Here is my question:
I use the knockout counting system, using an 8 deck shoe. When placing a back bet what does the key count have to be?
Do i need to vary my back bet according to the key count or can i simply flat bet?
Thankyou
MJ, Please forgive me if I'm missing something here but I can't see why anything bet wise would change just because you are betting upon another person's hand. As for varying the bet I'd imagine you could either flat bet when you have an advantage (and not bet at other counts) or ramp your bet as normal. Personally I wouldn't trust another player to be playing the hands for me, but of course that's your decision to make. Hit 'em hard, The Side
this is more in response to Sidewinder, but perhaps MJ will find this helpful.
given my lousy casino conditions, i back-bet quite often and have ran many simulations to see what i'm losing in back-betting certain kinds of lousy players (players who are lousy, but still bring an advantage for the back-betting counter).
my simulation results are posted on this page somewhere in October, Back-betting Simulation (or something like that). the simulation is for ENHC 5-deck shoe.
something that may be of interest for MJ: back-betting is riskier, obviously, since the player you are riding probably isn't playing basic strategy. if this is the case, i suggest you wait for the count to go up higher. i'm a hi-lo player, and instead of back-betting at TCs of +2, i back-bet only at TC of +3 or higher. according to my simulation (although this isn't part of my posted results, as i recall), when the TC is barely over +2, you don't really have an advantage sometimes (back-betting the lousy player i programmed).
but Sidewinder's opinion is true of many counters who simply refuse to back-bet behind non-basic strategy players. i really was surprised by my results in the simulation. i programed a pretty awful, but conservative player, who nonetheless brings home a profit to the back-betting counter--about 70% (or more) of what a counter would've made had he played the hands himself. although you may think of this as 30% you're losing, you can also think of it as 70% that you're giving to the casino (assuming you have the choice of back-betting or not playing at all). in my own experiences, and calculations with simulations under various bet-spreads, i am better off back-betting lousy players than sitting at the table. this is only true because i cannot afford the high enough bet spreads needed for me to win. i (assume) have much more risk when i sit at the table soldiering through negative shoes with the minumum bet (about $10), than i do when i back-bet TCs of +3 or higher.
(for those interested in helping me out and solving a minor puzzle, i have a few questions about risk which i will immediately post in a separate thread related to this subject).
the cheeze
the cheeze
