Randomly changing unit $ and spread each shuffle?

Lately, I've been trying to change up how I bet to make the game more interesting and to also not worry about heat.

Let's say I'm on a $10 table, but sometimes I choose to use $20 as my base unit and spread 1-5 units. Then maybe on the next shuffle, switch to $30 as the base unit and spread 1-3. Then maybe on the next shuffle, switch to $10 base and spread 1-10, etc. If the count gets super bad, I'll reduce to the table min or sit out, regardless of which unit I'm choosing to play. Is this a bad strategy?

I'm figuring that long as I'm raising when I have the edge and reducing my bet when the count turns negative, I should have an advantage in the long run even if I don't consistently bet or spread the same amount?

I think hmmmmm. yes and no, mostly no....

Your edge is wafer thin at the best of counts. Don't waste it.

Chucking your bet size up and down pseudo randomly might make you look more like like you are a card counter or it might make you look unusual in other ways.

But ultimately, if your objective is bankroll growth, you should be doing something like Kelly or half Kelly. With your suggestion, effectively you are breaking yourself up into a team of junior player with a small bankroll and a senior player with large bankroll. If the count is good and you have the small bankroll in play you are under betting and if the count is low with high bankroll in place you'd be over-betting. Thus losing the benefit of counting with knobs on.

Now, how about this to mess with the heads of the pit: Play two seats where mostly you ramp the bet on only one of them and not always the same one. keep moving seats too as if it was some sort of superstition.

It could add fun value and make you look super ploppy :o)

Quote: OnceDear

I think hmmmmm. yes and no, mostly no....

Your edge is wafer thin at the best of counts. Don't waste it.

Chucking your bet size up and down pseudo randomly might make you look more like like you are a card counter or it might make you look unusual in other ways.

But ultimately, if your objective is bankroll growth, you should be doing something like Kelly or half Kelly. With your suggestion, effectively you are breaking yourself up into a team of junior player with a small bankroll and a senior player with large bankroll. If the count is good and you have the small bankroll in play you are under betting and if the count is low with high bankroll in place you'd be over-betting. Thus losing the benefit of counting with knobs on.

Now, how about this to mess with the heads of the pit: Play two seats where mostly you ramp the bet on only one of them and not always the same one. keep moving seats too as if it was some sort of superstition.

It could add fun value and make you look super ploppy :o)

Well often I bet two hands and if the count gets very negative, I'll switch to playing one hand or go to the table min regardless of what unit I was playing by. I think playing with varying bets mostly just opens me up to playing higher minimums when the count is 0 or slightly negative....but on the flip side, my bet gets super low if it turns negative.... i.e. I could go from starting off at $60.... spreading 1-4, but then back down to $10 if the count turns very negative.

I know this is not the optimal strategy, but I'm wondering if in the long run it should still be slightly positive. As blackjack is not my only income, looking for a way for it not to be stale, but still have a minor edge.

Quote: ddraper

Lately, I've been trying to change up how I bet to make the game more interesting and to also not worry about heat.

Let's say I'm on a $10 table, but sometimes I choose to use $20 as my base unit and spread 1-5 units. Then maybe on the next shuffle, switch to $30 as the base unit and spread 1-3. Then maybe on the next shuffle, switch to $10 base and spread 1-10, etc. If the count gets super bad, I'll reduce to the table min or sit out, regardless of which unit I'm choosing to play. Is this a bad strategy?

I'm figuring that long as I'm raising when I have the edge and reducing my bet when the count turns negative, I should have an advantage in the long run even if I don't consistently bet or spread the same amount?

The concept is good but this implementation is not.

EITS is looking for "moving the money with the count" and changing your unit and continuing to ramp does nothing except impact your EV/Variance.

There are other ways to disguise betting structures while maintaining your EV levels and with acceptable RoR.

Quote: Stealth

The concept is good but this implementation is not.

EITS is looking for "moving the money with the count" and changing your unit and continuing to ramp does nothing except impact your EV/Variance.

There are other ways to disguise betting structures while maintaining your EV levels and with acceptable RoR.

Well it's not just the disguising part why I'm interested in it, but also making it more interesting in general.

Theoretically, say for a few months I played $10 with, 1 to 5 spread. Then for another few months, I played $25 with 1-4 spread... and then another played $30 with 1 to 6 spread. Within their time periods, all of those should lead in an advantage long term, just at different rates right? So if instead of waiting a month, you alternated the bet and spread on different days... you should still have the edge in the long run right?

At what point does the edge disappear? How many variations can you go through and still maintain your edge?

Quote: OnceDear

Now, how about this to mess with the heads of the pit: Play two seats where mostly you ramp the bet on only one of them and not always the same one. keep moving seats too as if it was some sort of superstition.

How would this effect the edge if you only ramp up one hand and alternate between the two? Will you also ramp the second one some, but just less? Like ramping one hand 1-2 and then the other 1-8 or something?

Quote: ddraper

How would this effect the edge if you only ramp up one hand and alternate between the two? Will you also ramp the second one some, but just less? Like ramping one hand 1-2 and then the other 1-8 or something?

Don't know, cannot be bothered to work it out, sorry. I'd only do it for fun anyway and I'd expect to lose.
A lot would depend on how you gear your ramp to the count. If you are ramping one hand 1-2 you probably have an overall disadvantage on that hand. What it costs you could be estimated in isolation. You'd be looking to diminish the significance of that small hand by having significantly bigger bets and faster, maybe crazy, ramps on the big hand. But you are watering down any edge that the count reveals, AND adding variance AND drawing attention to yourself. Best you could hope would be that the EITS would think you to be a ploppy not worthy of his attention.

Sod it, play for maximum amusement. It's only money.

$:o)

Okay, since randomly switching doesn't seem optimal... for enjoyment variety, I suppose I will just play the $10 tables some days and the play $25 tables other days and keep my spread consistent. Then probably just break and change tables every hour or two so I don't have to be too paranoid.

Have you read the book Burning the Tables in Las Vegas by Ian Anderson? It is one of the must read books that is very unique in its perspective when compared to other books about Blackjack. The second edition has an added section in there for Green Chippers which I enjoyed very much and found useful. Cheers. http://www.amazon.com/Burning-Tables-Las-Vegas-Blackjack/dp/0929712846

Thanks... just bought it and will read it. The last few days I just started buying all the software and books about blackjack and now I'm kicking myself for not doing it before. No reason to be cheap when you're risking thousands of dollars in a day...

Like before, I'd often do really well on the 5 and 10 tables, but get killed when playing the $25 tables even though I was playing conservative. After running my betting in CVCX...I realized that my spread on the higher limits was too low as well as not having adequate bankroll when sitting so my risk of ruin was like 100% lol. Live and you learn I guess, but I'm going to get on my A-game now.

You're improving already! Yeah; $25 table can be intimidating from a starting bankroll standpoint. At this point, I'll play at a $25 double deck game but won't play at a $25 minimum 6-deck shoe game; I'll only play a red chip minimum 6-deck shoe. Wonging out and or in would significantly help someone just starting to build their bankroll. It takes discipline to Wong :-)

Quote: OnceDear

You'd be looking to diminish the significance of that small hand by having significantly bigger bets and faster, maybe crazy, ramps on the big hand. But you are watering down any edge that the count reveals, AND adding variance
$:o)

Well, not really. If the alternating bet structures are designed to achieve the desired win rate at the desired RoR, as they can be, and it looks crazy then that is a good thing. I would modify the objective to be certain my bets appear to go down with a rising count and up with a lowering count. While hard to detect that you are moving the money with the count, it is not foolproof. Defeating surveillance using cover betting is possible but keep in mind, that the overriding objective of your system should be minimize the changes in your bet as well as disguise their intent. If the pit notices you change your bet a lot then they will be inclined to call EITS for confirmation.

At the bet decision for two hands betting 2X200 is the same as betting 1X100 and 1X300, it does not change your advantage and actually does not change your variance. In fact, it lowers your variance when compared to betting 1X400.