-
boy 1935: Effect on ROR
Is it OK that I speed up the game during negative counts by playing as many spots as possible?
(heads up)And at plus counts I play only one spot.
Which effect has playing several spots during negative counts on my BR or ROR?
Thank you for any help
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Effect on ROR
> Is it OK that I speed up the game during
> negative counts by playing as many spots as
> possible?
Suppose your minimum bet is $5, alone with the dealer. Suppose you're allowed to bet the same $5 (more on this in a moment) on seven spots at once. In the first instance, you have $5 riding on a total of two hands (yours and the dealer's), during a negative situation. In the second situation, you have $35 riding on eight hands.
The first is an average of $2.50 per hand. The second is an average of $4.38 per hand. And the count is negative. Which seems like the better approach? What's more, in virtually all casinos, if you spread to more than one hand, you have to bet some multiple of the table minimum on EACH hand. This, of course, makes matters much worse.
> And at plus counts I play only one
> spot.
I've answered this one too many times. You'll excuse me if I don't have the energy to go through it again.
Don
-
GMan: Re: On the other side...
if your min bet is $50 and you can spread to 5 x $10 or 2 x $25 in neg. counts, you will have a much better game. It won`t change your EV but lower your SD thus reducing your overall RoR.
-
boy 1935: Re: Effect on ROR
> Suppose your minimum bet is $5, alone with
> the dealer. Suppose you're allowed to bet
> the same $5 (more on this in a moment) on
> seven spots at once. In the first instance,
> you have $5 riding on a total of two hands
> (yours and the dealer's), during a negative
> situation. In the second situation, you have
> $35 riding on eight hands.
> The first is an average of $2.50 per hand.
> The second is an average of $4.38 per hand.
> And the count is negative. Which seems like
> the better approach? What's more, in
> virtually all casinos, if you spread to more
> than one hand, you have to bet some multiple
> of the table minimum on EACH hand. This, of
> course, makes matters much worse.
> I've answered this one too many times.
> You'll excuse me if I don't have the energy
> to go through it again.
> Don
Thanks Don for that very clear answer. I will play only one spot in negative situations and let so the dealer eat the cards for his part.
The thing was, that I play a deeply dealt six deck game, and it is very boring to play one hand after another in negative situations.
-
boy 1935: Re: On the other side...
> if your min bet is $50 and you can spread to
> 5 x $10 or 2 x $25 in neg. counts, you will
> have a much better game. It won`t change
> your EV but lower your SD thus reducing your
> overall RoR.
Yes, you are right. If you are playing at higher stakes, speeding up the game might have an positive effect, despite the fact, that you have a little bit more money on the table in negative situations.
-
SnoopDarr: Re: On the other side...
I don't think that is what he was saying. He was saying that if your minimum bet is above the min at the table, and at a negative count you take that same min and split it between multiple hands, it is good because it decreases your SD (more pushes). But if you're doing that, then my all means you should keep playing 2 hands in positive counts, since then you will have 2 +EV hands, and again your SD would be lower. In general, I think 'Professional Blackjack' by Wong has alot of good work on the advantages and diminishing returns on multiple hand play.
> Yes, you are right. If you are playing at
> higher stakes, speeding up the game might
> have an positive effect, despite the fact,
> that you have a little bit more money on the
> table in negative situations.
-
RP: Not exactly...
> I don't think that is what he was saying. He
> was saying that if your minimum bet is above
> the min at the table, and at a negative
> count you take that same min and split it
> between multiple hands, it is good because
> it decreases your SD (more pushes). But if
> you're doing that, then my all means you
> should keep playing 2 hands in positive
> counts, since then you will have 2 +EV
> hands, and again your SD would be lower. In
> general, I think 'Professional Blackjack' by
> Wong has alot of good work on the advantages
> and diminishing returns on multiple hand
> play.
You should NOT keep playing 2 hands in positive counts if you're playing in a heads up game (which is what boy 1935 referred to) because of the card-eating effects. If you're playing heads up, it is better to spread your min. bet among multiple hands (if your min. > table min.), but you should go down to one hand in positive counts.
-
GMan: Re:RP is right ! *NM*
-
Adam N. Subtractum: good advice...
...from G and RP. A further note is that the vast majority of the gains that come from using multiple hands ("card-eating") when you DON'T have an edge, occur when your ev is near break-even.
ANS
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
Bookmarks