Let's see if I can ask a question on this forum without getting castrated.
What are the odds of:
Playing 3 hands simultaneously and losing all 3.
Vs
Playing 1 hand and losing.
Is it the same?
Obviously not the same. If you ask odds of losing 23 hands in a row on separate rounds it is still not the same. Something called covariance is at work. All 3 hands play against the same dealer upward when they act and must beat the same dealer result to win. This has their fate more related to one another than if you played the hands on separate rounds. The extreme example is a dealer BJ. You either win or push (if you have BJ) the original bet and then either win or lose ALL insurance wagers as a group (in the case of a dealer BJ you win them all).Originally Posted by Cloudstreets7087
Norm, can we then conclude that you would lose less and win less than while playing one hand? I have come across threads that say that playing two hands all the time is better than playing one hand all the time. If that is correct, than is playing three hands even better?
That is correct except at a disadvantage playing with others at the table. You must bet appropriately though. 3 hands is worse than 2 unless you are bumping up against a betting limit barrier like table max or a heat threshold. I am guessing someone will mention Grifter's Gambit here somewhere so you can get creative to make the opposite correlation but again you must bet appropriately. When any of these talk about betting 2 hands they don't mean 2 hands bet at the same amount as 1 hand on each spot or both combined. A quick and dirty approximation is 1.5 times your single spot bet spread equally across however many hands you are going to play. This is most accurate for 2 hands and loses accuracy as more hands are added. Since 2 are usually optimal the breaking down of accuracy is usually not an issue.
Last edited by Three; 07-19-2015 at 11:04 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks