I'm wondering why when we convert running counts to true counts we always round down. Is it strictly for bankroll management purposes? To err on the conservative side? It seems we're giving up lots of +ev. Then it occurred to me that we could actually adjust our spread for HALF counts as well. For example:

Using basic hi-lo in a 2 deck shoe, $25 min table

After a half deck in, the running count is +5. True count would be (5/3)*2= 3 1/3. So we round it down to 3 and bet accordingly, $75. But with the count at a little more than 3, we're giving up some value. Why not throw a couple reds on top of that $75?

There would actually seem to be even more opportunities to do this in a 6 deck shoe since true counts will be non-integers much more often. True count after 2 shoes is +7, so per deck is 1.75. Why round down to +1 in that spot? Shouldn't we start to ramp up, not only because there's value there, but also so that we don't make as large of a jump up on the next hands, assuming the plus count remains?

because truncating out performs other methods

no appreciable gain

god no. first of all, you should never bet $75, especially in a game with surrender, because the fractional blackjack payoffs and surrenders will slow your game down to a crawl. but throwing out a rainbow bet is even worse, because now the dealer has to break your bet down to show the camera how much is there every single round. you should never make odd numbered bets, and you should never mix colours.

fractional betting does not out perform integer betting, although you can do it if you want, it won't under perform it either. actually you do want to avoid a robotic V, X, Y, Z (where each variable corresponds to a different true count) betting spread and should instead press or withdraw chips on the basis of whether you have been winning or losing towards your goals of V, X, Y, Z (your bet schedule based on the true count).

Overbetting your bankroll is a much bigger issue than underbetting your bankroll. Overbetting your bankroll by too much can actually lead to expected bankroll decline. This is one reason we generally err on the side of caution.

Wait, so if you're betting $25 min, you're never betting between $50 and $100 just because that would require either an odd amount of money, or a rainbow bet?? If the true count is +3, you're telling me that you're betting either $50 or $100?

If I have an $80 or $90 bet out, it takes what, one or two extra seconds for the dealer to break it down to pay it out correctly?

Depends on my bankroll and the rules. My bet is determined by my advantage and my bankroll, not the table minimum.

Betting this way is good for cover without sacrificing much EV at all. You can easily parlay your bets and play it off like you are riding a heater after a win or martingaling after a loss. Betting very specific amounts looks too calculated.

+1

Nothing screams CARD COUNTER like someone who puts out a 10x bet, splits, wins both, and then silently rakes back all four stacks and puts out a much smaller bet.

Agreed, but that's a far cry from never betting $75 if your base bet is $25 because you don't want to waste an extra 2 seconds for the handful of times that you get a blackjack or surrender and the dealer has to figure out how to pay that off. Most dealers dealing $25 min games are already familiar with quick calculations on odd # bets BECAUSE THE MINIMUM BET IS AN ODD NUMBER.

You sound like I was disagreeing with you. I'm not.

Your bets should not be quantized so strictly. Betting only $25, $50, and $100 is notably weird.

Bet $40 sometimes and $60 sometimes and $80 sometimes. Bet a few bucks more if you won the previous hand, a few less if you lost the previous hand. You can divide by half decks and quarter decks if you can eyeball discard sizes that well (I never could). Whatever it takes to make it look like you're not very careful about how many chips you've got out there.

I was piggybacking off of your post (which I totally agree with) but was responding to pokerplayergamble's earlier post about never betting $75 and never betting more than one color chip on a bet because it slows the game down too much, which I think is nuts. Based on what you're saying here, I'm glad to see that you agree with me. I'm like you, where I like to mess around with my bet sizing.

I wish he would respond. I'm curious to know if he only bets in increments of $25, $50, and then jumps right to $100. Seems very silly.

As I have already stated, you do not want to bet $75 because it slows the game down. More rounds per hour = a higher winrate. The math is pretty simple.

You still didn't say what you bet as an alternative. If you're at a $25 min table, how do you ramp your bets? $25 to $50 to $100 to $150? That's nucking futs man, but that's what you're suggesting, right?

The amount of time it takes them to break down a betting amount such as $60, $75, or $80 is negligible, like literally a couple of seconds. I can't imagine that it costs us more than a couple hands per hour. That is more than made up for by being able to have a non ridiculous betting ramp like 25, 50, 100, 150.

$25 bets would be disallowed for the same reason $75s are.

Edit: $5 and $15 as well, and presumably if you bet $100 you should do it with four greens because 1 black would necessitate mixed change.

The real question would be whether the mixed change rule also applies on color up, like if you bet four greens but the dealer gives you a black and two greens, do you stop betting $100 with that dealer beacause now your game is getting slowed down anyway?

ROFL

First, true count introduces more human errors (on many levels) than using a proper unbalanced count. So, user beware.

Second, all degens I observe basically ALWAYS scoop ALL of their winnings after a big bet. It is their way of securing the win as though the money is theirs forever. How much they bet on the next hand is generally irrelevant.