DOUBLE YOUR WIN-RATE AND LOWER ROR
April 20th, 2020 at 12:12:32 AM
permalink
I wanted the input from the more knowledgeable AP's about the concept of "inverse spreading" also known as "Grifter Gambit."
The theory is (when playing HEADS UP) instead of betting 1 unit at TC < 1, we bet 3 hands of .33 units at TC < 1. This accomplishes a higher expectation PER ROUND, because we metaphorically eat through the bad counts to get to the good counts quicker. Also, the concept is we move our max bet out to 1 hand of x units as to get more rounds in +EV situations.
RESULTS: Higher Win-rate, lower ROR bankroll restrictions, camouflage. (according to zengrifter)
Normal High-Low Inverse hand spreading difference 6d, S17, DAS, 3/4 PEN, 8-1 spread max bet at TC>3=8u (TOP)
(BOTTOM)
TC<1=3x1u
TC>=1, TC<2= 2x2u
TC>=2, TC<3= 2x3u
TC>=3 = 1x24u
Expectation
0.6172%
0.9028%
+46.2735%
Std. dev./round
$45.51
$46.25
+1.6157%
Avg. bet size.
$31.29
$32.16
+2.7934%
Win rate/hour
$19.31
$29.04
+50.3591%
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
$2,392.50
$2,370.50
-0.9195%
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
$16,067.21
$11,033.94
-31.3263%
Does this look correct? I know the original spread is sub-optimal and you math wizards can find your optimal betting spread, I just wanted to introduce this concept for those who didn't know of it and to get comments on its validity.
The theory is (when playing HEADS UP) instead of betting 1 unit at TC < 1, we bet 3 hands of .33 units at TC < 1. This accomplishes a higher expectation PER ROUND, because we metaphorically eat through the bad counts to get to the good counts quicker. Also, the concept is we move our max bet out to 1 hand of x units as to get more rounds in +EV situations.
RESULTS: Higher Win-rate, lower ROR bankroll restrictions, camouflage. (according to zengrifter)
Normal High-Low Inverse hand spreading difference 6d, S17, DAS, 3/4 PEN, 8-1 spread max bet at TC>3=8u (TOP)
(BOTTOM)
TC<1=3x1u
TC>=1, TC<2= 2x2u
TC>=2, TC<3= 2x3u
TC>=3 = 1x24u
Expectation
0.6172%
0.9028%
+46.2735%
Std. dev./round
$45.51
$46.25
+1.6157%
Avg. bet size.
$31.29
$32.16
+2.7934%
Win rate/hour
$19.31
$29.04
+50.3591%
5% ROR 8 hour trip bankroll
$2,392.50
$2,370.50
-0.9195%
5% lifetime ROR bankroll
$16,067.21
$11,033.94
-31.3263%
Does this look correct? I know the original spread is sub-optimal and you math wizards can find your optimal betting spread, I just wanted to introduce this concept for those who didn't know of it and to get comments on its validity.
April 20th, 2020 at 6:17:21 AM
permalink
Maybe just semantics, but if you are at a $15 table, say, What are you calling a unit? If my lowest bet will be $15, that's what I call a unit. It seems like you are just starting at 3 units, or $45. And going down to 1 unit when doing your spreading to 3 hands play. So if you bet $450, which is ten times your ORIGINAL wager, you, in my mind are not spreading 1-10, but rather, actually spreading 1-30. If you can get away with that, great.
April 20th, 2020 at 8:49:13 AM
permalink
Try it after Covid-19 and let us know if you survive spreading 3x$25 to 1x$600
G Man
April 20th, 2020 at 9:50:05 AM
permalink
I'm guessing the question is whether it's better to play one hand at $15 or three hands at $5.
Assuming it's -EV then playing 1-1 gets rid of more cards. Suppose the average for simplicity was 3 cards each, then playing 1-1 you would get rid of 6 cards per round (Player + Dealer) and it costs you the -EV of one bet. Playing 3-1 (Player*3 + Dealer) gets rid of 12 cards for the cost of three bets.
If your bets were $15 or 3 x $5 it's best to have 3 x $5 since you get rid of 12 cards. However if you could bet $5, you would be better off playing 1-1 at $5. Not only because it costs less to get rid of cards but also if it turned positive you can then increase your bet earlier.
The only reason I can see you wanting to bet $15 in total is to establish that as your base total bet, so allowing you a larger bet when it turns good.
Assuming it's -EV then playing 1-1 gets rid of more cards. Suppose the average for simplicity was 3 cards each, then playing 1-1 you would get rid of 6 cards per round (Player + Dealer) and it costs you the -EV of one bet. Playing 3-1 (Player*3 + Dealer) gets rid of 12 cards for the cost of three bets.
If your bets were $15 or 3 x $5 it's best to have 3 x $5 since you get rid of 12 cards. However if you could bet $5, you would be better off playing 1-1 at $5. Not only because it costs less to get rid of cards but also if it turned positive you can then increase your bet earlier.
The only reason I can see you wanting to bet $15 in total is to establish that as your base total bet, so allowing you a larger bet when it turns good.
