BlackJack For Extra $$$: Two Hands Or One

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

So now that I have access to the Blackjack math experts I have to ask a question I have been wrestling with in my play.

TC is highly positive, say +4 or +5 and I want to have 12 units out.

What is better, two hands of 6 units or one hand of 12 units?

It would seem to me intuitively that having two hands of six would spread the risk of catching the odd bad card vs having a hand with 12 units catch the last 6 in the deck, but would consume more cards in a highly positive shoe.

It also seems that having two hands with 6 chips doesnt visually scream "look at this giant bet" as much as one bet of 12 chips does. (maybe it is just that I don't swallow as hard when I look at those two bets vs. one big pile of chips LOL).

I have leaned toward two hands but wonder if I should be putting a mountain of chips on one instead???

This has probably been discussed here before and if so sorry to rehash it.

[Don Schlesinger]

> This has probably been discussed here before and if so
> sorry to rehash it.

Naw, never! First time! :-)

You'll pardon me if I let Parker take a stab, first.

Don

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

> Naw, never! First time! :-)

> You'll pardon me if I let Parker take a stab, first.

> Don

LOL, thanks Don.

I look forward to both of your thoughts.

[Sun Runner]

> What is better, two hands of 6 units or one hand of 12 units?

Neither .. two hands of nine (75% of your high bet on each).

[jblaze]

Penetration and total percentage of hands played at the table take priority. There are times when two hands will go deeper, times when one will. In general shoe games I would recommend playing two hands (in positive counts). Each wager would be 75% roughly of your one bet. So, if you were going to bet $100 on one hand but want to play two, bet two hands of $75. The 75% comes from the covariance of the hands... i.e., playing two hands at a table is not the same as playing one hand at 2 separate tables.

> LOL, thanks Don.

> I look forward to both of your thoughts.

[RP]

Excluding single deck (for which it depends on the number of players at the table and the house rules for determining the shuffle point), it's always better to play two hands than one, even in negative-EV counts (as long as the table min permits you to bet 75% or less of your one-hand min on each of the two hands). Bet 75% or less of your one-hand min on each of your two hands when the count calls for a min bet; bet 75% of your one-hand optimal bet on each of your two hands in positive-EV counts. If the table min is the same as your min, it's best play one hand in negative-EV counts and two hands in positive-EV counts.

> So now that I have access to the Blackjack math
> experts I have to ask a question I have been wrestling
> with in my play.

> TC is highly positive, say +4 or +5 and I want to have
> 12 units out.

> What is better, two hands of 6 units or one hand of 12
> units?

> It would seem to me intuitively that having two hands
> of six would spread the risk of catching the odd bad
> card vs having a hand with 12 units catch the last 6
> in the deck, but would consume more cards in a highly
> positive shoe.

> It also seems that having two hands with 6 chips
> doesnt visually scream "look at this giant
> bet" as much as one bet of 12 chips does. (maybe
> it is just that I don't swallow as hard when I look at
> those two bets vs. one big pile of chips LOL).

> I have leaned toward two hands but wonder if I should
> be putting a mountain of chips on one instead???

> This has probably been discussed here before and if so
> sorry to rehash it.

[RP]

The 75% figure is a widely-used estimate for the sake of simplicity. The precise figure depends on the rules of the game; it's usually 72-73%.

> Excluding single deck (for which it depends on the
> number of players at the table and the house rules for
> determining the shuffle point), it's always better to
> play two hands than one, even in negative-EV counts
> (as long as the table min permits you to bet 75% or
> less of your one-hand min on each of the two hands).
> Bet 75% or less of your one-hand min on each of your
> two hands when the count calls for a min bet; bet 75%
> of your one-hand optimal bet on each of your two hands
> in positive-EV counts. If the table min is the same as
> your min, it's best play one hand in negative-EV
> counts and two hands in positive-EV counts.

[Parker]

> This has probably been discussed here before and if so
> sorry to rehash it.

Indeed it has. Actually it comes up every few months or so. Note that there is a search function at the top of the message board index page.

Below is a link to a 2002 thread.

One thing I will add to the other answers you have received is that in many casinos, switching back and forth between one and two hands seems to draw more heat from the pit than using a big spread. One solution, as one poster mentioned, is simply to play two hands all the time.

1 hand or 2?