Bet spreading question
Heres my question: Let's say first hand is dealt and I get a 5,5,5,5 for a total of 20 and the dealer gets a 10, 7 for a total of 17. The RC is at 3, and the TC is slightly over 1.5. Would I round the TC up to 2 and bet 30$, would I stay at 20 $ bc the TC is not greater than 2, or would I bet say 25$ bc the tc is 1.5ish? My gut tells me to stay at 20$ bc the tc does not exceed 2. What about putting at 25$ bet out there and splitting the difference? How do you handle TC's with regards to bet spreading when playing multi deck games?
Quote: nemesiscc16Lets say I'm playing a DD game. I'm spreading 1-8 betting 10$ units. Betting 10$ TC<1, 20$ TC>1, 30$ TC>2, 40$ TC>3.........etc.
Heres my question: Let's say first hand is dealt and I get a 5,5,5,5 for a total of 20 and the dealer gets a 10, 7 for a total of 17. The RC is at 3, and the TC is slightly over 1.5. Would I round the TC up to 2 and bet 30$, would I stay at 20 $ bc the TC is not greater than 2, or would I bet say 25$ bc the tc is 1.5ish? My gut tells me to stay at 20$ bc the tc does not exceed 2. What about putting at 25$ bet out there and splitting the difference? How do you handle TC's with regards to bet spreading when playing multi deck games?
Thats 100% choice. I know a number who go up, and a number who go down. One person who is known for always rounding down who is big in our little world is Mr. Wong. In all honesty I myself go down, I believe that playing a 1.5 as a 2 decreases your ev by the slightest bit (But as a serious AP player a slight decrease is a big deal to me) . I have also known people who will play it as exactly what you said... a 1.5, and go with 15 on the felt since its the middle of 10 and 20 (Note that this adds even more spread and should not even be considered at the spreads you use because a 1-8 spread is already half agressive and if you add in half counts you would be closer to a 15 spread...) Once again 100% up to you as a player but I always run if its equal to or less then .7 down and .8 or .9 I am willing to round up.
It is in fact a judgement call. If you wanted to "split" it you could, but why try to remember another TC/Bet? You have enough to concentrate on =P. I personally will round up, because I understand it will 'slightly' affect my short term variance, but that it will also add me more EV in the long run... and my bankroll can handle the short term variance. Thus, I'll take the extra EV.
Quote: RomesIndeed it is by choice. However you are not losing EV to round up. What you're doing is affecting your variance. If you have a max bet of $80, what's the difference between having your max bet at TC +2, and TC +5? To your bankroll, mathematically, there is no difference because your max bet is the same. Off the 'old' pre-simulation days of bankroll calculations (100 big bets) again this wouldn't even matter. Clearly you must see though that due to the true count frequencies that TC +2 occurs a LOT more often than TC +5 and thus you'll have your max bet out much more frequently. This will actually make you a lot more EV in the long run, but will create much more variance in the short.
It is in fact a judgement call. If you wanted to "split" it you could, but why try to remember another TC/Bet? You have enough to concentrate on =P. I personally will round up, because I understand it will 'slightly' affect my short term variance, but that it will also add me more EV in the long run... and my bankroll can handle the short term variance. Thus, I'll take the extra EV.
100% agree with Romes (I dropped the ball talking about the EV part without justifying it with variance / RoR) but make sure you put the emphasis on the "BANKROLL CAN HANDLE SHORT TERM VARIANCE". I may have been wrong in assuming your bankroll isn't set up for the variance with your bet spread but if your bankroll is in fact not sturdy I will advise the round down. If you are playing an already low RoR feel free to round up. I personally run an already slighly agressive RoR on a progressive bankroll so I choose to round down because I already have my EV set up for what I find optimal while putting RoR exactly where I want it and feel that the short variance from rounding up would just make me even more strict on my numbers.
P.S. Since it isn't really defined anywhere I use progressive in the sense of I have a dedicated bank roll already to AP playing but I do add bi-weekly to it from my full time job to help slightly increase EV (I do run optimal kelly bets so every dollar does somewhat effect my bets / spreads). It is a slow and steady way to add to my already growing bankroll but I have payments in my life that are keeping me in my hated full time job as safety but with all the hours at the tables I already have I am nearing the point where I will feel comfortable full time AP playing with my well earned bankroll.
Quote: nemesiscc16Lets say I'm playing a DD game. I'm spreading 1-8 betting 10$ units. Betting 10$ TC<1, 20$ TC>1, 30$ TC>2, 40$ TC>3.........etc.
Heres my question: Let's say first hand is dealt and I get a 5,5,5,5 for a total of 20 and the dealer gets a 10, 7 for a total of 17. The RC is at 3, and the TC is slightly over 1.5. Would I round the TC up to 2 and bet 30$, would I stay at 20 $ bc the TC is not greater than 2, or would I bet say 25$ bc the tc is 1.5ish? My gut tells me to stay at 20$ bc the tc does not exceed 2. What about putting at 25$ bet out there and splitting the difference? How do you handle TC's with regards to bet spreading when playing multi deck games?
From a purely statistical standpoint I would bet the $30. The true count as you say is 1.5-ish but you've got to remember one salient point, fives out of the deck are the most powerful small cards to be out of the deck. They're worth more out of the deck than a 6, 4,3 or 2 are worth being out of the deck (.5 is just an average).
You also have to take into account that a suit might know this information. Four fives out of the deck is super delicious. If you go from 10 to 30 it's going to stick out a little so try to play dumb if you make this move and you've got a great advantage going forward. I would love to see that play.
5 is worth + .64.
4. .52
6. ,45.
3 ,44.
2 .37
So 4 fives is worth 2.56
I just noticed a huge oversight on my part. You're playing DD so everything is halved. Your advantage is approximately one half what you state (corrected to the true advantage of the five shown above in my chart).
Quote: GreasyjohnFrom a purely statistical standpoint I would bet the $30. The true count as you say is 1.5-ish but you've got to remember one salient point, fives out of the deck are the most powerful small cards to be out of the deck. They're worth more out of the deck been a 6, 4,3 or 2 are worth being out of the deck. There are tables in charts which give you this specific info.
You also have to take into account that a suit might know this information. Four fives out of the deck is super delicious. If you go from 10 to 30 it's going to stick out a little so try to play dumb if you make this move and you've got a great advantage going forward. I would love to see that play.
I lol'd because you read that SO in depth! Amen to this guy for actually putting full thought into your 5,5,5,5 and not doing what me and Romes (I think) did and presuming he just meant any 4 lowcards. I presumed any 4 low cards simply due to the fact of worrying about getting dealt 4 5s in the first hand of a double deck game seems pretty pointless because it would happen rarely enough that I wouldn't go out of my way to really try to stare that down. Don't worry Romes will be back to work tomorrow to try to redeem himself ;]
Quote: avenged43I lol'd because you read that SO in depth! Amen to this guy for actually putting full thought into your 5,5,5,5 and not doing what me and Romes (I think) did and presuming you just meant any 4 lowcards. I presumed any 4 low cards simply due to the fact of worrying about getting dealt 4 5s in the first hand of a double deck game seems pretty pointless because it would happen rarely enough that I wouldn't go out of my way to really try to stare that down. Don't worry Romes will be back to work tomorrow to try to save himself ;]
Delete
Quote: avenged43...Don't worry Romes will be back to work tomorrow to try to redeem himself ;]
Well, aren't I back? lol... I stand by my comment as most people whom read this are going to use the low cards generically. Also, the information Greasyjohn gave is absolutely more accurate from a statistical point about each card actually being worth a different value. Anyone can see this on the effect of card removal page the Wizard has.
However, this isn't something anyone can/should memorize. If you take the aggressive approach, and count every card weighted to it's actual removal value, then you're using a count system that I would be willing to bet you make 10x more mistakes per hour using (which will ultimately cost you EV). If you take the 'lazier' approach and just use Hi/Low, but personally you just notice when aces and 5's are removed more than normal, this would help you with your rounding. This is also what I do. I just use hi/low, but if I notice an abnormal amount of 5's or aces leaving the deck, I'll round my counts appropriately. Lastly, if you ignore the weighting factor, then you're down to my original point using generics.
So you can see in this scenario, all 3 possibly approaches lead to my original response =D. #redeemed
Quote: RomesWell, aren't I back? lol... I stand by my comment as most people whom read this are going to use the low cards generically. Also, the information Greasyjohn gave is absolutely more accurate from a statistical point about each card actually being worth a different value. Anyone can see this on the effect of card removal page the Wizard has.
However, this isn't something anyone can/should memorize. If you take the aggressive approach, and count every card weighted to it's actual removal value, then you're using a count system that I would be willing to bet you make 10x more mistakes per hour using (which will ultimately cost you EV). If you take the 'lazier' approach and just use Hi/Low, but personally you just notice when aces and 5's are removed more than normal, this would help you with your rounding. This is also what I do. I just use hi/low, but if I notice an abnormal amount of 5's or aces leaving the deck, I'll round my counts appropriately. Lastly, if you ignore the weighting factor, then you're down to my original point using generics.
So you can see in this scenario, all 3 possibly approaches lead to my original response =D. #redeemed
#SawThatComingFromDaysAway
HE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! HE IS THE ROMES! ALL HAIL! Lol seriously I think we all appreciate you in this community more then we would like to admit ;]
