Boomtown's blackjack rules!!!
  • These are the only rules that a card counter should except!!! First of on their single deck blackjack games blackjack pays 7 1/2 to 5 instead of 6 to 5!
    Second you can double down on any two cards second most important rule!! You are allowed to split aces. The dealer does hit soft 17 giving them a non card counting basic stragedy player only .18% of a disadvantage!!! A card counters advantage can be as high as 1%!!! These rules are usually reserved for the double deck game!!!
  • I concur, it's a great place to play.
  • learningtocount said:
    These are the only rules that a card counter should except!!! First of on their single deck blackjack games blackjack pays 7 1/2 to 5 instead of 6 to 5!
    Second you can double down on any two cards second most important rule!! You are allowed to split aces. The dealer does hit soft 17 giving them a non card counting basic stragedy player only .18% of a disadvantage!!! A card counters advantage can be as high as 1%!!! These rules are usually reserved for the double deck game!!!


    Good rules but they don't take action. Plus during weekends the conditions are unplayable. If you dare to play at the $25 table head-on you cannot get away with any decent spread to make any money.

    You are better off to play any bad 6:5 game head-on with 10:1 spread if you know how to beat it. They are all over Vegas and Reno. I play that game for months and got away with huge spreads head-on without any heat while making tons of money. Also the SF21 is very beatable despite the fact that the BJ is 1:1. You just have to know how to play these games that in all honesty are not blackjack games in the classic format that we know it. There are totally different games but looks like BJ. Don’t play them like regular Bj because you will lose.

    You have to use different counts and have a different mentality to be able to beat those two "garbage" games but they are beatable for big money.
  • I played at boomtown for a year winning and losing but usually winning money their one day I was up a messly $40 and got barred from playing blackjack. I was spreading 1-5 a very large spread pocketing chips so the casino thinks that they won them will buy you time at the blackjack table but it will not last forever!!! If you are allowed to play their they offer by far the best odds on blackjack. I don't care how much you spread on 6 to 5 you can not make money on it unless you are the casino or the dealer dealing it!!! Boomtown has low limits as low as a $3 minimum their are also $5 and $10 tables their! Boomtown does get a lot of action at the tables probably because of their liberal rules. The dealers that work there make top dollar in tips because liberal rules bring more gamblers and the gamblers lose their money more slowly!!! Although more gamblers will mean more money for boomtown!!!
  • learningtocount said:
    ... I don't care how much you spread on 6 to 5 you can not make money on it unless you are the casino or the dealer ...

    In the long run the player gets 4.7% blackjacks that gets pay 3:2. If you get 3.7% blackjacks you practically are playing a 6:5 game regardless of the 3:2 paying scale. One blackjack less per hour will make the regular 3:2 game into 6:5 game. You have to know how to overcome this. First, your counting system has to be designed in such a way as to capture the INSURANCE 100%. Why is that? Because when the dealer's having BJ and you catch the INSURANCE that make it a push. He cannot take your money. You only have to be correct 3 times per two hours and you get the upper hand.

    The difference between 3:2 and 6:5 is 20% less for the player. In two hours the dealer gets 2x4.7=9.4 blackjacks and if you force a push on 20% of them you have managed to even out the handicap. Now, 20% of 9.4 is 1.8 or rounded we called it 2 when the dealer cannot win while having BJ. So you catch 2 correct insurance decisions and you’ve overcome the 6:5 handicap. Catch more than two, like I say 3 per two hours and you have edge on that move alone. The DAS gives you some extra edge too. The spread gets you the profit. Those game are not monitored by the house because they know that no card counter will ever play such a game. I am not going to name this specific club but I can tell you that is in Vegas and I spread from minimum of $5 to table max of $1,000 while nobody even blinked. I honestly don’t even remember when I lost any amount of money the last time.

    Now, if you play this game as a regular BJ using Hi-Lo and basic strategy you will LOSE, I have no doubt about this. The rules are unbeatable if BJ strategy is applied.


    This game, 6:5 BJ, has been simulated and analyzed in details. The INSURANCE is the key. This strategy will overcome the 6:5 rule and NOTHING else. You take some of the dealer’s allegedly winning hands when he’s got BJ and make them push hands by catching the ten in the hole a few times.

    There are hundredths of 6:5 game all over Nevada and all are money making if you know how to play it for profit.

    Do yourself a favor and specialize with a proficient counting system that has the insurance correlation the highest possible. Practice until you become so good as to catch THREE tens in the hole per two hours of play. Bet 2:1 ratio in the beginning while in training and see for yourself the results. Bet small until your thinking snaps and you see and understand what’s going on. You will realize that the insurance is the key to overcome the 6:5 handicap. Matter of fact, if you catch the ten in the hole 3 times per two hours this 6:5 game becomes the great game that was Single deck, S17, D2, DAS 40 years ago when Thorp first figure out how to beat it. The great game, S17, D2, DAS gives the player a small edge with flat bet only. Now, ifyou play correctly the insurance and catching 3 tens per two hours in this "garbage" 6:5 game will get you a very small edge even with flat betting alone. By playing the insurance proficiently you create a great game for yourself with no heat whatsoever.

    Get the INSURANCE, and from that point on you will know how to make money.
  • Alex...Interesting concept...you may have something here concerning heat. What is your opinion concerning the insurance strategy verses 6D games paying 3/2, Stand or Hit 17, etc. Recently I caught two insursed BJ's in a 6D game in the mid-west and immediately faced early shuffles thereafter.

    Have you ever read any professional player's posts that agree with your 6/5 strategy? If so, please forward link.

    Best,

    -J.P]

    P.S It was a boy!
  • that's all well and good. But insurance has the _same_ effect on the normal 3:2 blackjack game as well. It's always been an important part of a counter's advantage. That doesn't make a 6:5 as good as a 3:2 game however... 6:5 is still a lousy game...
  • There is no doubt that 6/5 can be beat with a huge spread, but only by using a huge spread. This comes with huge variance and a low score. Some say you should play it because the casinos do not worry about counters on their 6/5 games and in my opinion, this is just not true. If they were not watching before, as soon as that big spread hits the table, suddenly they will be watching. Plus, you must understand that many pits do not understand just how bad the game is and watch it as closely as they watch other games.

    It all comes down simply as not worth the time and effort!
    The amount of money made per hour by pumping a high spread on a 6/5 game is still much less than what can be made on real blackjack games.

    If you see me on a 6/5 table, then you know I can spot the dealers hole card often, otherwise it is just no worth the time.

    ihate17
  • jimpenn said:
    Alex...Interesting concept...you may have something here concerning heat. What is your opinion concerning the insurance strategy verses 6D games paying 3/2, Stand or Hit 17, etc. Recently I caught two insursed BJ's in a 6D game in the mid-west and immediately faced early shuffles thereafter.

    Have you ever read any professional player's posts that agree with your 6/5 strategy? If so, please forward link.

    Best,

    -J.P]

    P.S It was a boy!

    The 6D game has to be back-counted only as far as I'm concern. I will not play-all the 6D. You either play the "best half" or you locate the positive slug and play it flat out until it ends. By playing the "best half" I mean: You back-count first 2-2.5 decks and if the true counts gets positive, say +2, +3 or more, you consider the remaining of the shoe to be the "best half" and play it flat out using the + Basic strategy. You practically stop counting as soon as you detected the best half because you consider the remaining of the shoe to be on average at +2 or whatever count you decide to start. This would be a simplified way to do it. The more elaborate way would be just back-count and locate the plus slug and play that portion of the shoe, continue counting, until it ends and you move on to the next shoe after. Either way, you will need a small spread or probably you can even beat it with flat bets only.

    There is no question that 6D, S17, D2, DAS, LS, 75% pen is superior to the 6:5 single deck. The problem with the 6D is that you have a lot to dead time while back-counting and many times you will not find the best-half at the first attempt. This technique will give you about 25 playable rounds per hour that is four times less compared with play all in SD or Double. So, you have to make-up for this by placing the same amount of action during the 25 hands back-counted as you would have place in a play all situation. If your average bet in play-all is $50 than you would place $5,000 action per hour so in back-counting you have to bet the same amount stretched over 25 hands to be real proficient. You can do that by flat betting with $200 during the hot shoe slug. Practically eliminating any “heat” and suspicion.

    That’s the way I will approach this game. But from my experience I can tell you that is very demanding to walk from table to table and from casino to casino finding hot shoes. But, on the other hand is very profitable way of playing. I always make more money, percentage wise, back-counting the shoe than playing any other game because I make sure that the amount of action is at least equal or greater with the play-all.

    The insurance issue in 6D play-all is questionable compared with the SD. There is a lot of variance insuring 6D play-all. If your counting system is capable of detecting the ratio of non-tens to tens with 100% precision than you will have positive EV on that bet in SD and little variance. The 6D game is won by betting technique during back-counting. That is the best way to play. If you back-count the way I preach, you will take even money every time and buy insurance every time because you will be playing in a hot shoe always where the TC wiil be above the insurance index.
  • AlexD30 said:This technique will give you about 25 playable rounds per hour that is four times less compared with play all in SD or Double.

    Actually, the number of positive hands will be roughly equal (maybe 2-3 more per hour for SD or DD). You would have gotten about 25 playable hands either way. Even though you are playing fewer hands you are still preserving all of your gain from the positive situations. Your hourly EV should be fine and your EV/100 will be much greater. Also, by walking away from negative shoes and counting multiple tables you are giving yourself a chance to find many more positive situations per hour.

    AlexD30 said:So, you have to make-up for this by placing the same amount of action during the 25 hands back-counted as you would have place in a play all situation. If your average bet in play-all is $50 than you would place $5,000 action per hour so in back-counting you have to bet the same amount stretched over 25 hands to be real proficient.

    But remember that most of that $5,000 was bet in negative or neutral situations. If you compare just the action from the positive situations you will find that the hourly action (and positive EV) is roughly equal.

    AlexD30 said:You can do that by flat betting with $200 during the hot shoe slug.

    But aren’t you worried about overbetting your bankroll? After all, you’re making much bigger bets even though your advantage at each TC is the same.

    -Sonny-
  • How can I over bet the bank when I bet $0 on 75% of the hands and have an average of exactly $200 for the flat bets on +2 or above? Actually the overall average for the 100 hands observed but only 25 played is $133. During the hot shoe (best-half) I have an average EV of about 1.5% with an average bet of $200. During the cold shoe I have –EV and an average bet of 0 (Zero).

    How can I be wrong?
  • AlexD30 said:
    How can I over bet the bank when I bet $0 on 75% of the hands and have an average of exactly $200 for the flat bets on +2 or above? Actually the overall average for the 100 hands observed but only 25 played is $133. During the hot shoe (best-half) I have an average EV of about 1.5% with an average bet of $200. During the cold shoe I have –EV and an average bet of 0 (Zero).

    How can I be wrong?



    Answer -> "variance". Assume a bankroll of $1000, and you wait until a TC of +3 to wong in and bet $1000. Your risk of ruin is impossibly high. Playing the negative counts isn't what tends to whack your bankroll, it is the plus counts where you bet big and lose. And you are still doing that, wonging or not...
  • The optimal bets will be based on the Kelly Criterion. Overbetting by a factor of 2 will give you a 100% risk of ruin despite the fact that you are only playing positive counts. You are suggesting that people overbet their bankroll by a factor of 4 in order to make up for "lost" hands (which technically aren't lost at all). Your system is guaranteed to bankrupt players in the long run.

    Although I do agree that you can safely raise your bet sizes when you are Wonging, you need to be very careful not to get carried away. As SSR mentioned, the variance will be huge no matter what the count is, and making bigger bets will only make it worse.

    -Sonny-
  • Sonny said:
    The optimal bets will be based on the Kelly Criterion. Overbetting by a factor of 2 will give you a 100% risk of ruin despite the fact that you are only playing positive counts. You are suggesting that people overbet their bankroll by a factor of 4 in order to make up for "lost" hands (which technically aren't lost at all). Your system is guaranteed to bankrupt players in the long run.

    Although I do agree that you can safely raise your bet sizes when you are Wonging, you need to be very careful not to get carried away. As SSR mentioned, the variance will be huge no matter what the count is, and making bigger bets will only make it worse.

    -Sonny-

    Well, I have $250,000 BJ bank, no mortgage, no rent to pay, single (divorced), BMW 750IL paid off .. etc.., and am betting 0.08% of the bank that is K/12.5 when I have more than 1% edge. I am looking for an average $200-$250/hour income. I honestly cannot see the ruin. How can I get ruined when I have 2,500 units and am betting K/12.5 with edge and 0 (Zero) with -EV.

    And, have over 30 years experience at the tables
  • how can anyone assess your RoR when your bankroll and playing methodology change on a daily basis? One day you are a pure progression player. Next day an advanced level-2 or level-3 counter. Betting 1/12th Kelly makes absolutely no sense to anyone that is serious about advantage play. Playing with such an incredibly small RoR also means you are playing such that it will take forever to double your B/R... Something like investing $250,000 at a .1% annual rate of return... It works, but it isn't the smartest thing to do...

    Personally, I don't believe a word of any of this. Way too many inconsistencies and change of tunes...
  • stainless steel rat said:
    how can anyone assess your RoR when your bankroll and playing methodology change on a daily basis? One day you are a pure progression player. Next day an advanced level-2 or level-3 counter. Betting 1/12th Kelly makes absolutely no sense to anyone that is serious about advantage play. Playing with such an incredibly small RoR also means you are playing such that it will take forever to double your B/R... Something like investing $250,000 at a .1% annual rate of return... It works, but it isn't the smartest thing to do...

    Personally, I don't believe a word of any of this. Way too many inconsistencies and change of tunes...


    OK, That's fine.
    My annual rate of return on BJ is about 50% of my bankroll. I am not looking to double the bank. I don't have to. You probably have to double your for obvious reasons.

    So, I'm making money while playing with 0.000% ROR
    But, anyway, Thanks for advice. I will take it with me at the tables .
  • Somehow I didn't think you would "get it". No big deal. BTW nobody plays with a 0.000% risk of ruin. The only way to do that is bet zero... but since none of the other math or statements are credible, no need for that one to be either...
  • stainless steel rat said:
    Somehow I didn't think you would "get it". No big deal. BTW nobody plays with a 0.000% risk of ruin. The only way to do that is bet zero... but since none of the other math or statements are credible, no need for that one to be either...


    What would be a meaningful measure of success? Winning a few sessions?. We can establish the session to be 20, 100 or 200 hours. I would say this: One week should be sufficient time to prove my play. Now, the suckers will surface. Some would claim that my methods would validate only in one million hands or even more. I would tell them, that’s not math, that’s cowardice. There are two methods in mathematics and logic: “the complete induction” and “the incomplete deduction”. Based on the latter, if a relation proves to be true for 1 case, for 2 cases, . . . for n cases, then it must be true for (n+1) cases. You don’t need to play 1,000,000 hands of blackjack. The hands played in one week will suffice to prove that my trend is going up.
  • AlexD30 said:
    What would be a meaningful measure of success? Winning a few sessions?. We can establish the session to be 20, 100 or 200 hours. I would say this: One week should be sufficient time to prove my play. Now, the suckers will surface. Some would claim that my methods would validate only in one million hands or even more. I would tell them, that’s not math, that’s cowardice. There are two methods in mathematics and logic: “the complete induction” and “the incomplete deduction”. Based on the latter, if a relation proves to be true for 1 case, for 2 cases, . . . for n cases, then it must be true for (n+1) cases. You don’t need to play 1,000,000 hands of blackjack. The hands played in one week will suffice to prove that my trend is going up.



    That last statement says you are a fraud. I know way too many players that have gone thru losing streaks that last for weeks. Some for months. And some reported to extend beyond a year or two.

    So don't tell me about a week being enough. Any _real_ 21 player knows that's a crock. A week can see you losing or winning real money, whether you count or play pure basic strategy. N0 (n-zero) is a lot longer than a single week, assuming you know what N0 actually is...

    Now, feel free to continue this. I participated (and watched) discussions with you a few years ago about your "guaranteed-to-win-progression". That, like your counting cards today, was nonsense. Complete nonsense. You seem to have read a bit. But you keep mangling the details. Important details. I personally choose to let this thread die. The content is minimal, mostly imaginary, and will not help other players to get better... and could hurt new players if they believe some of this nonsense. Blackjack is a game of variance, and there is absolutely no way to eliminate it except by not playing at all. When someone claims to have done so, I know it's nonsense.

    later...
  • AlexD30 said:
    Well, I have $250,000 BJ bank, no mortgage, no rent to pay, single (divorced), BMW 750IL paid off .. etc.., and am betting 0.08% of the bank that is K/12.5 when I have more than 1% edge. I am looking for an average $200-$250/hour income. I honestly cannot see the ruin. How can I get ruined when I have 2,500 units and am betting K/12.5 with edge and 0 (Zero) with -EV.

    And, have over 30 years experience at the tables

    What?No mention of your rugged Nordic good looks and your 15 inch dick?
    You do realize there are people here that actually play this game?
  • AlexD30 said:
    Well, I have $250,000 BJ bank, no mortgage, no rent to pay, single (divorced), BMW 750IL paid off .. etc.., and am betting 0.08% of the bank that is K/12.5 when I have more than 1% edge. I am looking for an average $200-$250/hour income. I honestly cannot see the ruin. How can I get ruined when I have 2,500 units and am betting K/12.5 with edge and 0 (Zero) with -EV.

    And, have over 30 years experience at the tables

    What?No mention of your rugged Nordic good looks and your 15 inch dick?
    You do realize there are people here that actually play this game?
  • NYB said:
    ..your 15 inch dick



    The facts are that I post the truth about how card a counting systems should be used for SD 3:2, SD 6:5, SF21 or in any shoe games. Not only do I post that fact, I back it up with the math to prove it, and I have even sent this math out to math professors to evaluate, and they agree with me.

    In respect to the critics, hucksters, con men, swindlers and hype merchants, casino agents, and such, PLEASE do not read my posts. They probably are too complicated for you anyway.
  • Alex- As I see it, when you wong in a shoe game, you are just playing at some theoretical advantage with some average bet. If you flat bet $200, that is your unit and average bet. If you play with an advantage and never vary from that you will win money in the long-run. Otherwise the word bias has no meaning. The only real consideration for you is time/hands played and ave bet must be supported by the correct BR.

    What you can't do is relate your method to some other strategy that uses a proportional betting method with a spread. Both are valid but different.
  • Ray said:
    Alex- As I see it, when you wong in a shoe game, you are just playing at some theoretical advantage with some average bet. If you flat bet $200, that is your unit and average bet. If you play with an advantage and never vary from that you will win money in the long-run. Otherwise the word bias has no meaning. The only real consideration for you is time/hands played and ave bet must be supported by the correct BR.

    What you can't do is relate your method to some other strategy that uses a proportional betting method with a spread. Both are valid but different.


    Yes, you are right. You got it

    Well, my average bet is always a small fraction of the bank. I actually under bet the bank all the time. I use the bank as leverage. The absolute number of units in my bank let me do that. I am looking to make a certain amount per hour, week, month, year and not to double the bank. If I you have a million bank and 1.5% edge you should be looking to make 100K/year while betting K/25 during the 25 hands of the hot shoe. You will be betting $400 per hand for a total of $10,000 action per hour during the hot shoe and expecting to make over the long run $150/hour. In less than part time work like 660 hours you will be up there to 100K.

    You don’t have to double your bank. What is the point of doubling? You already are at the saturation point in your bank. Doubling it will not give you more protection from the ROR. You’re already supper protected.

    Betting optimum means betting Kelly to maximize the expected logarithm or the growth of your bank. But when the bank is big beyond any reasonable chance to ruin than you looking to generate income as safe as possible. Like having ROR = 0.0000000001%
  • AlexD30 said:

    Betting optimum means betting Kelly to maximize the expected logarithm or the growth of your bank. But when the bank is big beyond any reasonable chance to ruin than you looking to generate income as safe as possible. Like having ROR = 0.0000000001%


    Why didn’t you say that in the first place? Most of the people on this website don’t have a huge bankroll (or a BMW 750IL, whatever that was all about). Telling them to bet four times as much when they backcount is terrible advice. It may work for you, but most players need to be very aware of their variance. As fun as it sounds, most players aren’t able to just throw a bunch of money on the table whenever they have an advantage. They have to manage their bets and bankrolls very carefully in order to earn the most amount of money within a reasonable amount of risk. Anything less (for them at least) is pure gambling, not Advantage Play.

    -Sonny-
  • AlexD30 said:
    Yes, you are right. You got it

    Well, my average bet is always a small fraction of the bank. I actually under bet the bank all the time. I use the bank as leverage. The absolute number of units in my bank let me do that. I am looking to make a certain amount per hour, week, month, year and not to double the bank. If I you have a million bank and 1.5% edge you should be looking to make 100K/year while betting K/25 during the 25 hands of the hot shoe. You will be betting $400 per hand for a total of $10,000 action per hour during the hot shoe and expecting to make over the long run $150/hour. In less than part time work like 660 hours you will be up there to 100K.

    You don’t have to double your bank. What is the point of doubling? You already are at the saturation point in your bank. Doubling it will not give you more protection from the ROR. You’re already supper protected.


    I wonder exactly who/what I am corresponding with here. The point of doubling your bank, is that now you can bet at 2x the level, and do it again, but now your hourly win rate has doubled. What advantage player does not want to double their hourly win rate without increasing their RoR? Answer: A person that is an advantage player, but only in their own mind, not at the tables...

    That is the entire purpose behind Kelly-betting... maximize win rate while controlling RoR....

    Some of us actually "get that"...





    Betting optimum means betting Kelly to maximize the expected logarithm or the growth of your bank. But when the bank is big beyond any reasonable chance to ruin than you looking to generate income as safe as possible. Like having ROR = 0.0000000001%


    Easy to do. Just wong in and bet $1. Or even better, with a lower RoR. Stop playing.
  • Sounds like Alex leverages his BR like income producing mutual funds. I'll have to agree with Sonny. That approach want get it for us church mice (poor, hungry and invisible).
  • Ray said:
    Sounds like Alex leverages his BR like income producing mutual funds. I'll have to agree with Sonny. That approach want get it for us church mice (poor, hungry and invisible).

    The bankroll is so important such that if you plan to play a 16 hours of BJ on a trip and you know that you have an hourly EV of 1.5 average units with a SD of 20 and a DI = 7 but you only bring with you only 60 units of Bank. You also plan to stop playing when the cash runs out. What are the Expected Earnings for the Trip? One might answer that it is 16 hours of play times 1.5 units equals 24 units. However that assumes that you will get to play 16 hours. With your low bank, your chances of tapping out are approximately 36%! The net result of this is that your EV for the trip is only 19 units. Your low bank has cost you about 20% of the EV potential.

    In a nutshell, I would say that one has to use his bank as leverage against the ROR to be able to take full advantage of the entire EV potential
  • AlexD30 said:
    The bankroll is so important such that if you plan to play a 16 hours of BJ on a trip and you know that you have an hourly EV of 1.5 average units with a SD of 20 and a DI = 7 but you only bring with you only 60 units of Bank. You also plan to stop playing when the cash runs out. What are the Expected Earnings for the Trip? One might answer that it is 16 hours of play times 1.5 units equals 24 units. However that assumes that you will get to play 16 hours. With your low bank, your chances of tapping out are approximately 36%! The net result of this is that your EV for the trip is only 19 units. Your low bank has cost you about 20% of the EV potential.

    In a nutshell, I would say that one has to use his bank as leverage against the ROR to be able to take full advantage of the entire EV potential



    That is so incredibly convoluted... Your bankroll is your bankroll. Your session bankroll is your session bankroll. The latter is a small subset of the former. There are formulas to tell you how many units you need in your session bankroll for a specific set of game rules, and total hands you plan on playing. That is not something one has to guess at. You simply determine your acceptable RoR for your session bankroll, and then size it appropriately for your intended betting level. That is all independent of your total bankroll and risk of ruin for that bankroll...

    please stop just tossing out buzzwords and instead try to say something that makes some sense... EV in the above context doesn't mean much. Your EV is your expected win and that is not a function of your bankroll, it is a function of your playing system, which is then multiplied by your average bet to project an hourly win rate. The fewer hands you play, the bigger error bar you have on your expected value (the farther from the mean you might land). In your example, your EV would drop if you drop your average bet because your session bankroll is too small. (again mangling the EV term to mean dollars when it more commonly is not used that way).

    BTW if you don't get to play the entire 16 hours, your EV is unchanged but your win rate drops to zero since you lost all your money. The EV doesn't change unless the game rules or your counting system/skills change. The EV for 16 vs 10 is constant no matter how many hands you play, as an example...
  • stainless steel rat said:
    That is so incredibly convoluted... Your bankroll is your bankroll. Your session bankroll is your session bankroll. .....
    ......., please stop just tossing out buzzwords and instead try to say something that makes some sense...


    Well, it looks like you didn't get it the first time, but I will give you this one in a nutshell. Clear and crystal crisp . Easy for you to understand the importance of the Bank/Unit ratio related to ROR. You can take this with you at the tables and you will be a better player because of me.

    Blackjack strategies are based upon optimizing Expected Value. That is, for each decision conventional strategy recommends the action (doubling, hitting, surrendering, insuring, etc.) which has the highest EV. However, in borderline cases standard deviation ought to be looked at. That is, a decision such as doubling, splitting, or not-surrendering involves accepting higher risk, which should clearly be taken into account in making strategic decisions.

    Players who completely accept Kelly principles will seek to optimize, not their EV but their Expected Logarithm (EL). Given this, they should select for each strategy decision, the choice which produces the greater EL.

    Now when small amounts of the bankroll have been wagered, the second term is negligible. So maximizing EL will be the same as maximizing EV when unit is small. In these circumstances Kelly strategy would agree with conventional strategy. However as unit increases like in my case when I flat bet in BIG chips during hot shoe, then the standard deviation becomes more important.

    Examples:
    1. The Basic Strategy for 6 decks calls for not surrendering 87 vs. 10. However this is a very close play that has the critical fraction to .068% (this is 0.068% of the bankroll). This means that a Kelly player who had only bet 1 unit on this play would not be justified in following the Basic Strategy unless the bankroll exceeded 1,470 units!
    2. Another one is: BS calls for doubling Ace-2 vs. 5 in <=9 decks. However in 8 decks, the critical fraction to .0005% of the bank. I calculate that more than 200,000 units of bank are required to make this play. Even in 6 decks, the required bank has to be 576 units.<br />
    Or, If you know in advance the hypothetical situation that your first card would be an Ace. Kelly players would bet approximately 40% of their bankroll. Were they to do that, they should violate BS and not double. Even a lucrative doubles, like A7 v 6, are not justified if more than 13.7% of the bank has been bet.

    Players with lower risk tolerance may have an objective function far more conservative than Kelly and may have a much lower K index to play with. For these players, the study of critical fractions of the bank may be more important.

    Such is the price of risk. Try this and you will sleep better during the night.
  • AlexD30 said:

    Blackjack strategies are based upon optimizing Expected Value…However, in borderline cases standard deviation ought to be looked at.


    You’re describing Risk Averse strategies. Unfortunately, they are of little use to most players. The only cases where RA strategies are helpful are when the player bets an enormous chuck of their bankroll on a single round (like the situation of betting on an ace, as you mentioned). It really doesn’t apply to any traditional bet spreads.

    AlexD30 said:Players who completely accept Kelly principles will seek to optimize, not their EV but their Expected Logarithm (EL).

    Actually, they’ll be optimizing their SCORE, which, in turn, minimizes their N0. Your playing strategy should always maximize your EV. You can then use your betting strategy to minimize your variance and ROR.

    AlexD30 said:

    2. Another one is: BS calls for doubling Ace-2 vs. 5 in <=9 decks. However in 8 decks, the critical fraction to .0005% of the bank. I calculate that more than 200,000 units of bank are required to make this play. Even in 6 decks, the required bank has to be 576 units.</font>


    If you can’t afford to double down on A,2 vs. 5 then you’re betting too much! Anyone who follows proper bet sizing in the first place will never run into this problem.

    Also, I'm not sure how you reached a 200,000 unit BR requirement for this play.


    AlexD30 said:Players with lower risk tolerance may have an objective function far more conservative than Kelly and may have a much lower K index to play with.

    This tolerance will be reflected in the players Certainty Equivalence which is used for all RA calculations. Although it affects the playing strategy, it is mostly based on the player’s betting strategy. You can avoid this concern by using a practical betting strategy.

    AlexD30 said:However as unit increases like in my case when I flat bet in BIG chips during hot shoe, then the standard deviation becomes more important.

    You’re doing things backwards here. You’re making a big bet then changing your playing strategy in order to control your variance. Your playing strategy should always maximize your EV and you should use your betting strategy to control your variance, not the other way around. If you can’t afford to make those big bets then you need to lower your bets or increase your advantage, not change your playing strategy. You will be reducing your EV by doing it that way. You should never have to play incorrectly in order to avoid going broke.

    -Sonny-
  • "BS calls for doubling Ace-2 vs. 5 in <=9 decks. However in 8 decks, the critical fraction to .0005% of the bank. I calculate that more than 200,000 units of bank are required to make this play. Even in 6 decks, the required bank has to be 576 units."<br />
    The 200,000 comes from the critical fraction for that play that is 0.0005% of ones bank. So, 1/0.0005 = 200,000 units of bank.
    In 6 decks if your bank is not at least 576 units you cannot double A2 vs. 5. If you do that you will be overbeting your bank. Each play has a critical fraction related to the bank. You know that.
  • AlexD30 said:The 200,000 comes from the critical fraction for that play that is 0.0005% of ones bank. So, 1/0.0005 = 200,000 units of bank...You know that.

    I'm just not sure where you get 0.0005% from. The EV for A,2 vs. 5 is 0.141 units if you double down (0.138 if you hit). The variance for doubling cannot exceed 4 units so the SD cannot exceed 2 units for that play (it’s actually somewhat lower). That gives a ROR of 0.086% for a 100 unit bankroll. If you were to play only this hand for the rest of your life you could start with a 50 unit bankroll and only have a 3% chance of going broke. That’s a far cry from the 200,000 units you suggested.

    I just don’t understand how you got your numbers.

    -Sonny-
  • Hey Sonny:

    Ask a proctologist, he can tell you where that number came from. :)

    Much of what Alex posts appears to be information taken from a variety of blackjack books, then juxtaposed in ways that make absolutely no sense. It looks good on the surface, but makes no sense when looked at with a critical eye...

    Any play that would require a 200,000 unit bank would be _some_ high-risk play. Certainly not A2 vs 5. Perhaps doubling a hard 20 with a huge bet out might require that.

    As you have seen, you can get sucked into some impossible discussions when you enter "certain threads". :) Not unlike the other web sites we visit, right? :)

    Somehow reading this, one would have to conclude that the standard deviation for doubling A2 vs 5 is _far_ greater_ than 2, even though the best that can happen is you win twice your original bet and the worst is that you lose twice your original bet... Just makes you wonder when Rod Serling's name is going to appear and we begin to hear the theme from "The Twilight Zone" coming from the speakers... :)
  • stainless steel rat said:
    Hey Sonny:

    Ask a proctologist, he can tell you where that number came from. :)

    Much of what Alex posts appears to be information taken from a variety of blackjack books, then juxtaposed in ways that make absolutely no sense. It looks good on the surface, but makes no sense when looked at with a critical eye...

    Any play that would require a 200,000 unit bank would be _some_ high-risk play. Certainly not A2 vs 5. Perhaps doubling a hard 20 with a huge bet out might require that.

    As you have seen, you can get sucked into some impossible discussions when you enter "certain threads". :) Not unlike the other web sites we visit, right? :)

    Somehow reading this, one would have to conclude that the standard deviation for doubling A2 vs 5 is _far_ greater_ than 2, even though the best that can happen is you win twice your original bet and the worst is that you lose twice your original bet... Just makes you wonder when Rod Serling's name is going to appear and we begin to hear the theme from "The Twilight Zone" coming from the speakers... :)


    In 8 decks the expectation for doubling A2 vs. 5 is 0.13633880 and for hitting is 0.13633130. (from Cacarulo's tables)

    Here is the formula to find the critical fraction "f" of the bank for any strategic play in BJ. Every move you make at the table is correlated with your bank. Even if you don't see it or pretend to know it all, you'll be wrong not to take into account the bank when risk vs. reward is involved. That is the PRICE of RISK. Don't be a fool and play based on basic strategy or by the index only because is going to come a time when you will go down and never recover. Ask yourself what is the risk you have to take while trying to increase the EV. Use the critical fraction of the bank for every move you make.

    f = 2k(e1-e2)/(SS1-SS2)
    SS1 = V1+e1^2
    SS2 = V2+e2^2
    for number of units solve 1/f

    If you solve the f you will get the number of units required to execute the A2 vs. 5 in 8 decks.

    You still have a lot to learn about how to play a winning game. You may think you know but you have no clue. You may even be a losing player when all the dust settle.
  • AlexD30 said:Here is the formula to find the critical fraction "f" of the bank for any strategic play in BJ.
    AlexD30 said:

    f = 2k(e1-e2)/(SS1-SS2)
    SS1 = V1+e1^2
    SS2 = V2+e2^2
    for number of units solve 1/f


    Just as SSR predicted, you’ve read an article and used the formulas completely incorrectly.

    First of all, the formula that you used above is for someone betting double-Kelly (2k). That player will have a ROR of 100% to begin with and obviously doesn’t understand proper bet sizing. I have a feeling you half-heartedly read this article by MathProf:

    http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/ror/rafract.htm

    Obviously you skipped the most important part:

    “Suppose we have an under-capitalized player…The player wishes to play, plans to follow a fixed-unit betting schedule, and wishes to minimize his Risk of Ruin.”

    The formula you use assumes the player is wildly overbetting in the first place and is trying to ameliorate this by playing more conservatively. Such concerns will never arise if the player is betting properly. As I mentioned before, your playing style should maximize your EV while your betting style maintains an acceptable exposure to risk.

    Using the correct formula for Kelly betting (1k) we get the following numbers:

    Doubling:
    f = k * EV / Var
    f = 1 * 0.141 / 4
    f = 28.37

    A Kelly bettor would require less than a 29 unit bankroll to double down on A,2 vs. 5. That would give them the standard 13.5% ROR associated with full-Kelly betting. That’s nowhere near the 200,000 units you proposed.

    AlexD30 said:You still have a lot to learn about how to play a winning game.

    I won’t deny that. The field of blackjack is immensely broad, but at least I have a good understanding of the basics. :p

    AlexD30 said:You may think you know but you have no clue. You may even be a losing player when all the dust settle.

    Sorry my friend, I think the dust has already settled.

    -Sonny-
  • Sonny,
    It took you that long to figure out this guy was running a bluff?He's been quoting piecemeal from varous articles since this latest reincarnation started.Several of his quotes have contrdicted earlier quotes.....
  • NYB said:Sonny, It took you that long to figure out this guy was running a bluff?

    Dude, it took me this long just to figure out what the heck his formulas were doing! :confused: He doesn't cite sources, give references, or even include all the relevant numbers. He must have cannibalized several different articles to come up with that nonsense! It's like a Frankenstein of various unrelated formulas. Oh well, happy Halloween I guess! :)

    -Sonny-
  • going to the ball?
  • Yup. I'll be pulling into Vegas in about 5 hours. I'm not very creative so I'll be wearing the same costume as last year.

    -Sonny-
  • Sonny:

    that's about what I expected from you after several years of reading your stuff and discussing various topics with you. I still think you are an idiot for wasting the time to track all that down and then post a really good refutation to something that was obviously pure B/S (and that does _not_ mean basic strategy). :)

    AlexD30 is obviously quite a few cards short of a full deck...

    I look forward to the day when he starts discussing shuffle-tracking. Those ought to be interesting to see how he misapplies various posts from the past....
  • You are wrong. Get the m1 and the m2 from Cacarulo's tables. In the case of A2 vs. 5 you only have two logical actions. Either HIT or DOUBLE. Get the expectation for both and solve the 1/f and see for your self what you get. You will realyze how much you've been overbetting in the past.



    Critical Fraction Formula

    f = 2 k ( m1 - m2 ) / ( SS1-SS2 )

    Where m = Mean Earnings for Actions 1 & 2

    SS = "Sum oF Squares" (Variance + m2 )

    k = 1 for Kelly System
  • That is simply wrong. Sonny pointed out why. A2 vs 5 comes up only once in every 1100 hands roughly (You could get A-2 vs 5 or 2-A vs 5, probability of getting those three cards is 1/13 ^ 3 and since there are two ways to get 'em you multiply by 2.) No way making that play needs a 200K+ unit bankroll. The EV is +.134 for hitting, +.126 for doubling.

    Next, nobody bets full kelly. No one advises anyone to bet full kelly. The bankroll fluctuation is too wild to deal with. In your case, you are predicting that the player will bet beyond full-kelly to require that kind of bankroll, according to Sonny's post. When you get to kelly * 2, you will eventually bust out anyway. But even a 13.5% RoR is not acceptable for a professional player, so they lower that by betting a fraction of kelly.

    If I could "wong in" every time I would be dealt a hand of A2 vs 5, I'd play non-stop and double every time. +.13 * 2 units is a nice return on an investment for less than a minute's time... If you want, I can run a sim on A2 vs 5 for a couple of billion rounds to show how far one's bankroll could swing in either direction, which would show exactly how big your bankroll has to be (in terms of units) to play that one hand over and over.

    In fact, I modified my code and ran this sim for 100M rounds on my slow laptop. The result was:

    total hands = 100,000,000 win = 50900122 push = 4490697 lose = 44609181

    Which gives an ev of +.124, based on infinite deck. More rounds would likely bring the EV down slightly to the Wizard's number of +.123. I see nothing alarming in the above numbers that would suggest an impossibly large SD to make this play too risky unless one owns half of Fort Knox. You are simply mis-using Cac's post. If you think A2 vs 5 is "too risky" then by all means never double. I am always going to double the hand because every bet I make is going to be less than full-kelly-based...
  • stainless steel rat said:
    That is simply wrong. Sonny pointed out why. A2 vs 5 comes up only once in every 1100 hands roughly (You could get A-2 vs 5 or 2-A vs 5, probability of getting those three cards is 1/13 ^ 3 and since there are two ways to get 'em you multiply by 2.) No way making that play needs a 200K+ unit bankroll. The EV is +.134 for hitting, +.126 for doubling.

    Next, nobody bets full kelly. No one advises anyone to bet full kelly. The bankroll fluctuation is too wild to deal with. In your case, you are predicting that the player will bet beyond full-kelly to require that kind of bankroll, according to Sonny's post. When you get to kelly * 2, you will eventually bust out anyway. But even a 13.5% RoR is not acceptable for a professional player, so they lower that by betting a fraction of kelly.

    If I could "wong in" every time I would be dealt a hand of A2 vs 5, I'd play non-stop and double every time. +.13 * 2 units is a nice return on an investment for less than a minute's time... If you want, I can run a sim on A2 vs 5 for a couple of billion rounds to show how far one's bankroll could swing in either direction, which would show exactly how big your bankroll has to be (in terms of units) to play that one hand over and over.

    In fact, I modified my code and ran this sim for 100M rounds on my slow laptop. The result was:

    total hands = 100,000,000 win = 50900122 push = 4490697 lose = 44609181

    Which gives an ev of +.124, based on infinite deck. More rounds would likely bring the EV down slightly to the Wizard's number of +.123. I see nothing alarming in the above numbers that would suggest an impossibly large SD to make this play too risky unless one owns half of Fort Knox. You are simply mis-using Cac's post. If you think A2 vs 5 is "too risky" then by all means never double. I am always going to double the hand because every bet I make is going to be less than full-kelly-based...


    That will be fine. I believe that if I'm not doubling on A2 vs. 5 and instead just hit I can make more by using the double money "saved" and add them on top of the regular bet when the count gets real positive. Instead of betting, say, $250 on TC+5, I bet the $250 + money "saved" from A2 vs. 5 that I didn't double. So, I may bet $250 + $100 on the next TC+5
  • "resistance is futile..." --the borg

    In this case:

    "discussion is futile..." --SSR

    your logic is so far beyond twisted, it takes sunlight 6 months to get from twisted to your logic... you do realize that you are going to _win_ more money by doubling than by hitting? And that when you get to that later opportunity you will have _more_ money if you want to increase your bet? This is like trying to explain the color "green" to someone that is completely blind...
  • Alex,
    Just to clarify; You would rather save the money by not doubling a hand you have an clear advantage on, and "invest" it later when you have a smaller advantage?Even though you have a 2,000 unit BR?
    Is that the gist of your latest post?
  • NYB said:
    Alex,
    Just to clarify; You would rather save the money by not doubling a hand you have an clear advantage on, and "invest" it later when you have a smaller advantage?Even though you have a 2,000 unit BR?
    Is that the gist of your latest post?


    The decision to put out more money should simply be based on upon the same criteria that you made the original bet. Suppose you had a true count that gave you an advantage of close to 6%, and you betting about 75% of your advantage, have a bet of about .045 of your bank on the table. You get a hand that calls for a double in your playing index. However, simply hitting also has an advantage. The question is, how much addititional advantage must you gain from the double in order to justify putting out an additional 4.5% of your bank? You certainly wouldn't want to do it for a gain of .005 difference over hitting or standing.

    When only a small capital is wagered, then the difference between two strategies is negligible. However Kelly breaks down when larger amounts are bet. For example, a Kelly player with a big bet out should insure "good hands" even if the expectation on the Insurance Bet were negative. (There is an excellent discussion of this point in the 1986 edition of Griffin's "Theory of BJ"). Similarly, Kelly strategy would dictate passing up many double down bets when the gain from doubling did not justify the increased risk.
  • AlexD30 said:
    The decision to put out more money should simply be based on upon the same criteria that you made the original bet. Suppose you had a true count that gave you an advantage of close to 6%, and you betting about 75% of your advantage, have a bet of about .045 of your bank on the table. You get a hand that calls for a double in your playing index. However, simply hitting also has an advantage. The question is, how much addititional advantage must you gain from the double in order to justify putting out an additional 4.5% of your bank? You certainly wouldn't want to do it for a gain of .005 difference over hitting or standing.

    When only a small capital is wagered, then the difference between two strategies is negligible. However Kelly breaks down when larger amounts are bet. For example, a Kelly player with a big bet out should insure "good hands" even if the expectation on the Insurance Bet were negative. (There is an excellent discussion of this point in the 1986 edition of Griffin's "Theory of BJ"). Similarly, Kelly strategy would dictate passing up many double down bets when the gain from doubling did not justify the increased risk.



    What idiot is going to bet 4.5% of their bankroll on a single hand? The RoR is 100%. none of this makes any sense...
  • stainless steel rat said:
    What idiot is going to bet 4.5% of their bankroll on a single hand? The RoR is 100%. none of this makes any sense...


    Of course, Rat, you are again completely in error. What you are saying is that based upon your studies of your "kitchen-table rules and game". At the same time you **think** that I am wrong while you are correct on card counting and beating your kitchen table setup game. Well, still have to bet Kelly. If you get to have a bet 4.5% of your bank when you have 6% edge you’re going to be at 13.5% ROR.
    You either play Kelly or have no business in BJ. If you want less risk then double your bankroll and have K/2 K/3 or whatever you are comfortable with. Get more units or play at half units of what you have now. You definitely got to bet proportionally with your edge/variance if you want to call yourself a professional. If not, then play slot machines or Keno instead.
  • Don't knock slot machines. Keno, you can knock. But I think the sounds and twirly things are worth the negative return.
  • AlexD30 said:
    Of course, Rat, you are again completely in error. What you are saying is that based upon your studies of your "kitchen-table rules and game". At the same time you **think** that I am wrong while you are correct on card counting and beating your kitchen table setup game. Well, still have to bet Kelly. If you get to have a bet 4.5% of your bank when you have 6% edge you’re going to be at 13.5% ROR.
    You either play Kelly or have no business in BJ. If you want less risk then double your bankroll and have K/2 K/3 or whatever you are comfortable with. Get more units or play at half units of what you have now. You definitely got to bet proportionally with your edge/variance if you want to call yourself a professional. If not, then play slot machines or Keno instead.



    _NOBODY_ in their right mind bets full-Kelly. Not a single AP I know of claims to do this. So please try to wrangle and wriggle and change the point. But again, _NOBODY_ bets full-kelly except amateurs and not many of them do so...

    try again...

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!