$10-$100 vs $25-$125 vs $50-$200 spreads

High counts that would permit max bets occur rarely enough, and it takes a very long time to make up losses when playing on a large spread. I've been flirting with a lower-spread // higher-min strategy and it seems to be more profitable while keeping in line with the negative swings of the larger spread betting method. I'm not at a statistically significant point to make bold claims here, but I've been playing like this during my last 7 visits to Mohegan Sun over the last two months and had very decent runs.

So here's the debate for the veterans out there: if your min bet is a little higher than the benchmark ~1/200 of your trip bankroll (replenishable) but you play with a smaller spread, you get to make max bets more often and it takes fewer plays min-betting to recover from a max-bet loss. Sidebonus: comp points rack up MUCH faster due to a higher average bet -- it's not a linear scale (at least at Mohegan; not sure about other places). What are y'all's thoughts on spreading $15-$150 vs $25-$125 vs $50-$200? This is all during shoe games, 6D with good rules and about 70% pen, with a trip bankroll of $5000 and little, if any, wonging out. I don't have an estimate for trip RoR for any of these spreads.

Before I get reamed and labeled as an uber-ploppy, I am entirely aware that a string of 30 net losses at $100 would also be hard to recover from. I'm just prodding the crowd to see what the sentiments are.

Quote: arcticfun

High counts that would permit max bets occur rarely enough, and it takes a very long time to make up losses when playing on a large spread. I've been flirting with a lower-spread // higher-min strategy and it seems to be more profitable while keeping in line with the negative swings of the larger spread betting method. I'm not at a statistically significant point to make bold claims here, but I've been playing like this during my last 7 visits to Mohegan Sun over the last two months and had very decent runs.

So here's the debate for the veterans out there: if your min bet is a little higher than the benchmark ~1/200 of your trip bankroll (replenishable) but you play with a smaller spread, you get to make max bets more often and it takes fewer plays min-betting to recover from a max-bet loss. Sidebonus: comp points rack up MUCH faster due to a higher average bet -- it's not a linear scale (at least at Mohegan; not sure about other places). What are y'all's thoughts on spreading $15-$150 vs $25-$125 vs $50-$200? This is all during shoe games, 6D with good rules and about 70% pen, with a trip bankroll of $5000 and little, if any, wonging out. I don't have an estimate for trip RoR for any of these spreads.

Before I get reamed and labeled as an uber-ploppy, I am entirely aware that a string of 30 net losses at $100 would also be hard to recover from. I'm just prodding the crowd to see what the sentiments are.

I wouldn't put any faith in the results from 7 sessions. It's just not enough data to be meaningful. You can do well over 7 sessions even if you're not counting and playing a not-so-good approximation of basic strategy.

Instead of raising your min, why not just steepen your betting ramp so you hit your max bet more often? You can also raise you max.

Obviously $25-$125 makes less money than $15-$150. You are betting more when they have the edge and less when you have the edge.

$50-$200 could theoretically make more than $15-$125 but I seriously doubt it. Why not just spread $15-$200? If you can handle the variance, steepen your betting ramp (get to your max bet earlier). The key is, you want to bet the minimum possible at bad counts.

Quote: arcticfun

High counts that would permit max bets occur rarely enough, and it takes a very long time to make up losses when playing on a large spread. I've been flirting with a lower-spread // higher-min strategy and it seems to be more profitable while keeping in line with the negative swings of the larger spread betting method. I'm not at a statistically significant point to make bold claims here, but I've been playing like this during my last 7 visits to Mohegan Sun over the last two months and had very decent runs.

So here's the debate for the veterans out there: if your min bet is a little higher than the benchmark ~1/200 of your trip bankroll (replenishable) but you play with a smaller spread, you get to make max bets more often and it takes fewer plays min-betting to recover from a max-bet loss. Sidebonus: comp points rack up MUCH faster due to a higher average bet -- it's not a linear scale (at least at Mohegan; not sure about other places). What are y'all's thoughts on spreading $15-$150 vs $25-$125 vs $50-$200? This is all during shoe games, 6D with good rules and about 70% pen, with a trip bankroll of $5000 and little, if any, wonging out. I don't have an estimate for trip RoR for any of these spreads.

Before I get reamed and labeled as an uber-ploppy, I am entirely aware that a string of 30 net losses at $100 would also be hard to recover from. I'm just prodding the crowd to see what the sentiments are.

Assuming optimal betting, you would make the most money at 50-200, and you be max betting before +3. You would have about a 2/3 chance of busting your bankroll. You would make a little less with a 15-150 spread, and cut your risk in half. Wouldn't need to max bet til plus 4 or 5. Your risk assumes no wonging, so it will be less, but the 50-200 would still put you beyond reason regardless of your strategy.

Avoid negative counts.