
NOTE:
This post and 7 below moved from here: http://www.thegamblingtimes.com/boar...tml#post233464
(munk)
I've seen a few references to 'sweepering' in this thread, could some kind person please enlighten a noob? Cheers

Originally Posted by foofi22
I've seen a few references to 'sweepering' in this thread, could some kind person please enlighten a noob? Cheers
It's a bit like martingale in reverse if you know what that is. Basically any time you win a hand, you increase the stake until you eventually lose a hand at which point you go back to the original stake and start over again.
So if you're playing with 1 unit stakes, you might bet 1, win a hand, increase to 2 units, win another, increase to 3 units, win another, increase to 4 units, lose a hand, go back to 1 unit.
I used to play it 1,1,2,2,4,4,8,8,etc  really just to decrease boredom if you're playing it manually that's all, statistically there isn't any value in it.
There's a thread I started that's about Blackjack sweepering, think it might have been my first ever post on here even (or close to!):
http://www.thegamblingtimes.com/boar...strategy.html

Originally Posted by foofi22
I've seen a few references to 'sweepering' in this thread, could some kind person please enlighten a noob? Cheers
It's a method used to take advantage of 'streaky' casinos, allowing you to get through the WR more quickly, by increasing your bets incrementally as a winning streak progresses.
Say you keep betting £1 hands on Blackjack; if you hit a winning streak your bet sizes would follow the following pattern;
1,1,2,2,4,4,8,8,16 etc
if you lose a hand you go back to £1 bets and start the sequence again. There's no difference in your profit vs. if you had 'flat' bet the sequence using £1 hands, since the winnings from the earlier hands in the sequence cover the loss from the final, losing bet.

Senior Member
Originally Posted by foofi22
I've seen a few references to 'sweepering' in this thread, could some kind person please enlighten a noob? Cheers
There is no such thing as a "streaky" casino, there is no advantage to increasing the betsize. It just increases variance, the opposite of what a "sweepering" player is trying to achieve...

Originally Posted by CountryLad
It's a method used to take advantage of 'streaky' casinos, allowing you to get through the WR more quickly, by increasing your bets incrementally as a winning streak progresses.
Say you keep betting £1 hands on Blackjack; if you hit a winning streak your bet sizes would follow the following pattern;
1,1,2,2,4,4,8,8,16 etc
if you lose a hand you go back to £1 bets and start the sequence again. There's no difference in your profit vs. if you had 'flat' bet the sequence using £1 hands, since the winnings from the earlier hands in the sequence cover the loss from the final, losing bet.
is it important that u play 2 hands per betsize?
i.e 2x £1, then 2 x £2...whats the reason plz, many thx

I think one of the reasons given for sweepering rather than just grinding it out at flat stakes is that maybeyou don't look quite so much like a bonus abuser and more like a recreational player???

Originally Posted by smallplayer
is it important that u play 2 hands per betsize?
i.e 2x £1, then 2 x £2...whats the reason plz, many thx
Different people use different tactics and call it sweepering  this is what I do. Work out the sequence for yourself with a pen and paper, you'll see that it makes little difference to your balance at the end of the run if you do it this way vs. flat betting (except that you have now cleared more of the WR than if you had flat bet the sequence).

Originally Posted by etherz
There is no such thing as a "streaky" casino, there is no advantage to increasing the betsize. It just increases variance, the opposite of what a "sweepering" player is trying to achieve...
I don't agree that variance is increased using the method which I described (which I picked up from people in this forum). At the end of the run, when you have lost your hand, you are in pretty much the same position as if you had flat bet. The advantage is that you have cleared more WR while keeping the variance low, when comparing it with low stakes flat betting.
Edit: I should have written 'that variance is increased by very much'  as there is a little increased variance
As for whether there are or are not 'streaky' casinos (those where you can have frequent and regular long runs of wins or losses more often than might happen in the real world)  I don't think any of us are in a position to collect the amount of data to prove it either way, so I accept that it may not be so, but with a number of sites it certainly fells like it!

every casino bj i've played is very streaky, but i've been lucky enought to win overall quite a lot. betfred streaky but the worst seems to be coral.
thanks to this thread ive managed to have a better strategy.... played about with a few & find the "double up" strategy personally disasterous tbh... for grinding have found the following to be successful thus far:
either:
£1, £1, then £2 until a loss then back to £1
or
£1, £1, £2, then back to £1
the theory being that getting 3 wins or more in a row is pretty frequent with the streaky bj casinos....surely this must increase EV
although a bit tedious grinding out

I find some of the comments earlier in this thread to be quite baffling. I understand the difference between ev and variance and I understand that ev cannot be changed significantly. What puzzles me though is how sweepering doesn't gain an advantage?
Take a run of 10 winning hands and then 1 losing hand. Flat bet at £2 per hand this returns £18 profit assuming no double ups, splits or BJ's. Now for the same 11 hands bet this sequence 2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. The £11 bet being the losing bet this returns £45 again assuming no double ups etc. Conversely a run of 10 losing hands costs £20 in lost bets, so sweepering gives a swing of £25 to the player.
This isn't to argue what anyone has said before, I simply don't understand the maths behind it and wondered if someone could point out what I'm missing?
I assume that any situation in which a player splits or doubles he has a mathematical advantage and so would on average win more than 50% of these hands, which contributes towards the low HE of blackjack?
You just need to ask yourself one question, do you feel lucky punk?....... Well do ya?
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads
 You may not post replies
 You may not post attachments
 You may not edit your posts

Forum Rules
