StingRay: when to play 2 hands?

[StingRay]

I know this is an often asked question and if someone asked me i would say when heads up against the dealer only play one han,i you are playing with one or more players at the table then play 2 hands when you have an advantage,and make your combined bet 1.5 times the single bet.

I have seen this in Wongs PBJ and Dons BJA.

But now at BJ21 a guy advised another player to follow this method and posters Bootlegger posted this I was in agreement with you until you hit item #3. While there are differences in games, it is generally better to play two hands if heads-up and one hand if there is more than one player at the table. This is especially true in single-deck games that deal to the rule of six.

ML and Mathprof were in agreement with him because of some study DD' had done,DD' claims it is better to play 2 hands all the time,ML posted this

I think it is in the POM archives came to a nonintuitive conclusion for six deck: In neutral counts (I think above -1 because you ought to get out below for sure) the cardeating effect of two hands is more productive than one hand, even if you are playing at a disadvantage. Card eating gets you in a position to play more favorable hands in the same time. Also, while this is not mathematical but cover, it is less conspicuous to stay at two hands than to switch to two hands and two hands are certainly more favorable at high counts because you can get more money on the table at the same risk.

The Schlesinger formultation of a twelve spread going to two sixes at the top has now been supersceded by optimal betting theory which was not around for the first BJA. I doubt very much Don would now endorse it as unvarying strategy. I also think if Wong were revising PBJ he would change his advice according to the DD' post.

Now i am completely confused,but i will continue to play according to the advice in PBJ and BJA until i get some clarification on this,Don what is your yake on this?

[Don Schlesinger]

As you know, I don't read bj21 anymore, so I'll just take your word for what was posted there.

As for the "Schlesinger formulation," the concept of betting two hands of six instead of one hand of 12 is still perfectly valid. And, if you can get away with two hands of eight instead of one hand of, say, 10, that's fine, too.

It makes no sense to play two hands of the minimum -- say one unit -- when you could play one hand of the minimum. I'd like to see studies that show this approach to be "superior." It certainly can' tbe superior for a "play-all" approach. You have to make certain you understand what stakes are being suggested. Surely, two hands of half a unit each are better than one hand of one unit, but I don't think that's what they're suggesting.

Don

[Stingray]

> As you know, I don't read bj21 anymore, so
> I'll just take your word for what was posted
> there.

> As for the "Schlesinger
> formulation," the concept of betting
> two hands of six instead of one hand of 12
> is still perfectly valid. And, if you can
> get away with two hands of eight instead of
> one hand of, say, 10, that's fine, too.

> It makes no sense to play two hands of the
> minimum -- say one unit -- when you could
> play one hand of the minimum. I'd like to
> see studies that show this approach to be
> "superior." It certainly can' tbe
> superior for a "play-all"
> approach. You have to make certain you
> understand what stakes are being suggested.
> Surely, two hands of half a unit each are
> better than one hand of one unit, but I
> don't think that's what they're suggesting.

> Don
I will try to get more clarificatuion on this
What about bootleggers statement of playing one hand when other players at the table i can understand this when the count is neg but i cant see how this is credible for high counts?

[Don Schlesinger]

> I will try to get more clarificatuion on
> this
> What about bootleggers statement of playing
> one hand when other players at the table i
> can understand this when the count is neg
> but i cant see how this is credible for high
> counts?

I really don't want to get into a conversation whereby you tell me what someone wrote on bj21 and then I respond to it here. Then, you post my response over there, and someone answers, but I don't get to see what it is.

If you'd like to ask me a direct question, I'll be delighted to answer it, but please leave others out and please don't quote to me from bj21.

That said, if you play with more than one person at the table, I have written a million times that playing two hands of, say, $75 each, is clearly superior to playing one hand of $100. For the same ROR, you win more money. Period.

Don

[williwong21]

I recall DD writing about the card eating effect was concerning the double deck game only.Willi.