Something unclear for me in Blackjack Attack.

[seriousplayer]

Blackjack Attack is one of the four books I refer to the most when scheduling a trip to the casino. I need clarification regarding "Optimal Number of Simultaneous Hands". On page 26 of Blackjack Attack third edition Table 2.4 it said if you are alone in the table play one hand. This applies to shoe games. With 1 other player you should play two hands. What I don't understand is: Does the concept of playing one hand applies when you are spreading to two hands in positive counts and you are alone at the table? Or does the chart applies only when you are playing two hands all the time with one or two players present? Someone please clarify.

The reason why I am asking this is because I don't want to miss the opportunity for putting more money on the table on positive counts when I am alone at the table and let it impact my SCORE and hourly expectation, negatively. Another reason why I am asking this is when the count turn advantageous I spread to two hands and all the ploppies in the table will complaint (affecting the flow of cards) and drop out. I know that this is good for me when the count is advantageous to play alone but I am afraid it cut down on my hourly expectation when playing only one hands at plus counts.

[Three]

Does the concept of playing one hand applies when you are spreading to two hands in positive counts and you are alone at the table? Or does the chart applies only when you are playing two hands all the time with one or two players present? Someone please clarify.

Don makes it pretty clear that his results show the only time betting 2 hands is optimal is on the last hand of the shoe. Now if I were to implement a betting ramp I would convert $365 to a bet that could be made using only green chips. The best candidate is $375 but $350 would be my other choice.

I use a slightly different formula for practical purposes that approximates the optimal bet for multiple hands. It is 1.5 times the single hand bet spread equally to multiple hands. It is not quite optimal but quick to use on the fly. Instead of betting 1x$500 and 2x$365 and 3x$285 the multi-hand results would be 2x$375 and 3x$250. Usually the results are pretty practical bets instead of some rainbow stack as you can see with this result. It also makes 2 hands optimal when playing alone (it would add $20*67 to $48,910 for a total of $50,250 when playing alone which would then edge out the $50,000 single hand total) and will never have 3 hands be optimal over 2 hands as they put the same amount on the table. So basically using this slightly less than optimal method 2 hands is always the best choice. the 2 hand conversion is pretty accurate but as you can see the 3 hand is really not that good an approximation of the optimum bet.

[seriousplayer]

Don makes it pretty clear that his results show the only time betting 2 hands is optimal is on the last hand of the shoe. Now if I were to implement a betting ramp I would convert $365 to a bet that could be made using only green chips. The best candidate is $375 but $350 would be my other choice.

I use a slightly different formula for practical purposes that approximates the optimal bet for multiple hands. It is 1.5 times the single hand bet spread equally to multiple hands. It is not quite optimal but quick to use on the fly. Instead of betting 1x$500 and 2x$365 and 3x$285 the multi-hand results would be 2x$375 and 3x$250. Usually the results are pretty practical bets instead of some rainbow stack as you can see with this result. It also makes 2 hands optimal when playing alone (it would add $20*67 to $48,910 for a total of $50,250 when playing alone which would then edge out the $50,000 single hand total) and will never have 3 hands be optimal over 2 hands as they put the same amount on the table. So basically using this slightly less than optimal method 2 hands is always the best choice. the 2 hand conversion is pretty accurate but as you can see the 3 hand is really not that good an approximation of the optimum bet.

Now I understand what Don is saying. However, what I like the most about playing two hands at positive counts is that it reduces variance. In shoe games simulations show that it is ALWAYS better to play two hand even in negative counts. This is kind of a contrary to play two hand when at least one player is at the table.

[DSchles]

"However, what I like the most about playing two hands at positive counts is that it reduces variance."

No, it doesn't. By playing two hands, bet optimally, you wager more per round (about 46%) than playing one hand. If you bet more, then variance increases. But, since it increases in the same proportion as your edge, ROR remains the same.

The point about playing alone is that, since your edge increases by roughly 50% per round, but since you also use up 50% more cards per round (three total hands instead of two), you get no benefit, on an hourly basis, from playing the second hand.

Don

[seriousplayer]

"However, what I like the most about playing two hands at positive counts is that it reduces variance."

No, it doesn't. By playing two hands, bet optimally, you wager more per round (about 46%) than playing one hand. If you bet more, then variance increases. But, since it increases in the same proportion as your edge, ROR remains the same.

The point about playing alone is that, since your edge increases by roughly 50% per round, but since you also use up 50% more cards per round (three total hands instead of two), you get no benefit, on an hourly basis, from playing the second hand.

Don

Maybe I confused fluctuation with variance because I recall in Blackbelt in Blackjack it said something like playing multiple hand reduce fluctuation. Let me go back and reread that chapter.

The point about playing two hand when alone apply to shoe only, correct?