Optional Rider betting while Wonging 6 Decks

Getting ready for another Caribbean cruise in February with my honey. Cruise ship offers about 8 tables of 6 deck BJ, Double any 2 cards, Double after split, typically dealt to 70% +-10%��casino advantage is .41%

I play hi-lo, illustrious 18, and Wong in and proportional bet with the advantage on one or two hands up to two hands of 6 units on each hand. Avoid negative hands at all times except when I can�t find a reasonable excuse, but anything approaching too negative and I am gone in any case. Easy enough.

But the ship, because of crowds at the tables, continuously allows the following optional play rule, all clearly spelled out in the casino on a �rules board� for the games. When playing with my wife at the tables, this rule can be used, whether that table is crowded or not.

Bottom line is, a �rider� can back the bet of any �player� at any time, with a second separate bet; the original player retains all playing decisions. The entire reason for doing it of course, versus me going to two (or three) hands total with my wife, is to glean the advantage of the optional betting on the rider bet when pair splitting�..as the rule specifically states that the rider can avoid the second split bet if desired. Wong covers this pretty well in �Basic Blackjack (1993)�, but I don�t think he answers the questions I�m finally getting around to asking.

�Basic Blackjack� has two pertinent tables. Table 13 is a set of �sacrificial splits� that a player should make to benefit a �minimum 7X betting� rider. At the 7X+ point, with this chart, the rider advantage compensates the player�s sacrifice. (I assume that Wong arbitrarily chose 7X+ for simplicity sake and set Table 13 up that way, the calculations could be separately made for any multiple bet which I presume would result in several sacrificial split tables�...the computations are daunting.) Table 14, on the other hand, is the relatively simple set of split plays that apply to the optional betting on the second hand by the rider when the player is using basic strategy, i.e., tells the rider to place the second bet or not, this correlates to betting when the player split to win more, and not betting when the player split to lose less. Again, Table 14 was straightforward to compute.

I think this rule boils down to some nasty risk/reward questions, difficult to simulate I think, but maybe it�s been done.�.I�ll try these, for starters:

As the count rises, I play up to a max of 1 hand of 9 units or preferably, 2 hands of 6 units. Is the �one hand rider option� preferable to playing 2 hands?

At 7X rider bet, is the sacrificial splitting the way to go for optimum risk/reward?

Ideally, using Kelly, what is the best way to use the rider option versus betting up to nine units on one hand or up to 12 units over 2 hands? Is the payoff of 1X player and 11X rider the way to go? Bringing the sacrificial splitting in at 7X+ rider bets complicates things dramatically.

Disclaimer: This is just my interpretation of the literature. I haven't employed this strategy very much and I haven't done any analysis of my own.

Table 13 is a set of �sacrificial splits� that a player should make to benefit a �minimum 7X betting� rider. At the 7X+ point, with this chart, the rider advantage compensates the player�s sacrifice. (I assume that Wong arbitrarily chose 7X+ for simplicity sake and set Table 13 up that way, the calculations could be separately made for any multiple bet which I presume would result in several sacrificial split tables�...the computations are daunting.)

As I understand it, 7X was not arbitrary. It was the lowest multiple for which the player can make all splits that benefit the rider and still acheive an overall advantage. In other words, Table 13 might be different for multiples less than 7X but it would not change for any larger multiples.

Table 14, on the other hand, is the relatively simple set of split plays that apply to the optional betting on the second hand by the rider when the player is using basic strategy, i.e., tells the rider to place the second bet or not, this correlates to betting when the player split to win more, and not betting when the player split to lose less.

I think the idea is to use Table 13 if playing with a partner and Table 14 if you just happen to come across a good BS player at a full table. In the latter case, you aren't "paying" for the BS player so you don't have to worry about the bet ratio. If you're using Table 14 with a partner you'd need to ensure (your average bet)*(rider advantage) > (partner's average bet)*(house advantage), i.e. your average bet is (house advantage)/(rider advantage) times greater than your partner's.

I think this rule boils down to some nasty risk/reward questions, difficult to simulate I think, but maybe it�s been done.�.I�ll try these, for starters:

These are tough questions. I think additional information is necessary to answer them properly. Does your wife play perfect BS (or could you advise her at the table)? Does she count at all? Could you influence her play when you have a bet riding on her hand? Will she be playing only to increase your combined EV, or does she want to play anyway? Does your additional EV from "splitting for less", as forking822 eloquently put it, need to offset her BS disadvantage? What is the usual ratio of your average bet to hers? Anything else you're willing to tell us that you think might be relevant?

Ideally, using Kelly, what is the best way to use the rider option versus betting up to nine units on one hand or up to 12 units over 2 hands? Is the payoff of 1X player and 11X rider the way to go? Bringing the sacrificial splitting in at 7X+ rider bets complicates things dramatically.

I guess the best way would be for both of you to only play when your count indicates you have an advantage. One of you should bet table min and employ sacrificial split strategy plus all the usual indices. The other should be table max and employ correct rider strategy. No doubt, you have some additional constraints...

Sorry,I don't have "Basic Blackjack" but I made my own experiences with backbetting.
I once set up a list of sacrificial splits whith a Caller/Rider ratio of 40:1.Then I went to play with a close friend both sitting at the table and each of us always placing minbets in his own box.Whenever the count indicated an advantage,each of us would additionally place a huge bet in the box of his partner. According to my calculations this technique of mutual betting gave us an additional advantage of about 0.15%. Unfortunately in practice, things didn't go so smoothly.
Our way of betting gave rise to big fluctuations and drew considerable heat with penetration becoming worse shoe after shoe which forced us to throw in the towel being 400 units in the hole.
We also realized that the defensive split situations were so rare that they didn't justify the increased risk.
There is yet another problem involved. I know that in France associaton of players is a valid reason for barring people (it actually happened to an acquaintance of mine).So in your case of a married couple they might consider the whole stake as one bet in which case you would have to follow the defensive splits of your wife.
But it might well be that in these crowded conditions your action goes unnoticed. Good luck anyway!

Francis Salmon