MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[Sun Runner]

> How can you say the player
> is betting less in negative counts? In the above
> paragraph, the $bet/hand has been reduced in negative
> counts, but the total action for the round is still
> $30.

Come on .. even I get this!

Yea, $30 was bet that round, agreed. But in the 3 X $10 scenario, you bought yourself a new deal. In the 1 X $30 scenario, you only bought yourself another round of negative action.

Common sense is all I have to go on, but common sense tells me that 3 X $10 is way better than 1 X $30 in negative counts, if you can pull it off.

My personal question earlier was what does a player do who's betting unit IS ALREADY the table minimum. DD' seems to believe spreading hands to run the clock is still the best play. Generally, I can't see why it would not be.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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

[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

[anon (DD')]

You mistate my position a little, Don. I'm not talking about a second person playing next to me, although counters do play hands much faster than ploppies. I'm saying that time use per card played is less when playing multiple hands, especially in a face up shoe game. The dealer has a bj and swipes all the cards, very fast. You have two pat hands and give one wave to stand on both. The dealer picks up the losing bet on your left and uses it to pay your winning bet on the right without having to go to the chip tray. Multiple hands is hugely more efficient, saves a great deal of time, and depleats negative counts in both fewer minutes and fewer rounds.

And won't argue your points as we've been through this at least three times before. I just want to be sure you don't mistate my position.

[Don Schlesinger]

I have to respond ... briefly.

> You mistate my position a little, Don.

No, I don't think I misStated it. I knew exactly what your thoughts were (expressed below); I just don't agree with all of them.

> I'm not talking
> about a second person playing next to me, although
> counters do play hands much faster than ploppies.

You have to be talking about that, because when we try to calculate the speed of one player playing two hands, Francis and others are assuming that you feel you gain a great deal of speed by being one person, rather than two separate people playing one hand each. That is what the calculation is based on, for the speed portion of the analysis.

> I'm
> saying that time use per card played is less when
> playing multiple hands, especially in a face up shoe
> game.

Less compared to what? Obviously, once again, to having two players playing one hand each. You do see that, no?

> The dealer has a bj and swipes all the cards,
> very fast.

Makes no difference if one player or two. Same thing.

> You have two pat hands and give one wave to
> stand on both.

Yes, very slight gain. Mind you, I've seen many dealers who insist that you give a separate signal for each hand. And, your comment applies only to standing. I see no time saving for hitting, doubling, surrendering, or splitting.

> The dealer picks up the losing bet on
> your left and uses it to pay your winning bet on the
> right without having to go to the chip tray.

Since he reckons the hand on your right first, what you meant to say was that he picks up the losing bet on your right and uses it to pay your winning bet on the left, but no matter; I understand. Here, too, not much gain, as, once again, many dealing procedures force the dealer to lock up the losing bet in the tray before paying the winning won. I'm simply saying that the procedure is not universal.

> Multiple hands is hugely more efficient,

Define "hugely"! :-) That has been the crux of the problem all along.

>saves a great deal of time, and depleats [sic: depletes] negative counts in both fewer minutes and fewer rounds.

Again, Francis, ET Fan, and I are saying that you simply overstate the case and the time savings.

> And won't argue your points as we've been through this
> at least three times before.

Yup.

> I just want to be sure you don't mistate [misstate] my position.

I know exactly what you mean and what your argument is. And, as per above, I think that you think the time savings is much greater than it actually is.

Don

[Don Schlesinger]

There's actually something about playing two hands alone that is slower and less efficient than two people playing one hand, and that is making and collecting bets.

The dealer can't deal a new round until all the players have placed their bets. Two lone-hand players can make their next bets simultaneously, in unison, as if one. If you're like most players playing two hands, you will take a bunch of chips in one hand and then place your two bets consecutively, one after the other, in the two circles. That takes longer. Now, you might be a little strange and pick up chips in both your left and right hands at the same time and make the two bets that way, but a) I don't think so, and b) that would still take somewhat longer to do.

Finally, when collecting winnings from two hands, the same kind of argument would pertain. Two players can rake in winnings on one hand each faster than one player can take back winnings from two hands.

All this simply to say that the only way to determine any time savings at all is to do a time and motion study by actually clocking the whole thing for a few hours, to get a good comparison. If you do, I'm sure you'll find that, for your calculations and arguments of the superiority of multiple hands in negative counts, you've greatly overstated the case. And, again, all of this is completely separate from the issue of just how much is actually being bet on the multiple hands.

Don