Don,

I just read through your comments on Prize Car's post (Nov 2008) relating to 1 hand and 2 hands playing heads on. I understand now that it makes no difference whether you play one or two hands if you bet appropriately. We would have 1.5 times the bet of a single hand in 2 hands (1*300 or 2*225) but the lower number of rounds for 2 hands will ensure that the EV and ROR are almost identical.

I have another question relating to negative counts though:

My question is: In negative counts, again playing heads up, is there a case for playing 2 hands?(card eating?) at table minimum as opposed to 1 hand at table minimum.

On -ve counts: Will card eating not help if you can bet 2*table minimum and have 50% fewer rounds? I do understand that the total amount bet would be more.
Let table min be x;
With 2 hands on negative counts betting 2* table min, we have R Rounds: Total amount bet : 2*x*R=2xR
With 1 hand on negative count betting 1: table min, we have 1.5 R rounds. Total amoung bet =1*x*1.5R= 1.5xR.
Is is that straightforward to say-Always play 1 hand on negative counts even if playing heads on?
Is that a apple-apple comparison? The reason I ask is that, even though we bet 2xR playing 2 hands, the variance would have been reduced in the 2xR wagered playing 2 hands on negative counts as opposed to 1.5xR wagered playing 1 hand on negative counts.

If you recommend one hand on negative counts, when is card eating useful? Is it a concept unique when other players are present and you play as little as possible on negative counts or wong out?

regards
waugh