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

[RobinHood21]

I think you just answered your own question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Three]

i think you just answered your own question.

bingo

[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.

[bigplayer]

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.

No it would not. They would be eating each others positive rounds. If they were playing on the same bankroll they would optimally be unable to be enough to offset the cards they are eating up. If on the same bank they should be at separate tables. If you get your BJ facts from the move 21 you're in a lot of trouble. One player should never be playing more than 2 hands. If you play 3 hands when heads up vs 1 hand, you are betting 80% more money per round but using 100% more cards per round.

[seriousplayer]

If you get your BJ facts from the move 21 you're in a lot of trouble.

You mean movie 21 or move 21?

[ZenKinG]

No it would not. They would be eating each others positive rounds. If they were playing on the same bankroll they would optimally be unable to be enough to offset the cards they are eating up. If on the same bank they should be at separate tables. If you get your BJ facts from the move 21 you're in a lot of trouble. One player should never be playing more than 2 hands. If you play 3 hands when heads up vs 1 hand, you are betting 80% more money per round but using 100% more cards per round.

Did you even read my post? Please dont be another one on this forum who has reading comprehension issues. I get my information from 21? When did I say that? I was simply analyzing it thouroughly and then offering a suggestion as to why it could work after hearing about the critics review about it from blackjack apprenticeship. I NEVER said it was right by any stretch what they did in the movie 21 using two big players at the end. 21 was all Hollywood and many errors were in that film, it was for audience and views.

I also love how you said i get my blackjack fact*(s)* plural from the movie 21. What other facts are you talking about? If you claim I got one fact from 21 about the big player thing, do you then just assume and say I get many other facts from them? When I have stated this?

[Three]

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.

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.

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,

So you get a blackjack apprentice review of the movie 21 and they tell you why the movie is inaccurate in the last seen. You don't buy their perfect assessment and go on 4 pages of this thread refusing to believe the movie 21 is inaccurate about this.

I get my information from 21? When did I say that?

Instead you say that 2 players playing 4 hands is optimal which everyone has told you eats your own cards. 2 hands is optimal unless heads up where 1 hand is equal to 2 hands for all practical purposes. Every source says this same info except the movie 21. So you have vigorously defended an extremely wrong position based solely on the movie 21 no matter how many sources and experts explain it to you. Find any other source that will back you up and you can be sure you found a poor source of info. The only conclusion anyone can draw is you feel that the movie 21 trumps all other sources of information. It is simply the logical conclusion to following this thread.

[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.

[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.