I should have had an *asterisk in my post saying you should bet 2 hands of 75% (optimally) if playing 2 hands.
My point is it matters how much you bet. Zeebar's post implied (at least I read it like it did) that 1x$25 to 2x$100 is a 1-8 spread. That's really more like a 1-5 spread, since 2x100 is same as 1x133.
"Everyone wants to be rich, but nobody wants to work for it." -Ryan Howard [The Office]
Two hands does lower N0, since N0 is in round and not hands.
A very important concept that helps shed light on every question in this thread is covariance. Since both hands depend on the dealers hand, they have a tendency to win together or lose together.
If there was no covariance, then there probably wouldn't be any difference in your risk if you just bet every hand at the same amount as you would for one (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
In a negative EV situation you just want to bet the least you can get away with. If the casino requires you to bet 2x the table minimum to play two spots then it's always better to play one spot in that situation. Some players start with two hands to preserve ownership of the two betting circles, particularly on no-mid entry tables. If the casino doesn't allow spot spreading players also start with two spots because as soon as they drop to one spot they're stuck at one spot. Generally on shoes I play one spot and spread to two spots at around a 1% advantage and otherwise just play one spot and size my bets appropriately. If you're heads up you can play one or two spots (it really doesn't matter) but some players like to turn casino expectations on their head and play one spot in neutral and positive counts and two spots to eat round in negative counts (particularly when the casino does not require betting 2x the min to play two spots). Card eating is usually not a consideration for shoe games because you're wonging out of negative counts.
Now for pitch games spot spreading raises red flags because it gives away your spread because it's so blatant. I tend to mostly play 1 spot or 2 spots on those games and rarely switch mid-round.
Clear as mud?
Where I play, it requires a 2 x minimum on one spot if you play two spots. I start of with 2 spots. If count remains positive, or neutral, I stick to 2 hands, if the RC is -1 or -2 after first round but I won the first round, I will stay with my original bet ($25 on one, $50 on other). If I lost the first hand then any negative RC and I am down to one hand for the rest of the shoe.
That is mostly taught by game protection i believe. Where i played a lot of the "experienced" ploppies spread to 2 hands to change the flow . But we are not ploppies so we get id pretty quick. a lot of the pc or dealers think when a players spreads and win ,the player is counting which is absolutely ABSURD ! i remebered after a few rounds in a 6d game i went to my max bet for 3 rounds . I won with 1 bj and 2 successful DD and they thought i was counting. Ignorant and absurd comments from the dealer! I am still pissed from their sweaty comments.just to show their stupidity and ignorance i then went to a 1.5 max bet after this round and got A/9 to beat a dealer 19 (upcard was a 10). that was about the end of them"cards" so i left for dinner. Yet they could not even spot a pro "working" on the next table.What a bunch of PATHETIC ,CLUELESS plops . I am glad that there are a lot of misinform pc out there. all they know is look for the spread.Originally Posted by bigplayer
Therefore i admire the Tarzan count that just stick it to them and they would not even know what is happening . I am somewhat skeptic of the power of that count but i am not capable or dedicated enough to learn and think of how it can do that much more than conventional system. I do think there is a possibility though .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks