So in my last thread, someone mentioned that there is slight to no edge gained from splitting from two to three hands even when others are sitting at your table.
With that being said, if I'm playing a $500 max game, is it better for me to play 2 x $400 or 3 x $400?
I am avoiding table max call out. Are there any benefits of putting out $400 more from an extra hand?
If you don't mind a simple Explain Like I'm Five response as to why. That'd be great as well. Thanks!
It is stated in Pro bj by wong. but there were many points." Going to 3 hands uses 25% more cards ( with optimal bet sizes ) total bet would only increase by 12 % per round. "With 2 or more other players , by increasing to 3 hands of optimal bet sized bets , you will not will more money. " "If alone and low limit .... you are better off with 2 hands per rounds" . Therefore I think I have understood his info correctly. I usually play 2 hand when counting( at advantage generally) regardless how many players are at the table.
IMO , control heat, look for good pen , tolerance , speed would serve you better than just think about small differences in improvement. Other stuff on the list would be , expense , risk , n-zero ( certainty), longevity,goals . I do not think 2 x 400 and 3 x 400 makes much difference in your success as a counter . You will need the experienced and knowledgable members to chime in.
Spread to three hands when you are playing a card eating strategy like the "Grifters Gambit". As you already confirm that spreading to 3 hands use 25% more cards. This way in minus and neutral counts bet three hands of one unit each. It eats the cards faster to get to positive situation faster. Drop to one hand when the count goes positive. Playing one hand in positive counts help keep the deck favorable longer. But the problem with spreading to three hands is some casino require you bet 5 time your minimum bet.Originally Posted by stopgambling
Also spreading to three hands gives you more comps if you are playing rated.
1x500 is about the same risk as 2x400 but not 3x400. I would stick with 2 if you are heads up. 3 hand equivalent risk would be more like 3x300. You are better off with 2x400 than 3x300. Not sure about 3x400 from an EV standpoint but risk goes up. It is not an equivalent bet.
Not heads up. At a crowded table it might have some advantage but it is out of sync at 3x400 to a top bet of 2x400. Read the chapter in Don's book, Blackjack Attack, Playing The Pro's Way. It will answer your questions in detail. I am trying to keep posts short.
My place requires 2x and 3x table min for 2 and 3 hands. Otherwise I would play more hands to lock it up.
Yes I understand that if we could stick to two hands instead of three, it'd be better. However the issue for me at my local is, I'm already betting near table max. Therefore I cannot increase / put more money out, without moving to a third hand.
For the more experienced counters / members:
Under the assumption of 2 other players at the table besides me. Is there a significant or near none EV gained from spreading 2 x $400 to 3 x $400.
If the EV gained is near to none, then I rather just stick to 2 x $400 and lower heat risk and all that jazz.
Optimum number of boxes if you play one at a table — 1 or 2 boxing.
If at a table plays 1 foreign boxing, it is the best of all to put on 2 boxing.
If at a table plays 2 foreign boxing, it is the best of all to put on 3 boxing.
If at a table plays 3 foreign boxing, it is the best of all to put on 4 boxing.
If the number of foreign boxes at a table isn't constant at the high positive account best of all to occupy all free boxes.
"Don't Cast Your Pearls Before Swine" (Jesus)
I'd only go to 3 hands of you know it's the last hand of the shoe and you don't think it'll draw excessive negative attention. Or if I want to play more than two hands of table max, which id only do at a shit shack with 300 max or below, or if playing a rare high quality game with rival crew/crews interested (value of longevity diminished) which I'd only consider if . I don't see 3x400 drawing any less heat than 2x5 at 500 max places IMO. The variance reduction going from two hands to three is not nearly as much as going from one to two to the point where eating the extra cards is a factor.
"Under the assumption of 2 other players at the table besides me. Is there a significant or near none EV gained from spreading 2 x $400 to 3 x $400.
If the EV gained is near to none, then I rather just stick to 2 x $400 and lower heat risk and all that jazz."
Since, yet again, NO ONE has either addressed or answered your question, I will. (Note to others: He has all the money he needs. He's bumping into the table max. He doesn't care about optimal number of hands or Wong's numbers, or ROR, or anything else that you insist on babbling about. Now, may we move on, please?)
To the OP: With two other players, and playing 2 x $400, you need to also consider the dealer has a hand, too. So, that's a total of five hands at the table. If you spread to a third hand of $400, that's six hands, or an increase of one hand in five, or 20%, and not the 25% that you stated in your OP. Meanwhile, you're increasing your bet by a whopping 50% ($1,200 instead of $800). So, from an e.v. point of view, extra risk be damned, you're much better off with the third hand.
And THAT -- and only that -- is the answer to the question!
Don
Your ev will go up very close to 50% doing 3x400 over 2x400. Since you're not allowed to do 2x600, you should do 3x400 if you want to make more ev. 2x600 at a full table is the same as 3x400. And if the place keeps getting a full table, you're not really eating up extra cards, as a ploppy would have been playing that other hand rather than you...
"Your ev will go up very close to 50% doing 3x400 over 2x400."
As I thought I explained, that's not true. You'll be betting 50% more, but you'll also be using up more cards per round, and, therefore, getting fewer opportunities per shoe, or per hour, to make those three bets.
With five hands per round, Wong estimates 76 rounds per hour. With six hands per round, he estimates 64 rounds. 76 x $800 = $60,800. 64 x $1,200 = $76,800. So, the increase in profits is 76,800/60,800 = 26.3% per hour.
A more theoretical, rather than empirical, solution is the following: $800 per five hands is action of $160 per hand. $1,200 per six hands is $200 per hand. The increase is 25%.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks