Why?

[ZenKinG]

Why do they always say 2 big players is bad because it wastes cards, when it is recommended that all solo players play 2 hands? Isn't that the same thing as having two big players playing one hand each?

Matter of fact having two players at same table playing one hand would result in less heat as well than one player playing two hands alone.

[KronikBuddha]

It's not always recommended that solo players play two hands. If your playing heads up its best to play one hand except if it's the last round and you know it, then you can play two hands to get an extra hand with an advantage.

[ZenKinG]

It's not always recommended that solo players play two hands. If your playing heads up its best to play one hand except if it's the last round and you know it, then you can play two hands to get an extra hand with an advantage.

I understand what you're saying but it's actually been studied and proven mathetmatically that even heads up that although you're wasting more cards, you're also betting twice as much money at an advantage than with one hand, which offsets it, and actually two hands edged out one hand but not by much. Also keep in mind that if the casino is crowded, people will most likely end up joining your table and if the count is in your favor, it's in your best interest to play two hands and get through the shoe as quickly as possible before someone enters your game.

You're not answering my original question though, but thanks anyway

[bigplayer]

If your playing heads up its best to play one hand

You will get the exact same number of rounds per dollar wagered in a big shoe betting 2 hands in positive counts as you would betting one hand in positive counts using real world betting ($150 across two hands vs $100 on one hand). Using actual optimal numbers of $146 across two hands vs $100 on one hand it is indeed true that playing one hand while heads up is preferable but considering everyone rounds their two hand bets to some extend the correct real world answer is that while heads up it really doesn't matter whether you play one hand or two hands.

I believe two hands is preferable always in positive counts (cover aside) because you can play two hands faster than you can play two rounds of one hand and getting through a positive shoe as fast as you can is essential. Also while spreading from one hand to two hands in pitch games is a heat generator, it isn't nearly as heaty in shoes....coupled with the fact that some two hand bets just look better from a cover standpoint than one hand (e.g., 2@$700 looks vastly better than 1@$1050). So whether spreading from one hand to two hands gets more heat the real answer is...it depends.

To answer the OP's question he forgets that the two players playing separately optimally betting would earn 2x more money per hour vs playing together at the same table. Individually at separate tables each could play two hands. Each together at one table could only play one hand at 75% of their normal one hand top bet.

[ZenKinG]

You will get the exact same number of rounds per dollar wagered in a big shoe betting 2 hands in positive counts as you would betting one hand in positive counts using real world betting ($150 across two hands vs $100 on one hand). Using actual optimal numbers of $146 across two hands vs $100 on one hand it is indeed true that playing one hand while heads up is preferable but considering everyone rounds their two hand bets to some extend the correct real world answer is that while heads up it really doesn't matter whether you play one hand or two hands.

I believe two hands is preferable always in positive counts (cover aside) because you can play two hands faster than you can play two rounds of one hand and getting through a positive shoe as fast as you can is essential. Also while spreading from one hand to two hands in pitch games is a heat generator, it isn't nearly as heaty in shoes....coupled with the fact that some two hand bets just look better from a cover standpoint than one hand (e.g., 2@$700 looks vastly better than 1@$1050). So whether spreading from one hand to two hands gets more heat the real answer is...it depends.

To answer the OP's question he forgets that the two players playing separately optimally betting would earn 2x more money per hour vs playing together at the same table. Individually at separate tables each could play two hands. Each together at one table could only play one hand at 75% of their normal one hand top bet.

Yes I understand all that lol and thanks for the response, im just wondering where people got the notion that 2 big players eat up more cards?? They could also play two hands each, which would be better off and less heat than one player playing 4 hands. But my thinking was that each of them can play one hand instead of one player playing two hands, but that's besides the fact, my argument is that there would be no card eating, and that the main reason two big players is bad is for other reasons.

I guess 4 hands for one player wouldnt be optimal, and thus two big players playing two hands would be a waste, unless they're getting at that point. But if two big palyers are playing one hand each, i see no problem, besides possible suspicion from pit and easier to track whats going on, but there would be no card eating.

[tiny]

If you're on the same bankroll, it's better for one big player to play two hands because then you're not putting two players at risk for exposure.

[ZenKinG]

If you're on the same bankroll, it's better for one big player to play two hands because then you're not putting two players at risk for exposure.

But thats not the major reason why people dont use two big players, is my point. Teams say that two big players waste more cards, which is simply not true

[DSchles]

First of all, if I have two big players, why would I want them both at the same table playing one hand each, when I could have them at two different tables, playing two hands each and, therefore, playing four hands instead of two?

Finally, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you really think that one player playing two hands all the time is MORE suspicious than two players who pretend not to know each other but who, nonetheless, bet in unison with the count, well then, I respectfully disagree.

Don

[Jabberwocky]

First of all, if I have two big players, why would I want them both at the same table playing one hand each, when I could have them at two different tables, playing two hands each and, therefore, playing four hands instead of two?

Finally, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you really think that one player playing two hands all the time is MORE suspicious than two players who pretend not to know each other but who, nonetheless, bet in unison with the count, well then, I respectfully disagree.

Don

The purpose of playing multiple hands is to eat cards faster not to get a larger edge. Spread horizontally when the House has the edge. Spread vertically when you have the edge.

[ZenKinG]

First of all, if I have two big players, why would I want them both at the same table playing one hand each, when I could have them at two different tables, playing two hands each and, therefore, playing four hands instead of two?

Finally, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you really think that one player playing two hands all the time is MORE suspicious than two players who pretend not to know each other but who, nonetheless, bet in unison with the count, well then, I respectfully disagree.

Don

The purpose of this thread wasnt related to the heat of two big players playing together, that was just a side note. I just wanted to know why people say having two big players eats too many cards? When one player who plays two hands is basically doing the same thing

[Three]

The purpose of playing multiple hands is to eat cards faster not to get a larger edge. Spread horizontally when the House has the edge. Spread vertically when you have the edge.

Hasn't anyone read Don's book? And Norm and many others have proved one or two hands properly bet relative to one and other are identical for money bet per card eaten. It just becomes a question of preference at that point.

he purpose of this thread wasnt related to the heat of two big players playing together, that was just a side note. I just wanted to know why people say having two big players eats too many cards? When one player who plays two hands is basically doing the same thing

Because the best use of cards is either to play 1 or 2 hands. One player can do that. More than one would mean they each would play 1 hand which is obviously not a wise use of your resources. In team play a given is to use your resources wisely. I guess you missed that.

[ZenKinG]

Because the best use of cards is either to play 1 or 2 hands. One player can do that. More than one would mean they each would play 1 hand which is obviously not a wise use of your resources. In team play a given is to use your resources wisely. I guess you missed that.

Yes I obviously understand that. I was trying to see the arguments against or for the whole 'two big players eat more cards' cause it made no sense to me.

[Three]

Yes I obviously understand that. I was trying to see the arguments against or for the whole 'two big players eat more cards' cause it made no sense to me.

One big player would already be playing two hands so another would then eat cards. Understand?