I play basic strategy BJ (learning to count, but not confident enough to try it at the tables yet). If my normal bet is $10, am I better off playing one spot at $10 or two spots at $5 each? Thanks for the help!
I play basic strategy BJ (learning to count, but not confident enough to try it at the tables yet). If my normal bet is $10, am I better off playing one spot at $10 or two spots at $5 each? Thanks for the help!
> I play basic strategy BJ (learning to count,
> but not confident enough to try it at the
> tables yet). If my normal bet is $10, am I
> better off playing one spot at $10 or two
> spots at $5 each? Thanks for the help!
I am curious why you are playing more than the table minimum at this point. Unless this place has great rules, you are playing at a disadvantage with just basic strategy. It is understandable to do this for a while to get the experience, but why pay more than you need to?
To answer your question, you will lose about the same either way, but your losses will be more predictable with two hands since the variance will be reduced.
Coug Fan is right that variance is reduced with two hands of half the bet. And reduced variance is good in a positive expectation game. A zero variance would be ideal as it would mean a sure win. But, you are playing a negative expectation game. A zero variance would mean a certain loss. If you are trying to last longer, than reduce your variance. (Also reduce your bet.) But if you want a chance of winning at a negative expectation game, variance is good. Bet one hand.
Your best chance of winning the most at negative expectation BJ is probably to bet half your bankroll in one bet and then leave and never return.
I believe he's more concerned about getting a bigger bang for the buck,perhaps putting in hours for comps or whatever. In this case 2 hands of $5 at a crowded table would be better.
> Coug Fan is right that variance is reduced
> with two hands of half the bet. And reduced
> variance is good in a positive expectation
> game. A zero variance would be ideal as it
> would mean a sure win. But, you are playing
> a negative expectation game. A zero variance
> would mean a certain loss. If you are trying
> to last longer, than reduce your variance.
> (Also reduce your bet.) But if you want a
> chance of winning at a negative expectation
> game, variance is good. Bet one hand.
> Your best chance of winning the most at
> negative expectation BJ is probably to bet
> half your bankroll in one bet and then leave
> and never return.
> I believe he's more concerned about getting
> a bigger bang for the buck,perhaps putting
> in hours for comps or whatever. In this case
> 2 hands of $5 at a crowded table would be
> better.
Thanks, Brick. This is exactly what I'm aiming for. I know that long term I'm losing money until I get the counting down, but do want to get the most "bang for the buck" while I'm learning. And, maybe the "card gods" will smile on me for the short run. :-)
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks