More $ per hr w more players?

[biggg]

It's not so much PE it's more about seeing more cards meaning you get more info per hour played. This is mostly offset by players eating up cards in high counts.

Btw if you spread to two hands in high counts the effect is much greater.

One side note, almost every sim I have done even with realistic values for hph favors an approach of wonging in and playing two hands compared to heads up play with the same spreads. The main reason is that you bet at a higher avg edge so your Kelly bet sizes can be higher, plus you aren't tied to playing negative shoes so you can get almost as max bet opportunities as you could in a HU game. But in practice HU play is better. In a real casino with crowds many things can cut into your win rate. For example other players taking seats when you were back counting, being unable to spread to two hands or having problems switching back, players blocking your view causing you to miss cards, etc.

[bjarg]

biggg

So, if I follow... Playing Efficiency (PE) goes up with more players due to more info but Hands Per Hour HPH goes down in the real world. PE goes down playing alone due to less info but HPH goes way up in the real world. Since everyone seems to agree that HU is more profitable in the real world, PE must not go down enough to offset the gain from more HPH.

Huh? I dont think you are following.

[Three]

One problem I have run into playing solo on 6 deck games is that when you wong out and go to the restroom etc, when you return the deck is exactly as you left it. They don't shuffle, so I always like at least one other person in the game.

Around here few ploppies will even enter a shoe that is in progress at an empty table. Any idiot can see it was a nightmare shoe that drove everyone off the table by taking all their money. They have no problem jumping into a shoe with people at the table. Just watch what happens to me when I am heads up with a monster count. Any casino that doesn't remove the cards and shuffle when the table empties is losing money. I saw a pit with 6 tables open. Five were crowded and 1 was empty with a partial shoe in the shoe. People kept coming up and looking for a place to play and refused to sit down at the empty table. Most went up the road to the next casino. After 15 minutes of this someone finally sat down and the table quickly filled. The stupid casino cost itself 15 minutes of bets at a crowded table. No wonder so many casinos are going broke. The wasted enough EV to have a shill on the payroll to play when the table empties mid-shoe.

[Three]

So, if I follow... Playing Efficiency (PE) goes up with more players due to more info but Hands Per Hour HPH goes down in the real world. PE goes down playing alone due to less info but HPH goes way up in the real world. Since everyone seems to agree that HU is more profitable in the real world, PE must not go down enough to offset the gain from more HPH.

PE is best when the dealer plays his hand immediately after yours. Unless you play third base this is only true when you play heads up.

Example: You have a soft 13 v 4 and you double in a high count deep in the shoe. Heads up the count changes by the one card you draw. You didn't double because the high count meant you would draw a 6 or 7 but rather the dealer was more likely to break. Then 5 face cards fall before the dealer hits and he is hitting in a much more neutral count where you would not have doubled. In the long run this averages with the count going the other way or staying the same TC wise but it ups the variance involved in the decision or more accurately decreases the accuracy of the decision to double.

[roliin]

Playing 5 out of 6 decks, H17, DAS, Sr, RSA spreading $5 to two hands of $150 (play two hands starting at +2), 100 hands per hour. Playing with one player yields $50.08 per hour, playing with four yields $57.77 I'm not sure what parameters I was using last night but there was like a $30 per hour difference. Is this maybe a software glitch?

[Skull]

spreading $5 to two hands of $150

Wow! 1-60 spread?!!?

Is this possible in reality??

[Three]

Wow! 1-60 spread?!!?

Is this possible in reality??

I used that exact spread before I was a green chipper. I bet different off the top of the shoe though which probably made the spread look like a 1-15 spread. @x10 off the top dropping to 2x5 and then 1x5 before wonging out. If I was not losing the round there was no reason to bet the really small bets or one spot.

I always use EV/100 rounds not per hour because at a $5 table you will be lucky to get 60 rounds per hour. You get about $50/100 rounds which is probably $30/hr if you are lucky. Of course if you get a fast dealer heads up and can count AND PLAY fast you can be looking at $100/hr. Not very likely at a $5 table but you never know what you might find.By keeping it as EV/100 rounds you know what to expect given what conditions you find. You might get heads up with a dealer that is slower than a table full of ploppies. as he squeezes each card out of the shoe and fiddles with the chips in the tray or wants to talk rather than deal. I left a monster count once because the only other player at the table was betting 19.50 on two spots with a rainbow side bet. He was coloring every round just to make the rainbow bets (6 red chips 4 white chips and 2 pink chips to make the 2 spots of main bets and 4 white and 2 pink to make the side bets) and the dealer had to be really slow to make the rainbow payouts. I went to the next table and played 3 shoes and that table hadn't finished the shoe yet. The really sad part is there was only a 2 or 3 decks left to play when I switched table. I figure that table was getting less than 20 rounds/hr. Betting rainbow bets not only pisses the dealers off but slows down the game. That costs you rounds and lowers your hourly.

[bigplayer]

biggg

So, if I follow... Playing Efficiency (PE) goes up with more players due to more info but Hands Per Hour HPH goes down in the real world. PE goes down playing alone due to less info but HPH goes way up in the real world. Since everyone seems to agree that HU is more profitable in the real world, PE must not go down enough to offset the gain from more HPH.

Where do you get that? PE is the same for either. Heads up or sitting at third base on a full table you're still seeing all of the cards.

[bigplayer]

Wow! 1-60 spread?!!?

Is this possible in reality??

Yes it is. I used to regularly spread $25 to 2x$800 and at one place regularly spread 1x$50 to 3x$2000.

[SiMi]

bp

I think PE was the wrong term to use... I'm trying to understand biggg's explanation of the phenom rollin noted. I was trying to restate biggg's observation in a way I can learn from it. biggg corrected me already on PE (see above) and I now think it just boils down to more info with more players.

[SiMi]

Playing 5 out of 6 decks, H17, DAS, Sr, RSA spreading $5 to two hands of $150 (play two hands starting at +2), 100 hands per hour. Playing with one player yields $50.08 per hour, playing with four yields $57.77 I'm not sure what parameters I was using last night but there was like a $30 per hour difference. Is this maybe a software glitch?

Hey, rollin!

Did you get an answer you're happy with? I seriously doubt it's a glitch... I tried to copy your sim with the parameters you specified (5/6;H17;DAS;Sr;RSA;60:1;2 spots at +2;100HPH) from the canned HiLo sim in CVCX and didn't get your results. I didn't know your bet ramp but I got close to the same results for a custom win rate/hr with this ramp:
TC <= +1 bet $5
TC = +2 bet 2x$25
TC = +3 bet 2x$75
TC = +4 bet 2x$100
TC >= +5 bet 2x$150
1 player yields $50.90/hr vs. $50.08 that you got
4 players yields $60.39/hr. vs. $57.77 that you got

So, the gist is the same: More players = higher win/hr when everything else is held constant.

SiMi

[Skull]

Yes it is. I used to regularly spread $25 to 2x$800 and at one place regularly spread 1x$50 to 3x$2000.

Hey BP!

Do you mind expanding on how you managed to do that? I mean, were you using techniques such as the ones Tthree sugggests, like opposition betting and clever ways to bet agains the count; or a very VERY good act?

Probably both....

[Three]

So, the gist is the same: More players = higher win/hr when everything else is held constant.

Not per hour, per 100 rounds. There is a big difference.