Why?

[ZenKinG]

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

That was left out then. And not always will a big player be playing two hands, but thanks though

[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.

[KJ]

Your post is confusing ZenKinG. Who is this 'they' that you are referring to when you say, "they always say 2 big players is bad because it wastes cards"? I have never heard anyone say this.

So basically it boils down to that you are asking if two players each playing one hand eats more cards than one player playing two?? Why would you think there is any difference.

2x1=2. 1x2=2. Where is the confusion?

Of course none of this takes into consideration heat issue.

[ZenKinG]

Your post is confusing ZenKinG. Who is this 'they' that you are referring to when you say, "they always say 2 big players is bad because it wastes cards"? I have never heard anyone say this.

So basically it boils down to that you are asking if two players each playing one hand eats more cards than one player playing two?? Why would you think there is any difference.

2x1=2. 1x2=2. Where is the confusion?

Of course none of this takes into consideration heat issue.

Yes that's my point. And the 'they' is referring to i believe blackjackapprenticeship review of the movie '21' and the crtiques behind the movie and where they messed up. They said the two big players at the end of the movie is actually not a good thing to do and they said it was because it wastes cards, which I didn't understand how it would waste cards. Heat, different story, but im trying to get at the reason they said that. If two big players played two hands each it would actually be beneficial because one player would be playing 4 hands and would cause not only heat, but if playing heads up, would not be optimal.

[Three]

ZK, you really seem to be the most unteachable person I have encountered. You just can't get rid of your misconceptions as you learn. You want to keep repeating them even when you seem to understand why they are incorrect. Now you talk about 2 BPs playing 2 hands each at the same table in your suboptimal card eating thread. I think you are trying to give people headaches.

[Exoter175]

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

I honestly don't even know why he poses these questions. Especially after mentioning he was watching a review of the movie 21. Makes me think he's living vicariously through a movie because he doesn't truly play :P

ZK, you really seem to be the most unteachable person I have encountered. You just can't get rid of your misconceptions as you learn. You want to keep repeating them even when you seem to understand why they are incorrect. Now you talk about 2 BPs playing 2 hands each at the same table in your suboptimal card eating thread. I think you are trying to give people headaches.

Stuff like this makes me question if he ever actually sits down at a real live casino with real money and places real wagers and counts cards.

[Exoter175]

Your post is confusing ZenKinG. Who is this 'they' that you are referring to when you say, "they always say 2 big players is bad because it wastes cards"? I have never heard anyone say this.

So basically it boils down to that you are asking if two players each playing one hand eats more cards than one player playing two?? Why would you think there is any difference.

2x1=2. 1x2=2. Where is the confusion?

Of course none of this takes into consideration heat issue.

ZK lacks common sense. If he doesn't find a specific set of words in an article, then he doesn't assume anything or feel out any implied knowledge the article might be giving.

Now, I know he isn't a 2 year old, so he knows 1x2=2 and 2x1=2, but what he fails to acccept and garner from the commentary on the play, is that the advantage lies with the ability to eat Less cards up per count cycle by staying at 1 player, 1 hand, than if two players were at the table, which is far more advantageous to the individual.

[Night_Rider]

I thought the reason for playing two hands was to lower your risk.

[ZenKinG]

Stuff like this makes me question if he ever actually sits down at a real live casino with real money and places real wagers and counts cards.

Yea its all a bluff, i never played a hand LOL, because i would feel like wasting my precious time trolling on a blackjack forum, cool story bro

[muckz]

I thought the reason for playing two hands was to lower your risk.

Risk doesn't change, well, it shouldn't, at least when betting optimally. Some say, playing two hands is to reduce variance, which isn't really true. It increases variance, but ev also increases proportionally. The catch is, you are able to bet more money with the same amount of risk playing two hands. What it does reduce is time till n0. Which is what some people seem to think variance is.

[Exoter175]

Yea its all a bluff, i never played a hand LOL, because i would feel like wasting my precious time trolling on a blackjack forum, cool story bro

I'm just saying, some of the words I read on this forum under your name raise some flags, and the fact that your "investment strategies" COMPLETELY counteract the strategies of your Blackjack Game, just doesn't sit well with me believing you play a fraction of what you'd lead us to believe here.

[Three]

Go easy on ZK. His stock fell 2.33% today to complete a month of steady decline. It hit a months high of .46 a month ago and closed at .336 today. He lost 27% of his net portfolio in the last month so give him some slack.