Av: Two Hands

[Av]

Revered Don:

A question, which I could possibly answer myself if I took considerable time to do so by running sims:

In "Professional Blackjack" Wong states that it is better to play two hands WHEN YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE...assuming he means when there are other players at the table.

I remember your saying someplace (in THE book?) that when there are other players at the table that one is better off playing two hands at ALL TIMES. Is one better off even in extremely negative counts because of the S.D. buffering effect of two hands? Because of the card eating effect? What? How is two helpings of something bad useful?

Would you please deign to elaborate (again)?

Thanks,

Av

[Don Schlesinger]

> Revered Don

Blush. "Your Majesty" would be sufficient! :-)

> In "Professional Blackjack" Wong
> states that it is better to play two hands
> WHEN YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE...assuming he
> means when there are other players at the
> table.

Right. And, of course, the size of the wagers is what is crucial.

> I remember your saying someplace (in THE
> book?) that when there are other players at
> the table that one is better off playing two
> hands at ALL TIMES.

Try pages 27-30.

> Is one better off even
> in extremely negative counts because of the
> S.D. buffering effect of two hands?

It depends on the size of the bets. If you were going to bet $100 a hand, it does no good to bet $75 on each of two hands, because the amount of dollars wagered, per card (assuming you're NOT alone) goes up, which is counterproductive.

So, the idea would be to bet two hands of, say, $50, and now that's better than one of $100, because of . . .

>Because of the card eating effect? What? How is two helpings of something bad useful?

When each each helping is HALF the size of the large helping, and you eat more cards in the process!

> Would you please deign to elaborate
> (again)?

Clear? If not, write back. The key is that there are really two separate concepts: 1) Playing one hand or two (or more), and 2) The amount wagered per hand, with respect to the one-hand wager. It shouldn't be the same thing in plus and minus counts.

Don

[Av]

Majesty:-)

This is my case in point.

I play a double-deck game with a $25 minimum. I am allowed to play 2 hands if I start with 2 hands, but if I drop a hand and want to resume playing 2 hands later during the "shoe", my second bet is limited to $25. I can't spread from one to two hands effectively, in other words.

I really don't have enough money to play $50 units.

So, I guess my question is whether it is better to stick it out through all counts with 2 hands when there are other players present and try to spread as much as I can afford on the positive counts or should I drop to one hand when the count gets really bad? How bad? Perhaps I should drop a hand when the count is good and there is hope for another round? (au Grifter)

J'attend vostre response. (I warned you about ensuing medieval French! :-)

Av

[Don Schlesinger]

> I play a double-deck game with a $25
> minimum. I am allowed to play 2 hands if I
> start with 2 hands, but if I drop a hand and
> want to resume playing 2 hands later during
> the "shoe", my second bet is
> limited to $25. I can't spread from one to
> two hands effectively, in other words.

Right.

> I really don't have enough money to play
> $50 units.

But, two hands of $25 isn't the same risk as one hand of $50.

> So, I guess my question is whether it is
> better to stick it out through all counts
> with 2 hands when there are other players
> present and try to spread as much as I can
> afford on the positive counts or should I
> drop to one hand when the count gets really
> bad? How bad? Perhaps I should drop a hand
> when the count is good and there is hope for
> another round? (au Grifter)

The question is really part math and part what is going to look most natural and what you can get away with. I really don't like two hands at DD, with other players, because, you really don't get that many rounds, as you do with shoes, and it looks tacky. You'll probably do better with two hands all the time, and as large a spread as practical, but you'd have to run the sim with your different scenarios in mind.

> J'attend vostre response. (I warned you
> about ensuing medieval French! :-)

Gee, all those extra s's, and none at the end of "j'attends"! :-)

Don

[The Grifter]

> The question is really part math and part
> what is going to look most natural and what
> you can get away with. I really don't like
> two hands at DD, with other players,
> because, you really don't get that many
> rounds, as you do with shoes, and it looks
> tacky. You'll probably do better with two
> hands all the time, and as large a spread as
> practical, but you'd have to run the sim
> with your different scenarios in mind.

If playing heads up, you may play 2hands @ $25 during neg-counts, then when the deck goes posi-count move to 1hand of $50-200.

If playing with others, start with 2hands $25, when the count tanks, reduce to 1hand (or exit) - if the count then goes up+ you will use a 1hand bigger bets. When the count goes up before you are forced to reduce to 1hand you will use 2hands bigger bets.

G

[Baddog]

Selected baddog shops: Bellagio, Mirage, n a phu other secret places allow 2 hands at table minimum. Sigh - the word is out!

[Av]

That is essentially what I do.

Av

[Av]

> Gee, all those extra s's, and none at the
> end of "j'attend s "! :-)

Oui, vous avez raison. J'ay oublie' l'esse! :-( (The "y" is proper "medieval"!)

Av

[Don Schlesinger]

> Oui, vous avez raison. J'ay oublie' l'esse!
> :-( (The "y" is proper
> "medieval"!)

I actually took several classes in Old French, in college, and read many of the classics (Chanson de Roland, Mystere d'Adam) in the original, old French. Very enjoyable!

Don