Question for Don Schlesinger or anybody who knows the answer

[Three]

I am looking for the thread. Here is one long thread that is more in depth than most that is not the thread but lots of people weigh on the subject and most say 2 hands is better headsup. In the thread you have Renzy, Bigplayer, a link to DD post and others. Some of the most in-depth discussion on the value and cost of 2 hands heads up:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...eads+play+hand

Now these posts considered more than just EV and SCORE.

Note that it is often argued that playing 2 hands slows down the time to play a shoe as the argument to say 1 hand is better but Bigplayer is given accolades for pointing out his experience the biggest benefit of playing 2 hands is you get through a high count shoe faster than when you play just one hand thus lowering your exposure. I too felt 2 hands play through a shoe faster. The parts that take up time in the shoe is what the dealer does like paying bets collecting cards and playing his hand. If you get 2 hands instead of 1 hand played for each dealer set of actions you will play through a shoe much faster.


Sorry I couldn't find the thread that had the sims but most of the experts were basing their assessment on sims they had run. Now their final assessment was not just based on EV but many other factors that are discussed in the thread.

[seriousplayer]

I am looking for the thread. Here is one long thread that is more in depth than most that is not the thread but lots of people weigh on the subject and most say 2 hands is better headsup. In the thread you have Renzy, Bigplayer, a link to DD post and others. Some of the most in-depth discussion on the value and cost of 2 hands heads up:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...eads+play+hand

Now these posts considered more than just EV and SCORE.

Note that it is often argued that playing 2 hands slows down the time to play a shoe as the argument to say 1 hand is better but Bigplayer is given accolades for pointing out his experience the biggest benefit of playing 2 hands is you get through a high count shoe faster than when you play just one hand thus lowering your exposure. I too felt 2 hands play through a shoe faster. The parts that take up time in the shoe is what the dealer does like paying bets collecting cards and playing his hand. If you get 2 hands instead of 1 hand played for each dealer set of actions you will play through a shoe much faster.


Sorry I couldn't find the thread that had the sims but most of the experts were basing their assessment on sims they had run. Now their final assessment was not just based on EV but many other factors that are discussed in the thread.

I don't have permission to view the link you posted.

[Three]

I don't have permission to view the link you posted.

Pay the $3 subscription fee and you can see all the really in depth discussions where the more serious players can post. The gist of it is the two are very close and 2 spots at 75% of the one spot bet generates more EV than betting one spot. Some posted sim results while other posted links to sim results. Heads up game speed is a factor. Many have argued you play slower playing 2 spots but Bigplayer plays 2 to get through the shoe a lot faster than he can playing one spot. If this is true, of which I have no doubt, 2 spots is better heads up. It is the best discussion of whether to bet 1 or 2 spots and much of it is specifically the heads up debate. That thread alone is probably worth 3 bucks if you are interested in this subject.

[DSchles]

You lack some perspective on this. This debate is a lot older than anything done here. And, my exchanges with DD' are well documented on other forums. The moment you introduce individual estimates of speed into the discussion, you add a subjective component that isn't very easily verifiable. And, you don't get any agreement or consensus, in any event.

So, we're left with the objective part, which is rather simple: betting 50% more per round, while using up 50% more cards per round, leaves you spinning your wheels and getting, well, nowhere. I'll be more than happy to allow you the last word on this, because it's a discussion I've had 100 times, over more than 20 years, and I'm really not inclined to have it once more.

Don

[DSchles]

This from four years ago:

Had a long phone call from Don late last night. A few areas:

First, SCORE was designed as a method of game comparison. But, not so much style comparison. SCORE demands 100 hands/hour and other fixed assumptions. Problem is, this limits its functionality. We want more complex comparisons. The discussion on what SCORE is has come up many, many times over the years. For this reason, Richard Reid defined c-SCORE as a more flexible version. I actually thought about using the term c-SCORE in CVCX/CVData, but had screen space problems. The CVData manual in describing the SCORE field says “SCORE – Actually c-SCORE….” Basically, if I used the strict definition of SCORE, the screen would have to have a blank for SCORE when simming two hands, or anything other than four players, or cover betting, or many other variations; because they wouldn’t fit within the definition.

Second area – hands/hour. There have been attempts by others to have software algorithmically calculate hands/hour. This is something I simply do not believe makes sense. Speed depends heavily on the player, the other players, the dealer, the shuffle time, the casino, number of hands, playing style, etc., etc. When Wonging in any manner, it can also depend on the number of available other tables and busyness of the casino. I’m not going to pretend that the software can calculate the speed. So, I let the player set the speed and calculate the win rate accordingly.

So, how does this affect the answer to the question: “What’s better, one hand or two hands at heads-up play?” To know this, we must know how much playing two hands slows the game. Don argues that it is substantially slower. DD’ (once-prolific poster) believes it is not that much slower. If I remember correctly, MathProf had also taken DD’s side in these discussions. Possibly Bigplayer too – he’d have to speak to that. So, who is correct? Oddly, everyone is. It depends on your playing style. Don uses something like 150 indices. He is deliberate in his signaling, and will never allow the dealer to make a move without a clear signal. This is one of the extremely few areas where I disagree with Don. I focus on speed. If the dealer is reasonably experienced, and the casino not absurd in its procedures, you can take many short-cuts in signaling. Playing two hands, if I want to stand on the first and hit the second, I might simply point to the second. If the first is a 20, the dealer knows what you want. If I want to stand on both, I might put my fist out and flash my fingers twice, or simply wave off both hands with one signal. Or, I might simply sit back in my chair. After a short while, the dealer will be able to clearly read your intentions; and, in fact, I have allowed experienced dealers to play obvious hands, and have that option in CV. (Dealers are supposed to demand strict signals. But, I think many take that demand as an insult, not a necessity of surv.) Don argues that you may miss a chance for an unusual move, like standing on 16v8 when called for. He’s right. But, I haven’t really had this problem. In such unusual circumstances, just quickly put up your hand or finger to pause the dealer.

So, the answer to the question: “What’s better, one hand or two hands at heads-up play,” is that it depends on your style. In CVCX, set the hands/hour to estimate your personal experiences in a casino; and use win rate as the determining factor.

[DSchles]

By the way, in the thread that Tthree posted, Charlie Mosby's very lovely post assumed 100 rounds/hr. for both sims! Duh!!

See, also, BJA3, p. 163 and bottom of page 205 (it's not as if I have never thought about this!), neither of which specified heads-up play -- for a very good reason!

Don

[seriousplayer]

Pay the $3 subscription fee and you can see all the really in depth discussions where the more serious players can post. The gist of it is the two are very close and 2 spots at 75% of the one spot bet generates more EV than betting one spot. Some posted sim results while other posted links to sim results. Heads up game speed is a factor. Many have argued you play slower playing 2 spots but Bigplayer plays 2 to get through the shoe a lot faster than he can playing one spot. If this is true, of which I have no doubt, 2 spots is better heads up. It is the best discussion of whether to bet 1 or 2 spots and much of it is specifically the heads up debate. That thread alone is probably worth 3 bucks if you are interested in this subject.

Tthree, I am sure that you are paying the $3 subscription fee as well because it is very unreal and not genuine to tell people to pay the $3 subscription fee when you are not doing it yourself. I usually don't like to listen to people like that and don't matter who they are. University professor does that a lot and I look down on them.

Anyways thank you for your feedback.

[DSchles]

One final (well, probably not!) observation. Suppose you have just enough cards for six hands to be dealt. You are alone and have to decide whether to play three hands of $100 each, or two rounds of two hands of $75 each. DOES IT MATTER?? NO, IT DOESN'T!! Your e.v. is identical.

As for the speed, with one hand, the dealer will have to take or pay three times and play his hand three times -- therefore, a total of six "actions." With two hands, the dealer will have to take or pay four times, and play his hand twice -- another total of six "actions." Go ahead and knock yourself out about how the dealer can perform the latter set of actions faster than the former set of actions. I, personally, don't go there, and call them identical. And when you do, you will find that playing two hands alone at the table is slightly less pleasurable, but no more profitable, than masturbation.

And yes, I said I didn't want to get into this again, because God knows I've written more on the topic than the whole board combined, but now, here I am.

DONE for me!

Don

[seriousplayer]

One final (well, probably not!) observation. Suppose you have just enough cards for six hands to be dealt. You are alone and have to decide whether to play three hands of $100 each, or two rounds of two hands of $75 each. DOES IT MATTER?? NO, IT DOESN'T!! Your e.v. is identical.

As for the speed, with one hand, the dealer will have to take or pay three times and play his hand three times -- therefore, a total of six "actions." With two hands, the dealer will have to take or pay four times, and play his hand twice -- another total of six "actions." Go ahead and knock yourself out about how the dealer can perform the latter set of actions faster than the former set of actions. I, personally, don't go there, and call them identical. And when you do, you will find that playing two hands alone at the table is slightly less pleasurable, but no more profitable, than masturbation.

And yes, I said I didn't want to get into this again, because God knows I've written more on the topic than the whole board combined, but now, here I am.

DONE for me!

Don

Why doesn't it matter? If say you have just six hands to be dealt and the players advantage is 4% over the house. Wouldn't spreading to three hands of $100 give you addition hand at that advantage before the shuffle? 4% over the house doesn't occur that much.

[RS]

Why doesn't it matter? If say you have just six hands to be dealt and the players advantage is 4% over the house. Wouldn't spreading to three hands of $100 give you addition hand at that advantage before the shuffle? 4% over the house doesn't occur that much.

3 * 100 = 2 * 2 * 75

[seriousplayer]

3 * 100 = 2 * 2 * 75

Don't know what you mean.

[DSchles]

"Why doesn't it matter? If say you have just six hands to be dealt and the players advantage is 4% over the house. Wouldn't spreading to three hands of $100 give you addition hand at that advantage before the shuffle? 4% over the house doesn't occur that much."

And spreading to five hands of $1,000 would be even better, no? We're betting optimally, according to the math; this isn't an exercise in what you would do on the last hand of a shoe in a casino, in real life. It is an illustration of the principle we're discussing.

Don

[DSchles]

"Don't know what you mean."

Three rounds of one hand of $100 is the same action as two rounds of two hands of $75. Don't overthink this!!

Don