Some discussion

From Stanford Wong's BJ21

Posted by ML on 14 Mar 1999, 6:26 pm, in response to Data-Long, posted by ML on 14 Mar 1999, 11:13 am

The data is here and I am not making recommendations. A more experienced casino player might can make some recommendations based on this data and I hope they do.

Some of the comments are fairly trivial in that the data shows many things we know happen. The data does show magnitudes of these fairly trivial things and readers should look at the comments in this context.

The first trivial statement is using much cover in Single Deck and Double Deck can be mighty expensive. Using all the cover studied drops the effective win rates by about three fourths, a bundle. Required bankrolls to play the same stakes with cover are about one and a half times as large as no cover and win rate drops by more than a half, even for the bigger bankroll.

Also, as we know, cover is less costly in heads up games than in games with more players. It would seem one who thinks cover is necessary should attempt to play heads up Duuh.

Seriously, I think less expert players should realize the magnitude of the difference and players using betting cover may not jump into a game with other players as quickly. Winnings can go to about nothing and risk of ruin can get much worse.

In Single Deck and Double Deck, the use of betting two off the shuffle seldom helps and it only helps a little when a lot of cover is being used. A note: The game simmed is about a -.2 game. The old Reserve game and the Slots game, I understand, is positive off the top so it will certainly do better there and the idea should not be totally discarded based on these sims.

In Single Deck, using a two spread with no cover is about equivalent to using full cover both in bankroll required and winning. It might well be preferable, especially in non head to head games where it performs better than four spread full cover. It still ain't good.

A three spread with no cover performs reasonably well but many of the gains are lost when starting with a two bet and making no major changes. Again, this idea should not be discarded for a positive or nearly positive game like Circus but the bankroll required is right large and the win rate is not high.

If one decided to discard certain elements of cover in SD and DD, the first to discard would be not raising after a loss when the count justifies a raise. This is the one betting cover, both individually and in combination, most costly. It seems to me there might be some logic in doing this because, at least, you have an empty betting spot to fill and a raise might not be as noticeable as changing bets with money on the table after a win or push.

The second would appear to be discarding no major changes. While it is impossible to sim this on CVSim, one possibility might be not to raise after a push even if justified but to raise after a loss if justified. The justified raise after a win nearly takes care of itself except when the jump should be from one to four. Such a strategy would sim out similar to the PL combination which does not hurt nearly so badly as other combinations, especially in the three player game.

Cover becomes much less costly in the six deck game and it is easy to see why Ian, Don, and others deal with this game. Costs are not nearly so significant and, in a head up game, lose only about a quarter of the potential win. Chapter 8 implies it would lose even less Wonging.

The costs of not raising after a win are not different from the other types of cover.

An interesting correlation is that, with full cover, the bankroll for a 5% ROR for a 1-10 spread is not so much bigger than the required bankroll for Single Deck and Double Deck full cover, betting smaller spreads.

Makes one think, does it not?