One hand or two...

[davethebuilder]

Following Norm’s suggestion I am re-opening this discussion because there is an important point that needs to be clarified.

I am a regular 6 deck BJ player who uses the Hi-Lo count with a modest ramp, can freely Wong in and out with no minimum bet restrictions on playing multiple hands, minimal heat and my bet sizes are adjusted to maintain the same level of risk. I have always played in the following manner regarding playing multiple hands simultaneously. If playing at a disadvantage a player should play only one box or not at all. If playing with an advantage heads up, play one box. If playing with an advantage and there are one or two players then play two boxes. If playing with an advantage and there are three or more players then play three boxes, if possible.

There are several reasons why I play as described. Firstly, Covariance, which is the measure of simultaneous hand dependence, in BJ is always positive regardless of playing strategy and that means the results will be the same more than half the time due to the common dealer upcard. So if you are playing at a disadvantage it pays to minimise your bankroll exposure and let the other players eat the bad cards. Secondly, a player will be dealt more rounds per shoe by restricting the number of boxes played unless they have an advantage because there will be a lower chance of the dealer having to complete their hand, however, it makes sense that a player should spread more if the cut card is approaching, the count is high and I can control the playing decision.

By using the above methods I am just trying to get the optimal share of good cards to maximise my win rate and it works.

Referring to Modern BJ Vol 1 p.116 an example is presented showing that playing two hands at all counts is superior based on SCORE for a given rule set. I accept that SCORE is a valid game comparison statistic as it takes into account the rules, penetration, risk as well as betting and playing techniques. The example also shows the results for playing one hand at all counts and playing two hands at TC=+1 and above. According to this study playing two hands at all counts is clearly superior and more so as the penetration increases.

The two methods can’t both be optimal. Is my thinking outdated and further research into risk and reward now requires a new approach and are there any exceptions to the above study and if so what are they?

Any help is appreciated…

[Gramazeka]

"Grifter Gambit"-

https://www.blackjackinfo.com/commun...6d-shoes.6086/

[Freightman]

Nice post.

I think the difference in SCORE by playing 2 squares on all hands vs 1 hand only up till TC +1 is so minor, that the only real constraint, based on your goals, would be limited only by bankroll. I think it's also fair to say that covariance is indeed a factor. That being said, I only play one hand, and may or not spread to 2 based on a number of factors. In fact, it's fair to say that I revel in my inconsistency on this point. Certainly, if the count starts to get juicy, and I am not heads up, spreading to 2 is almost a certainty.

I would certainly limit 3 hands to virtual monsters and butting against table max.

Now, taking covariance out of the equation, the issue then becomes one of why play 2 hands off the top (assumes double min for 2 squares) when you are at a disadvantage. You are putting out 4 times the risk in a long term loss situation. The other issue to consider, as I mentioned in a recent post - assuming .5 house edge, that your sim to plus 1 will show a bump, and that the plus 1 bracket includes all true counts from true 1.0 to 1.99. At plus 1, you really gave no edge at true 1.0, but at true 1.5, you do.

Now, if single min is permitted when playing 2 squares, then this gives you the best if both worlds, allowing you to drop to a single square at shit counts, when there are others there to eat up the bad cards.

Again, for myself, I do as the spirit moves, when I feel like it, always keeping my EV goals in mind.

[ferenc11]

Let's suppose you're alone at the blackjacktable. I was going to play one box (square) vs. dealer the other day but I was told that in this case of one player at the table, the player has to play on two spots. (still minimum bet on both)
Now what is the procedure? ,
I am confused as well.

All the best

[Gramazeka]

I would like to hear in this thread an opinion of Don. I see a lot of contradictions in this topic.

[DSchles]

I would like to hear in this thread an opinion of Don. I see a lot of contradictions in this topic.

Sorry. I rarely refuse to answer questions, but I have discussed this one ad nauseam and ad infinitum, and I have sworn off. I just cannot get involved in another discussion of how many hands to play.

Don

[Banker]

How about having a section or appendix with "Frequently-asked questions for Don". This way Don can put it out there and refer future questions to that section.

[Gronbog]

I would like to hear in this thread an opinion of Don. I see a lot of contradictions in this topic.

Executive summary of the BJA3 chapter: Play 1 hand when heads up. Play 2 hands when you have an advantage with others at the table.

[Joe Mama]

Executive summary of the BJA3 chapter: Play 1 hand when heads up. Play 2 hands when you have an advantage with others at the table.

Add -- play multiple hands (however many you think will not draw heat) heads up when TC is +++ and you are into the last deal of the deck or shoe. I usually color up after the hand.

[paymypush]

I have always played one hand heads up. I do spread to two when the cut card is due only when the count dictates. I recently got blackjack on both hands doing just that. Could it get any better? Well, the dealer had an ace up in a count so high that I bet my full max bet on each rather than the 75%. Me - even money. Dealer - no blackjack. No complaints for doing the right thing.

[BoSox]

If playing with an advantage and there are one or two players then play two boxes.

With good rules like what I play, you have an advantage at + 1 TC. I also like to play two hands, but I will not jump from one hand to two hands at +1 TC, because a small advantage can turn negative very quickly. I do not want to be in a position of frequent changes of going back and forth, which looks strange.

[Freightman]

With good rules like what I play, you have an advantage at + 1 TC. I also like to play two hands, but I will not jump from one hand to two hands at +1 TC, because a small advantage can turn negative very quickly. I do not want to be in a position of frequent changes of going back and forth, which looks strange.

Which means - just because jumping to 2 at true 1 produces the highest SCORE, doesnt mean it should be done in real life. Mind you, I do sometimes - I am consistent in my inconsistency.

[Gramazeka]

Executive summary of the BJA3 chapter: Play 1 hand when heads up. Play 2 hands when you have an advantage with others at the table.

But this contradicts the simulations by Norm.