KO Fan: Spreading to Two Hands

[KO Fan]

In BJA 2 it speaks of a betting system where you play one hand one unit at +1 and then 6 units at +4 Hi Low true and spread to two hands of 6 units at +5. Would this hold true if you were playing by yourself or would it be better to play one hand of 12 units. Thanks in advance.

[Bren_22]

As said in BJA2, it's mathematically best to play a single hand for your max bet when playing alone.
I think he suggests spreading to two hands for camo reasons, which when playing at high stakes is essential.

[Coug Fan]

> As said in BJA2, it's mathematically best to
> play a single hand for your max bet when
> playing alone.

I may very well be mistaken, but I thought that it was better to play 2 hands. Specifically, I believe that your ROR stays relatively constant with 2 hands that are each 75% of the one hand bet, but that your EV goes up. In other words, your EV and SD both increase with 2 hands, and these have offsetting effects on ROR.

I don't have my copy of BJA with me, but I thought that the only negative was the card eating effect of multiple hands, and that this translated to 2 hands as being best, with 3 hands being too many. Maybe Don will grace us with his wisdom to clear this up.

[Don Schlesinger]

>Maybe Don will grace us with his wisdom to clear this up.

See p. 29 of BJA. Playing alone, if you were going to bet one hand of 8 units (not 12!), you might bet 2 hands of 6 units instead, to maintain the same ROR.

But, you would gain nothing, because, while betting 50% more on the two hands combined (12 units instead of 8), you would also be using up 50% more cards per round (3 total hands, including the dealer, instead of the original 2). So, the whole thing is a wash and gets you nowhere.

As others join you at the table, playing two hands for roughly 75% each of the one-hand amount still gets 50% more money on the table (increased EV), but no longer uses up 50% more cards per round, due to the presence of the additional players. So, it now becomes advantageous to bet that way.

In any event, two hands of 6 units is NOT the equivalent of one hand of 12 units (see above).

Clear?

Don

[Coug Fan]

> See p. 29 of BJA. Playing alone, if you were
> going to bet one hand of 8 units (not 12!),
> you might bet 2 hands of 6 units instead, to
> maintain the same ROR.

> But, you would gain nothing, because, while
> betting 50% more on the two hands combined
> (12 units instead of 8), you would also be
> using up 50% more cards per round (3 total
> hands, including the dealer, instead of the
> original 2). So, the whole thing is a wash
> and gets you nowhere.

> As others join you at the table, playing two
> hands for roughly 75% each of the one-hand
> amount still gets 50% more money on the
> table (increased EV), but no longer uses up
> 50% more cards per round, due to the
> presence of the additional players. So, it
> now becomes advantageous to bet that way.

> In any event, two hands of 6 units is NOT
> the equivalent of one hand of 12 units (see
> above).

> Clear?

> Don

OK, that clears it up. So 2 hands at 75% will either have no net effect (if alone), or be beneficial (if there are others at the table). I guess that I need to re-read my copy of BJA.

This is important, because when playing heads-up DD, I usually spread from 1 unit to 2 hands of 3 (1-6 spread). It sounds like I could get the same effect from using a top bet of 4 units (one hand).

[ComboProf]

IMHO. Jumping back nd forth from 1 to 2 hands
is the fastest way to draw attention. I have only
drawn heat when I have done this.

[Don Schlesinger]

> This is important, because when playing
> heads-up DD, I usually spread from 1 unit to
> 2 hands of 3 (1-6 spread). It sounds like I
> could get the same effect from using a top
> bet of 4 units (one hand).

Neither spread is adequate. You should stay with one hand and spread 1 to 6.

Don

[Parker]

> See p. 29 of BJA. Playing alone, if you were
> going to bet one hand of 8 units (not 12!),
> you might bet 2 hands of 6 units instead, to
> maintain the same ROR.

> But, you would gain nothing, because, while
> betting 50% more on the two hands combined
> (12 units instead of 8), you would also be
> using up 50% more cards per round (3 total
> hands, including the dealer, instead of the
> original 2). So, the whole thing is a wash
> and gets you nowhere.

The only time when it may be beneficial to play two hands when heads up is at some single deck games.

The single deck dealer is often instructed to deal 5 rounds to one player, four rounds to two players, three rounds to three players, and two rounds to four or more players. This is commonly referred to as "rule of six" penetration, since the number of players plus the number of rounds dealt equals six.

With five rounds to one player, 10 hands (including the dealer) are dealt at an average of 2.7 cards per hand, for an average of 27 cards penetration. By playing two hands and getting four rounds, we now have 12 hands dealt (again including the dealer) times 2.7 equals 32.4 cards dealt on average, a 10% improvement in penetration. This is very significant in single deck games.

[Coug Fan]

> Neither spread is adequate. You should stay
> with one hand and spread 1 to 6.

> Don

That makes perfect sense now that you have cleared up my misunderstanding regarding 1 vs 2 hands. I will definately be re-reading BJA.

[Norm Wattenberger]

In pitch games this would certainly be true. Then again, having the wrong eye color can cause heat in single deck. In shoe games, you really won?t be jumping back and forth much as the count isn?t that volatile. And there are ways of covering. Anytime another player comes or goes is an excuse to change. If you win a hand, you can take the winnings and move them to an open circle. Any split or double gives you an excuse to alter your next bet. Even a loss with the right expression or words can give you an excuse to go to two hands. All depends on your act.

BJStats site

[zengrifter]

> The only time when it may be beneficial to
> play two hands when heads up is at some
> single deck games.

... (heads-up) is to play multi-hands (2-4) in neg-counts and REDUCE to 1hand in posi-counts. zg

[fox]

Even a loss with the right
> expression or words can give you an excuse
> to go to two hands. All depends on your act.

Going to two hands.... i thought any advantage you get by going to two hands was lost because of the card eating effect it has. ie lower number of rounds in the shoe.

Does anyone know the exact percentage extra you can bet by going to two hands for the same risk. Is it 20%? if there are 5 box's open then opening an extra box will eat 1/7 extra cards. ie 15% which burns a hole in the extra bet. so you only get an extra 5% value for the extra heat/player aggravation. worth it?

are these numbers right?

different if you know if it is definetely the last round of the shoe. then go to two hands.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Does anyone know the exact percentage extra
> you can bet by going to two hands for the
> same risk. Is it 20%?

If only I had $100 for every time I've answered this in writing, I'd never work another day in my life.

One hand of $100 = two hands of $73 (46% more) for the same risk. Different rules lead to slightly different percentages.

Don