Betting big off the gate?
  • What do you think of this cover play? At a place like boomtown where the house edge is a tiny .16% and you have the ability to sneak a peek at two of your neighbors cards so you have the abilty to see at least 7 cards before making your decision. My question is this can you have an advantage over the house on the first deal if you have the ability to see the other's players cards at the table? Even if you are at .16 and make a big $100 bet you will only lose 16 cents on average with perfect play. I think that it could be a good play if the pitboss is watching and sees you bet big of the first deal when he knows that you have no advantage or so he thinks.
  • learningtocount said:
    What do you think of this cover play? At a place like boomtown where the house edge is a tiny .16% and you have the ability to sneak a peek at two of your neighbors cards so you have the abilty to see at least 7 cards before making your decision. My question is this can you have an advantage over the house on the first deal if you have the ability to see the other's players cards at the table? Even if you are at .16 and make a big $100 bet you will only lose 16 cents on average with perfect play. I think that it could be a good play if the pitboss is watching and sees you bet big of the first deal when he knows that you have no advantage or so he thinks.


    It's a silly question. You have to place your bet _before_ you see a single card. So you have no idea what you are going to get, and you would expect to lose .16% of every such bet you place. Notice that losing .16% is one issue, but the _variance_ to your bankroll will be another since a loss translates into -$100 which is a big bite out of your cash...
  • A card counter that is sucessful has a betting range in which he typically bets say you have a bankroll of $400 and your betting range is between $5 and $30 your big bet would be $30 because it is six times bigger than your small. So your lose of a big bet will not deviaste your bankroll. Your average lose with a $30 bet would be about 5 cents. I get that on any given hand you can win or lose.
  • I think the answer is that there are probably better cover plays that don't lose you money and will throw off the casino. Remember that we are usually talking about small edges, so a small edge loss is significant. I think the general wisdom is that instead of betting big when you have a disadvantage, play a bit dumber when you are betting small.
  • learningtocount said:say you have a bankroll of $400 and your betting range is between $5 and $30 your big bet would be $30 because it is six times bigger than your small. So your lose of a big bet will not deviaste your bankroll.

    A $400 bankroll is only about 13 top bets so losing just a few big bets will devastate your bankroll! Generally you want to have at least 100 top bets in order to maintain a reasonable exposure to risk.

    On a side note, you should always calculate your top bet first then work downwards to determine your spread, not the other way around.

    -Sonny-
  • You may win that first hand, but that don't mean that you had an advantage, no matter how many cards you can see. Betting 6X off the top is a very foolish bet because the very best you can hope for is 47.5, not counting pushes. However, had you said, can I have an advantage for the second hand? The ans would be yes.
  • Betting your top bet right out of the gate is very good if you are trying to get comps.throw out three or four large bets while the PB is rating your play MAY go a long way in the pursuit of comps.
    But counting both cards and comps is a tough lot to juggle.The count may dictate you placing a large bet when the PB is nowhere in sight,or the presence of the PB may call for a series of bigger bets just as the count goes south.
  • NYB said:
    Betting your top bet right out of the gate is very good if you are trying to get comps.throw out three or four large bets while the PB is rating your play MAY go a long way in the pursuit of comps.
    But counting both cards and comps is a tough lot to juggle.The count may dictate you placing a large bet when the PB is nowhere in sight,or the presence of the PB may call for a series of bigger bets just as the count goes south.



    Betting big to impress the floor folks is a different animal than just betting big to look different. Inflating your average bet as perceived by the floor is a +EV move so long as you don't have to do it too often. But just betting big off the top is not so smart for reasons several have explained previously...
  • Optimal play when you no more than just your cards and the dealers card I believe can produce an edge for you of the first deal of the deck. Boomtown is the only place that I know of that lets you double down on any two cards and pays you 3 to 2 for a blackjack their advantage with perfect play just considering your two cards and the dealers up card is .15% but if you can see the other cards in other peoples hand optimal play for the count might get you a real small edge!
  • stainless steel rat said:
    It's a silly question. You have to place your bet _before_ you see a single card. So you have no idea what you are going to get, and you would expect to lose .16% of every such bet you place. Notice that losing .16% is one issue, but the _variance_ to your bankroll will be another since a loss translates into -$100 which is a big bite out of your cash...


    LTC-Take note of SSR'S comment. You've got to bet first and there is no way in hell that you can justify a large bet based on the idea that you may have a double or other play opportunity that MAY be affected by the other players cards. Give your future post more thought......
  • Learning's first $30 play/$400 BR is a good comp play if Suit is watching. In addition, the the shoe is not favorable right off top but will probably be less favorale next round if he wins because of large amount of 10's coming out during first round. It's a lot easier coming down than going up if reverse.
  • You always have to bet first and even if the count is good you are not guranteed to be dealt a good hand. You could still get a dreaded stiff so what is your point?
  • learningtocount said:
    You always have to bet first and even if the count is good you are not guranteed to be dealt a good hand. You could still get a dreaded stiff so what is your point?



    Jeez...

    To make it simple:

    (1) with a + count, your _probability_ of winning goes up. "probability" does _not_ mean "guarantee". So in a + count you will win more often than usual.,

    (2) off the top of the shuffle, the count is zero. You have no advantage whatever. In fact, you have the house edge against you. Why would you bet big in a -EV situation???

    The two are not even comparable...
  • Learning..my point was to support your normally stupid comments. Anything else you want to hear?
  • I don't think its correct to say that at the beginning of any hand the house has the edge. Its just that you don't have any information to determine what the next cards will most likely be. That is, if the next 20 cards were mostly 10's, you would have the edge. If the next 20 cards were mostly low, the house would have the edge. You just don't have any information (and on average, the edge belongs to the house).
  • If you are playing heads up or one other player on the table I think it is not a bad idea to play 2 or three units off the top in a good double deck game. You know you are going to get several rounds before the shuffle so the loss in EV is small.
  • There's also the old "luck" thing. I had one of the best shoes of my life the other night, where the count stayed almost exactly neutral for all but the last deck worth of cards. The count wasn't going up, but I won almost *every* hand. It was unreal. When the count went crazy high I upped my bet to 8-10 units, and I kept on winning!

    My god, I'll never forget that shoe. It's going to be as etched in my memory as my first ever roll in the hay is.

    :D
  • learningtocount said:
    A card counter that is sucessful has a betting range in which he typically bets say you have a bankroll of $400 and your betting range is between $5 and $30 your big bet would be $30 because it is six times bigger than your small. So your lose of a big bet will not deviaste your bankroll. Your average lose with a $30 bet would be about 5 cents. I get that on any given hand you can win or lose.


    Always double up
    Suppose the game is double deck, 70% penetration, heads up, S17, DOA, DAS. Using Revere Point Count and a 1-5 spread (Kelly-optimized with 3 units at +2 TC, 1 unit at +1 TC or less and 5 units at +3 TC or more), a simulation shows that you have in theory a mean of .015 units and variance of 7.94 units^2 per hand. The required Kelly bankroll is then variance/mean = 7.94/.015 = 530 units. The investment is thus 530 units and the return is 1.5 units per 100 rounds. The return on investment is therefore 1.5/530 = 0.28% per 100 rounds/hour. If you compound the interest, as one should, the annual interest is, uh, 3200%, slightly better than that offered by Wells Fargo :-)

    Let's assume for argument sake that we can indeed make 0.28% per hour on our initial stake. Keeping the betting range the same for 400 hours doubles your stake and at that point you can double your bet size and play for another 400 hours, etc... There are about 2000 hours in a typical work year, so in this idealized model you only have to run it thru once and you have hit the big score by a factor of 2^5 or 3200% interest per year.

    This sounds like free market economics theory. I'm not so sure it's true in general, but for sure it's not true for blackjack, because it can't be considered a free market investment - surprisingly few people have the time, patience, bankroll, knowledge, attention span, and intelligence to make money at blackjack. The ROI for blackjack is phenomenally greater than that available in the free market.

Howdy, Stranger!

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