From: jack@freezer.cns.udel.edu (Jack Seltzer)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling
Subject: Re: Increasing Bets behind Wins Only
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:12:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bt8Kx1.9q2
Reply-To: jack@freezer.cns.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware

In article 11885@kronos.arc.nasa.gov, hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall) writes:
> 
> >and what I have found is that
> >my winning sessions are following the pattern that Revere describes in his
> >book.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean here, but general wisdom is to ignore
> anything Revere has to say about win rates.

Just referring to the 4 out of 5 were wins, though again, there are too few
sessions to draw any conclusions from....statistically insufficient number of trials

> >I limit my jumpt bets to 2 units only.  That is, I will increase my bet
> >after a loss to a max of 2 units if the count calls for an increase of 2 or 
> >more units.
> 
> On a shoe the true count is unlikely to change much (or at all, actually)
> from round to round.  So you would do fine if you limited your change in
> bets to 2 units, or better yet to doubling or halving.  But it sounds
> like you often limit your total bet to 2 units.  This would be suicidal
> on a shoe.

No.  I guess I wasn't clear.  After a win, I will double my bet if the count 
calls for it. After a loss, I will repeat the same bet if the count calls
for it or even if the count calls for an increased bet. Mostly, I will reduce
my bet after a loss, even if the count calls for the same bet or an increase.
It dependes on whether I am winning or not overall.  I will reduce the 
bet if the count calls for it win or lose.  The 2 unit bet applies only to the 
case of having 1 unit up.  In this case, I will increase to 2 units if the count
calls for it (or calls for more) whether I have won or lost the previous hand.
I am thinking of changing this to a jump of 4 units, as this is the usual situation
(e.g., true count = 0 , bet = 1 unit, count goes to 2 units and since I am
betting 2 x true count for a count > 1, this calls for a jump to 4), but I wonder
if this will call attention to me (e.g., $10 bet -> $40 bet).
My progression might look like this

        count     bet     win    lose
          0        1               1
          3        2               2
          1        1       1
          3        2       2
          5        4       4
          3        3               3
          5        3               3
          6        3       3
          7        6       6
          7        7               7
          6        3       3              <- If I am ahead enough, I may not
          3        6                         halve my bet at this point.  Generally
                                             I do, however.

> 
> Many counters bet according to the count except that they only reduce the
> bet after a loss and only increase the bet after a win - that will work,
> though it will reduce the win rate.  You are suggesting a much more
> radical frontal lobotification of the betting, and I don't think you
> will be left with much of an advantage at all.


No..as inidicated above, this is the method I am using, although sometimes 
if I am winning sufficiently, I will not reduce my bet after a loss but 
keep it the same.


> 
> It sounds like you don't use a very big spread (just 1-4?), especially since
> you drop your bet whenever you lose and can only increase your bet (by two
> units?) when you win.  When the count is +8 or so, you need to get those 16
> unit bets out there regardless of what happened on the previous round.

Again, my spread is not limited, although typically I do not get beyond 12 units.

              count     bet

                0        1
                1        1
                2        4
                3        6
                   etc





> (You also need a bankroll >> 1000 units.)  Remember that you are fighting
> a base (dis)advantage of close to -.5%, and since the count is so
> nonvolatile in a shoe, you need to exploit the rare opportunities when
> you actually have an advantage.

I play in shoes where the count is >= -1 and if the count stays in the -1 -> 0 range
and I am losing I leave the shoe either temporarily or permenantly.  Somtimes
I just wave the dealer off, stand up and sip my drink.  I figure that what I would
need playing in positive advantage shoes only is about 300 units.  I allow another 50 
units since I play sometimes in <0 advantage shoes and double this amount since
I my bets are 2x the true count to yield a total of 700 units for my bank.  The 
700 comes from 

            bet = advantagexbankroll

which yields, taking a 6 unit bet for a true count of 3 for example,

            bankroll = 6/.01  = 600 units + 100 for non +adv. shoes = 700

> 
> 14 sessions * 8 hours/session * 100 hands/hour = 11200 hands.
> Let's suppose your expected value per hand is 0 units, and your variance
> is 4 units squared (I think these are actually pretty darn close to the
> truth, sorry to say.)  Your standard deviation is then sqrt(4*11200) = 212
> units. You are hence fairly likely to be ~200 units up or down.  If you won
> more than 424 units, then you could tentatively conclude that you
> have a positive expected value.


This is true.  I have not won nearly that amount, more like 250 units.
Newsgroups: rec.gambling