Question for Don Schlesinger or anybody who knows the answer

[seriousplayer]

Don has posted in previous posts that playing two hands in positive counts increase variances. What I don't understand is that if playing two hands increase variance than why does it lessen the fluctuation in your bankroll and make you less likely to go broke during a session?

[DSchles]

"Don has posted in previous posts that playing two hands in positive counts increase variance."

If betting optimally, that's correct.

"What I don't understand is that if playing two hands increases variance then why does it lessen the fluctuation in your bankroll and make you less likely to go broke during a session?"

It doesn't! It does neither of those things! Playing two hands, bet optimally, increases the e.v. for the round, compared to betting one hand optimally. But, there is no free lunch; if you bet more, the variance is greater. There is no getting around that. But, the variance increases by the same percentage that the e.v. does, leaving your long-term ROR the same as if playing one optimally bet hand.

Clear?

Don

[seriousplayer]

"Don has posted in previous posts that playing two hands in positive counts increase variance."

If betting optimally, that's correct.

"What I don't understand is that if playing two hands increases variance then why does it lessen the fluctuation in your bankroll and make you less likely to go broke during a session?"

It doesn't! It does neither of those things! Playing two hands, bet optimally, increases the e.v. for the round, compared to betting one hand optimally. But, there is no free lunch; if you bet more, the variance is greater. There is no getting around that. But, the variance increases by the same percentage that the e.v. does, leaving your long-term ROR the same as if playing one optimally bet hand.

Clear?

Don

Thanks for answering the question. But playing two hands does get you more hands per hour in positive counts, correct?

[RS]

More HANDS, yes. But also less ROUNDS (ie: card-eating).

I mean fewer* rounds. Sorry Don.

[DSchles]

"But playing two hands does get you more hands per hour in positive counts, correct?"

If you're not alone at the table, yes. If you're alone, no. Alone, you bet roughly 50% more per round than playing one hand, but you use up 50% more cards to achieve that (three total hands instead of two). So, there is no gain.

Don

[moo321]

Didn't we study this and find a slight gain to playing two hands alone vs. one hand?

[Three]

Yes. the sims show a SLIGHT gain for 2 hands heads up over 1 hand.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Slight" is an (automatic) indication that it MAY not be a good idea to play two hands.

[Jabberwocky]

"Slight" is an (automatic) indication that it MAY not be a good idea to play two hands.

And then how do you bet optimally? Play the most hands when -e.v. , play the most rounds when +e.v. This will effectively decrease N0.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

And then how do you bet optimally? Play the most hands when -e.v. , play the most rounds when +e.v.

Yes, those ideas are on the right track. Sort of. Card-Eating works well with a mini-team playing a DD game.
Playing many hands when -e.v. is NOT the way to go if you are heads-up.

Mentoring my students, I urge them to temper the variance by being "Risk Averse"

in their play and by "flooring" the T.C. for their bet-sizing. Those issues are important.

[DSchles]

"Yes. the sims show a SLIGHT gain for 2 hands heads up over 1 hand."

Care to explain why, especially since it isn't true?

Don

[Three]

We have had this debate before and Norm produced sims he ran that showed this. I take Norm for his word. I think the matter was pretty much settled at that point.

[seriousplayer]

We have had this debate before and Norm produced sims he ran that showed this. I take Norm for his word. I think the matter was pretty much settled at that point.

Could you show me the sim.