Team Money Management: Part 2

The Blackjack Page

If your team is using the “big player” (BP) approach, the development of a proper betting schedule is a bit more complicated because you will have two players at the same table much of the time, so that brings what we call “co-variance” into play. If you, either as an individual or as a team, play two or more hands at the same table, the outcomes of those hands are linked. For example, if the dealer has a natural you’ll probably lose all of your hands and if the dealer busts, you might win all of your hands. Co-variance in a big player situation is less critical than one where you’re playing two or more hands on your own because the presumption is that the big player will be making a bet that is many multiples of the bet the counter at the table is making, but you must still account for it.

As an example, let’s say you have a team consisting of six counters, one big player and a bankroll of $20,000. The plan is to call in the BP to a table when your advantage is 1% or higher (a TC of 3 in the Hi/Lo count where the casino has a 0.5% edge), so we know from my previous article that the big player should bet 1% times .75 = 0.75% times $20,000 = $150. If the table minimum is $5 or $10, there’s not a big problem because my assumption is that the counters will seldom, if ever, make a bet above the minimum in order to avoid attention from the pit. Of course, the count may be higher when the BP is at the table, so $150 would be underbetting if your advantage is, say, 2.5% (a TC of 6), which calls for a bet of $300. You basically have two choices: the first being to have the BP change the bet size as the count changes – which can tip off the pit critters – or have the BP make the same size bet, regardless of the count. The second choice, which is the superior choice in my not-so-humble opinion, means you will be overbetting at times and underbetting at other times, but having the BP “flat bet” all hands really cuts down on the suspicion by casino supervisors. What we need to do is find some sort of happy medium in order to make the most profit while taking on the least financial risk associated with that effort.

Planning the BP’s bet schedule requires us to examine what we call the “frequency distribution” of the game we’re playing. This is a fancy way of saying how often we can expect to find the various true counts – both positive and negative - which is primarily dependent upon the penetration offered by the casino. It stands to reason that the deeper the penetration, the more often counters will find high (or low) counts. For example, in a six-deck game with 67% penetration - 4 of 6 decks dealt before the shuffle - a TC of 3 or higher (as measured by the Hi/Lo count) will occur only about 7% of the time and in a game with 75% penetration (4.5 decks of 6 dealt before the shuffle) it’s a bit less than 9%, and in a game with 83% penetration (5 decks of 6 dealt before the shuffle), a TC of 3 or more will occur roughly 11% of the time. These numbers carry two implications beyond the obvious benefits of deeper penetration. The first is that you naturally want the BP to play as many hands as possible, but since only a portion of those hands qualify with a TC of 3 or more, shallow penetration will require you to have counters at more tables in the casino in order to find those situations. If the TC at which you call in the BP occurs only 7% of the time, it’s easy to see that your BP will be standing around doing nothing, which looks very weird to the pit critters if you were to have only, say, three counters at the tables. On average, they would find a count of TC 3 or more about 20% the time, but if you use six counters one of them would have a count of TC 3 or higher about 40% of the time. With enough counters seeking out favorable situations, you can keep your BP bouncing around the casino, tossing out bets like a crazy gambler, which is exactly the picture you want to paint.

The frequency distribution also allows us to determine what the average count will be when the BP is at the table. We already know that the minimum count the BP will be called to a table in this scenario is TC 3. With “typical” penetration of 75%, a TC 3 happens 3.7% of the time; a TC 4 happens 2% of the time; TC 5 occurs 1.2% of the time; and TC 6 or more happens 1.8% of the time. The weighted average of these counts is 3.5, which translates into an average edge of 1.25% (1.75% minus the 0.50% casino edge) for each hand the BP will play, assuming s/he leaves and exits at TC 3 or more. But let’s talk about “exit” a bit. Obviously, when the BP comes to a table, the count might drop on the next hand and if the drop is to a count below TC 3, the BP should move off to another table. But for appearances sake, we always used to have the BP stay as long as the count was high enough to give us an edge, which is usually TC 2. So, if you call in the BP at TC 3 or higher and send the BP away at any TC lower than 2, your team’s big bets will always be made when you have an edge. But the bets made at counts between TC 2 and TC 3 will increase your bankroll swings (our old friend, variance). That consideration makes it necessary for us to once again calculate the average count the BP will see, because a TC of 2 will occur 6.4% of the time in a game with 75% penetration, but the player advantage is only 0.50%. The new number actually works out to be about the same, which is 3.54. So, with an average edge of 1.25% and a “Kelly factor” of .75, the BP should bet 1.25% x .75 x $20,000 = $187.50 which can be rounded up to $200. S/he can bet that amount on each hand, regardless of the count (assuming it’s no lower than TC 2), if the BP is playing one hand at a time.

Another way to get more bets on the table is to have the BP play two hands whenever possible. Done correctly, it adds to the BP’s image as a “gambler” but does not increase your team’s risk of ruin. This brings us back to the concept of co-variance, which I discussed briefly at the beginning. In order to keep your risk of ruin the same, a bet of one hand in the amount of $200 translates into a bet of .55 of Kelly on each of two hands, which is 1.25% x .55 x $20,000 = $137.50 or a total of $275. I would round it to $150 on each of two hands, which increases the risk of ruin a little, but allows the BP to play with “black” ($100) and “green” ($25) chips exclusively.

A final consideration in the money management aspects of a Big Player team is the betting of the counters who are calling in the BP to their table. Generally, the counters should always bet the table minimum because their expectation is to lose about 0.50% of all the bets they make. So, if you have six counters in the casino and each is betting $10 per hand, they might play 60 hands per hour, each. That totals 360 hands per hour and $3600 per hour in total bets. The counters’ expectation is to lose 0.50% of $3600 per hour, or $18 per hour, which is a small price to pay for all of the advantages team play offers. However, if your counters must play at tables with a $25 minimum, their expected losses jump to $45 an hour and, while that’s not a huge number, it’s beginning to add up. Whenever we had to play $25 tables, we’d mitigate the losses somewhat by having the counter use a simple “parlay” by letting their winnings ride whenever the BP was at the table. So, if the BP was there (and the count was TC 3 or higher) if the counter won his or her hand, they’d just stack the winnings up and bet it all on the next hand. This might seem like it’ll send some sort of signal to the pit critters, but what we found was that it seemed normal to bet more when someone came to the table betting big; all with the idea of: “This guy may know something I don’t know, so I’ll gamble with him” - something the game supervisors see happen all the time. As always, we want to show them what they expect to see. They want gamblers? We’ll give them gamblers.

I’ll see you here next time.

The Blackjack Page

2007 Articles

2006 Articles

2005 Articles

2004 Articles

2003 Articles

2002 Articles

2001 Articles

2000 Articles

1999 Articles

1998 Articles

1997 Articles