Mark Bourgeault: Are "comps" a function of # of hands played?

[Mark Bourgeault]

I was thinking that, if I play alone at a table and flat-bet 1 unit on two different hands, my average bet for a fixed number of cards is (roughly) only 1.33x greater than if I simply flat-bet 1 unit on 1 hand. I reasoned that: if I was playing 1 hand, I would need to play 3 rounds to see the same # of cards that I would see in 2 rounds x 2 hands (since the dealer counts as an extra hand/round). Arguably, this analysis is somewhat conservative, since the dealer will likely see more cards if I am playing 2 hands than 1. Of course, the # of hands/hr will likely increase, so I will make a hand-waving analysis and say that my units bet/hr will likely be 1.4-1.6x greater (define this value as 'f') if I play 2 hands instead of one (being alone at the table is critical for this statement to be correct).

Now, how do pit bosses record wagering for determining the amount of comps I receive? Are 2 hands of 1 unit equivalent to 1 hand of 2 units from a comp perspective? If so, then this seems like a decent way for a BS player to make 2/f times the comps over a situation where the BS player was playing.

Another related question is "are the comps a function of the # of people at the table?" If not, the automated system that casinos use to determine comps would not be able to determine 'f'.

Of course, if someone is trying to milk the comp system, I wouldn't recommend this as the ideal strategy...I was just curious if this idea is plausible.

Thanks

- Mark

[Don Schlesinger]

You will get different answers to your question, but, actually, for comp purposes, the worst thing you can do is play alone, because you won't get credit for all the extra hands you play per hour.

If you're not counting, and you flat bet and play BS, just for comps, then your best bet is to play at full tables, since you're likely to be rated at 60-70 hands per hour no mattter how many players are at the table!.

Finally, I don't know if there's a definitive answer that will be right for all casinos, regarding the total wager on two hands. I think you will get more credit for playing two hands of one unit than for playing fewer than two units on one hand, but I'm not sure that you will get full credit for two units. You should, but different houses may treat the total action on two hands differently.

Don

[Dean]

If you are a basic strategy player, try to play at full tables and play SLOWLY. Generally, casinos don't give you anything "extra" for playing at an empty table. This may change, however with MindPlay.

> I was thinking that, if I play alone at a table and
> flat-bet 1 unit on two different hands, my average bet
> for a fixed number of cards is (roughly) only 1.33x
> greater than if I simply flat-bet 1 unit on 1 hand. I
> reasoned that: if I was playing 1 hand, I would need
> to play 3 rounds to see the same # of cards that I
> would see in 2 rounds x 2 hands (since the dealer
> counts as an extra hand/round). Arguably, this
> analysis is somewhat conservative, since the dealer
> will likely see more cards if I am playing 2 hands
> than 1. Of course, the # of hands/hr will likely
> increase, so I will make a hand-waving analysis and
> say that my units bet/hr will likely be 1.4-1.6x
> greater (define this value as 'f') if I play 2 hands
> instead of one (being alone at the table is critical
> for this statement to be correct).

> Now, how do pit bosses record wagering for determining
> the amount of comps I receive? Are 2 hands of 1 unit
> equivalent to 1 hand of 2 units from a comp
> perspective? If so, then this seems like a decent way
> for a BS player to make 2/f times the comps over a
> situation where the BS player was playing.

> Another related question is "are the comps a
> function of the # of people at the table?" If
> not, the automated system that casinos use to
> determine comps would not be able to determine 'f'.

> Of course, if someone is trying to milk the comp
> system, I wouldn't recommend this as the ideal
> strategy...I was just curious if this idea is
> plausible.

> Thanks

> - Mark