash[back. The comps and can[back can offset the negative EV.