MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[Francis Salmon]

It was never said that we were talking about a fixed spread.
May be that's the problem with the sim results which compare results for a given spread.
The problem with playing multiple hands is precisely that it reduces the spread volontarily and this must have a negative effect on the overall result.
I still believe in common sense.It can be safely applied to any aspect of life even for blackjack.It makes it impossible for me to follow your argument that having fewer but more costly and more time consuming negative rounds will result in getting more positive rounds.You might change the ratio between positive and negative rounds but what counts is only the absolute number of positive rounds and this remains the same or is even slightly reduced for a reason that I explained at an other occasion (count swinging forth and back).
By the way, not every long established theory is necessarily true.

Francis Salmon

[anon (DD')]

It was never said that we were talking about a fixed spread.
May be that's the problem with the sim results which compare results for a given spread.
The problem with playing multiple hands is precisely that it reduces the spread volontarily and this must have a negative effect on the overall result.

Sorry, Francis, this is still incorrect. You can have a better win rate with a smaller spread. It is a simple fact. Just take the example I gave before. Put 1000 units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts. Put one unit on one spot for negative ev counts. Record the win rate and SCORE. Now, let's reduce this spread by half: we will keep the 1000 units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts and put a unit on each of two spots during negative ev counts. The second scenario, which is a 500:1 spread compared the 1000:1 spread in the first case, wins more and has a better SCORE. You're a smart guy and it puzzles me that you can't see this.

Use an excel sheet. First take one column and record the ev for each true count from <=-3 up to >=+6. In the next column, col B, record the total action that you will bet at that count. In the third columm, col C, record the frequency of each corresponding TC. Col D will be A*B*C, and will show the expected win for that TC. Sum down to the bottom.

Now, next to that we will look at a comparison. The frequencies above we will say were taken while playing one hand at each negagtive ev count. You will now replace the frequencies in col C with new frequencies you get by doing a sim where two hands are played in all negative ev counts. Column A, the ev, should be the same for both models. Now play with the bets. Your eyes will be opened and you'll wonder why you didn't see this all along.

[ET Fan]

Look, suppose the dealer deals 480 hands per hour -- including her own hand. Let's say 120 of them will be in positive EV counts and 360 in negative or neutral EV counts. Put two other players at the table. If you play one hand, then there are 4 hands per round. Play two hands makes 5 hands per round. Then:
a) If you play 1 hand in +EV counts, you get 30 +EV rounds per hour.
b) Play 2 hands in +EV counts, you get 24 +EV rounds per hour.
c) Play 1 hand in -EV counts, you get 90 -EV rounds per hour.
d) Play 2 hands in -EV counts, you get 72 -EV rounds per hour.

Now, in every case, playing 2 hands in -EV territory increases the frequency of +EV rounds, just as you said.

For 1 hand in +EV counts, we have a)/[a)+c)] = 5/20, versus a)/[a)+d)] = 5/17. For 2 hands in +EV counts we have b)/[b)+c)] = 4/19, versus b)/[b)+d)] = 4/16.

My question is, so what? Everyone can see that. You seem stuck like a broken record on comparing rounds instead of hands or time. Two hands in negative EV territory still means more action per hour when odds are against you. 2 x 72 &gt 1 x 90. A better SCORE from playing two hands in -EV territory can only come from 1) different bets (but why bet more than the minimum in negs? or why change your ramp in +EV counts?) or 2) playing much faster on the second hand (but you never mention that).

What am I missing?

ETF

> You can have a
> better win rate with a smaller spread. It is a simple
> fact. Just take the example I gave before. Put 1000
> units in action on one spot for all positive ev
> counts. Put one unit on one spot for negative ev
> counts. Record the win rate and SCORE. Now, let's
> reduce this spread by half: we will keep the 1000
> units in action on one spot for all positive ev counts
> and put a unit on each of two spots during negative ev
> counts. The second scenario, which is a 500:1 spread
> compared the 1000:1 spread in the first case, wins
> more and has a better SCORE. You're a smart guy and it
> puzzles me that you can't see this.

> Use an excel sheet. First take one column and record
> the ev for each true count from =+6. In the next
> column, col B, record the total action that you will
> bet at that count. In the third columm, col C, record
> the frequency of each corresponding TC. Col D will be
> A*B*C, and will show the expected win for that TC. Sum
> down to the bottom.

> Now, next to that we will look at a comparison. The
> frequencies above we will say were taken while playing
> one hand at each negagtive ev count. You will now
> replace the frequencies in col C with new frequencies
> you get by doing a sim where two hands are played in
> all negative ev counts. Column A, the ev, should be
> the same for both models. Now play with the bets. Your
> eyes will be opened and you'll wonder why you didn't
> see this all along.

[anon (DD')]

If you look through the posts in this thread and others that I've participated in on this subject, and it comes up a couple of times per year at least, I always tell people that the time factor is important and should be taken into consideration. But that's an argument I make to people who have already accepted the basic truth about the positive change in the true count frequencies. You and I simply disagree about which method of play depleats the poor counts in the most economical manner in terms of time and money. I contend that multiple hands in negative counts, when heads up in shoe games with a healthy spread, will generally increase the win rate and SCORE whether we measure it in terms of rounds dealt or profit per hour. I am quite certain cards can be eaten faster with multiple hands... not just fewer rounds but in fewer minutes as well.

[ET Fan]

> I am quite certain cards can be eaten faster
> with multiple hands... not just fewer rounds but in
> fewer minutes as well.

Again, I say "so what"? Whether they can be or not, they won't be eaten faster unless you make it very clear the second hand must be played much faster than the average rate of speed.

> I always tell people that the time factor is important
> and should be taken into consideration. But that's an
> argument I make to people who have already accepted
> the basic truth about the positive change in the true
> count frequencies.

Then you're putting the cart before the horse, because it's so obvious to everyone the frequency argument is a straw dog without the time factor. The time factor shouldn't just be "taken into consideration," it's the whole basis of your argument! Whether you like it or not, most people assume time spent for the first hand equals time spent for the second hand.

I hope you're not saying I won't accept the positive change in TC frequencies. I not only accept it, I proved it in my last post.

ETF

[anon (DD')]

Again, I say "so what"? Whether they can be or not, they won't be eaten faster unless you make it very clear the second hand must be played much faster than the average rate of speed.

ETF: I really thought that everyone knew that the point of card eating strategies in shoe games was to eat up small cards at a more rapid pace, not just in fewer rounds. Obviously if you fail in this quest the strategy fails.

[Francis Salmon]

I must admit I'm a bit too lazy to run a sim but I think your model with the spreadsheet is quite useful to get to the heart of the matter.
You certainly believe that the system which gets the highest figure at the end of column D is necessarily the better one but I contest this.I'll explain you why.
Your system is based on the fact that by playing two hands in negative rounds you get a better percentage of positive rounds and this is undoubtedly true.
Lets say that with playing one hand always, we get 16% of positive rounds(TC>=2).With playing two hands in neg rounds you might get as much as 20% of positive rounds (estimate).
So on 100 rounds you get 20 positive ones.
Now you will claim victory over my poor 16 situations but that's not the end of the story.You forget that your rounds not only use up more cards but also more time.Lets say it takes you 15 seconds to play two hands compared to 10 seconds for one hand. In order to play the 100 rounds you will need 80*15 +20*10 = 1400 seconds compared to my 1000 seconds.In the remaining 400 seconds I can get at least 6 additional advantage situations which brings me to 22 - two more than your 20.
I look forward to your answer.

Francis Salmon

[anon (DD')]

and have stated many times in this thread and others that the figures we see in simulations made multiple hands in negative counts appear to be much more favorable than they actually are. It is a much better way to play, for certain, but just not to the overwhelming magnitude that the calculations suggest.

[Francis Salmon]

I was assuming a penetration of 5/6 and found that for playing one hand always 16.7% of the rounds were positive (TC>=2).
In the other sim all the rounds at TC<2 were played at two hands and it showed a proportion of 22.6% of advantage rounds which were all played with one hand.
Now it all depends on the time consumption for the different rounds. I think it's a fair assumption to say that the time used is proportional to the number of cards dealt. In that case the system with one hand still comes out on top. While the system with two hands gets 22.6 big bets per 100 rounds,the one hand always method gets 23.7 big bets for the same amount of time.
So,I see no confirmation of your claim and we haven't even talked about the extra money spent on negative rounds.

Francis Salmon

[anon (DD')]

The greatest gain for this strategy is at a TC of zero, not <-2. At a tc of zero you have the biggest frequency out of all TC frequencies and also the least negative expectation per round. The greatest gain for multiple hands in negative ev situations, by far, is at TC of zero. You have the opportunity to eat extra small cards, lots of them, with very little negative expectation. In the greenchip archives of BJ21 I have a post from many years ago that gives frequencies of many different scenarios. Even if you decide to pull back to one hand at some point, like -2 or -3, you could still profit from multiples in the neutral counts.

[Francis Salmon]

I didn't even bother to take into account the cost of negative rounds. I was just interested in knowing whether playing two hands with small bets would result in more bigger bets per hour because that's the only thing that matters in your extreme example.
The result was as I expected: Unless you don't manage to burn the cards considerably faster than with one hand your system would backfire.
If we assume that it takes us 10 seconds to complete one round with one hand, you would need a record time of 13 seconds for two hands if you want to have a gain at all and I seriously doubt that.

Francis Salmon

[Francis Salmon]

[Don Schlesinger]

I really don't want to get into this, because I discussed the speed situation with DD' ages ago, and we agreed to disagree then, just as you and ET Fan are having trouble with his point of view now.

DD' has this strange idea that a single person playing two hands plays the second hand MUCH faster than would a second person sitting next to him, if each were playing one hand. I don't know why he has that idea -- you'll have to ask him -- but it's never occurred to me that the time saved is any big deal. And, as everyone has pointed out, if, in fact, the time saving (if any) isn't relevant, then DD''s argument simply isn't valid.

This is going to be my first and last post on the subject, because, as I stated, I've been down this road, ad nauseam, 100 times.

Don