1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## playing 3 hands

Is there a way to sim 3 hands in casino verite? i only see a option of 2 hands in the canned sims.

it seems that 3 hands wastes about 33% more cards in positive counts but only adds 12% more cash (for same max bets like doing 2x200 vs 3x200).

I need an approximation of how my bankroll would handle this, and i remember reading somewhere at 2 hands you wanna do 2 x 75% of your optimal 1 hand bet and at 3 hands 3 x 50% of your optimal bet. So let's say my bankroll can handle 1x800\$ as max bet. So 2 hands would be 2 x 600 (which on casino verite the ROR is very low) and three hands would then be 3 x 400 ??? Basically, is 1x800 = 2x600 = 3x400 in terms of variance and therefore risk? Is this a good approximation????

I would like to start doing more advanced betting cover where i do a spread like:

Negatives: 1x25

Neutral or slightly negative: 2x50

+1: 3x100

+2: 3x200

+3: 3x300

+4 and above: 3x400

How would the above compare to my standard spread (in terms of EV / ROR/ N0 on a 200k bankroll):

Negatives: 1x25

Neutral or slightly negative: 2x50

+1: 2x100

+2: 2x200

+3: 2x400

+4 and above: 2x600

If the win rates and risk are comparable, i like the 3 hand approach bc a [2x50-3x400, drop to 1x25] spread looks a lot smaller than [2x50-2x600, drop to 1x25]

2. 0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by dalmatian
and i remember reading somewhere at 2 hands you wanna do 2 x 75% of your optimal 1 hand bet.
The number should be about 2x67%.

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by dalmatian
Is there a way to sim 3 hands in casino verite?
CVCX: two hands
CVData: seven hands

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by aceside
The number should be about 2x67%.
Nope, the number should be 2 x 74% or 3 x 58%. Rounding up 2 x 75% or 3 x 60%.

Sincerely,
Cac

5. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Aceside math strikes again.

6. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
"it seems that 3 hands wastes about 33% more cards in positive counts"

Am I missing something fundamental? I don't really understand that statement...what is meant by waste? How is playing multiple hands wasting a positive count? Is it being suggested that as the count goes positive I should change from 2 hands to 1 hand so that I don't waste any of the positive count?

In fact, when you think about it...if the shoe is positive don't you want to get in as many hands as you can before the shuffle, so playing multiple hands heads up (I almost always play where I am the only player at my stakes), gives me more hands vs how many cards the dealer would use up if I only play 1 hand.

7. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
See BJA3, pp. 24-26.

Don

8. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Cacarulo
Nope, the number should be 2 x 74% or 3 x 58%. Rounding up 2 x 75% or 3 x 60%.

Sincerely,
Cac
Both Cac and 21forme are correct this time again!

9. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by CEO1
"it seems that 3 hands wastes about 33% more cards in positive counts"

Am I missing something fundamental? I don't really understand that statement...what is meant by waste? How is playing multiple hands wasting a positive count? Is it being suggested that as the count goes positive I should change from 2 hands to 1 hand so that I don't waste any of the positive count?

In fact, when you think about it...if the shoe is positive don't you want to get in as many hands as you can before the shuffle, so playing multiple hands heads up (I almost always play where I am the only player at my stakes), gives me more hands vs how many cards the dealer would use up if I only play 1 hand.

So follow me here. There are approximately 2.7 cards depleted on average per hand per round at the table. So there are 2 scenarios we are comparing here. One is playing 2 hands, which plus dealers hand we will have 3 total hands there (for a total of 2.7 X 3 = 8.1 cards depleted per round). The other scenario is playing 3 hands, in which case plus the dealer's hand we have a total of 4 hands there (for a total of 2.7 X 4 = 10.8 cards depleted per round). So per round, 10.8 divided by 8.1 you can see that you are depleting 33% more cards. Now, lets compare how much you bet. To make this simple and see to visualize, lets compare a large number of CARDS that is easily divisible by 3, 4 and 2.7 (3x4x2.7 X lets say 35 =1134).

So if you're still following me, lets say we are looking at 1134 CARDS coming out and assume you're unit is 200\$.

In playing 2x\$200 through these 1134 cards you will see 1134/(average of 8.1 cards per round) = 140 rounds. Since you are betting 2x200 per round that's 140 rounds times 400 = \$56,000 bet .

In playing 3x\$200 through these same 1134 cards you will see 1134/(average of 10.8 cards per round) = 105 rounds. Since you are betting 3x200 per round that's 105 rounds times 600 = \$63,000 bet .

So you are betting 63000/56000= 12% more money but using up 10.8/8.1= 33% more cards.

You quickly see that doing something like 2x200 vs 3x150 in the same example above would result in less total money bet for 3x150 than for 2x200 ([3x150x105=\$47,250] vs [2x200x140=\$56,000] despite 3x150 being technically more money than 2x200 (but with three hands you see less ROUNDS per the same amount of cards).

10. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Only time I'd play 3 hands is if:
1. You're in a casino with very low table max.
2. It's the last hand of the shoe in a positive count.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•