MJ: Multiple Hands in Negative Counts: Question for Norm

[Francis Salmon]

I play head on very often and I can confirm that the time savings you talk of do exist but you should keep in mind that you need to save time anyway because for the same number of hands you use up 33% less cards than playing one hand per round.
May be you should come up with concrete figures:How many seconds does it take you to complete a round with two hands?How many seconds does it take you for one hand?
I will also try and clock the thing.In one casino they force me to play two hands anyway.So this can be done without additional costs :-).
Without concrete data any further discussion would be useless.

Francis Salmon

[Norm Wattenberger]

One thing I've wondered about is the effect on speed of changing the number of hands played. I think this breaks the dealers rhythm. First, the dealer needs to pause a bit when you bet one hand to make certain you aren't betting another. Secondly, the dealer has to worry about dealing the wrong number of hands which can cause arguments.

[anon (DD')]

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

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

---------------------------------------------------------

The comparison is the speed, in terms of rounds and minutes, of depleating cards in negative decks while playing multiple hands with no others at the table to playing only one hand with no others at the table. More cards seen per round and per minute means bigger count fluctuations seen per round and per minute, meaning more betting opportunities.

I am not just right by a nose. I'm right by a mile. I've gotten emails from savy players asking me to stop trying to explain this to the ignorant because I'll just clarify things for casinos personnel who don't understand this either. This is a MUCH more favorable game, better win rate, better cover since the spread is half the size and no red flag of switching to two hands in favorable situations, and a much better EV/SD situation.

[anon (DD')]

Yes, off the top, in the middle, at the end, etc. I generally play two hands always. If I can win more with a 1:15 spread than someone else can with a 1:30 spread, while not advertising the favorable count by sticking in an extra hand, I'll certainly do it. Those who agree with me have done the work, and are mostly quiet about it. Those who disagree are mostly talking off the top of their heads.

[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.