Norm Wattenberger: Heads-up vs. full table ? A new answer

[Norm Wattenberger]

Irrespective of speed, in shoe games which is better, heads-up or a full table?

If speed is taken into account, heads up leads to a higher win rate simply because you play more hands. But suppose you look at the win rate per hand. The common answer to this question is that you have a better EV with multiple players, assuming that you sit at third base, because you see more cards before making a decision. This is generally true in single deck.

However, with shoes the correct answer, like so many other BJ answers, is ?it depends.? In this case on the number of indexes used. If you use a large number of indexes the gain from seeing more cards and making more precise plays results in an improvement in per hand EV at a full table.

But if you use only the common indexes, the gain is not that much in a shoe game. In this case another factor appears to take precedence. If you are playing heads-up; the last round in the shoe begins shortly before the cut card. But since there are more cards used in a round with a full table; the last round in the shoe will start at a shallower penetration with a full table. This means that you will make your bet at a shallower penetration with less information. This matters since the last round is the most important, penetration is of great importance and shoe games depend more on betting than playing decisions. Thus, playing with a full table essentially reduces the penetration below the actual cut card and penalizes the player.

[Sun Runner]

Call me ignorant (no please don't) ..

RE:shoes:

'Win rate per hand' compared to speed of play, assuming I'm playing all, why is that stat meaningful to me if I have the option to play 80 hands at a full table and win $3.00 per hand v/s 150 hands heads up at $2.50. (Is it even that close?)

> the last round in the shoe will start at a shallower penetration with a full table.

Who's to say [ you, I gusess ] the last round does not start out one card before the cut in either case?

Thanks for the clarifications as always.

Still in yet, seems to me speed is the primary consideration for the majority of us who, for the most part, are focused on the Ill 18 (22).

[Norm Wattenberger]

> 'Win rate per hand' compared to speed of play,
> assuming I'm playing all, why is that stat meaningful
> to me if I have the option to play 80 hands at a full
> table and win $3.00 per hand v/s 150 hands heads up at
> $2.50. (Is it even that close?)

Speed is obviously of great importance. Although a table with fewer players is not always faster. There is enormous variability in both player and dealer speed.

> Who's to say [ you, I gusess ] the last round does
> not start out one card before the cut in either case?

In every shoe:-) In six decks, on average the cut card will come out around the middle of a round. Since a round has more cards when there are more players, the last round will start on average at a lower penetration. So for betting purposes, we are fooling ourselves if we believe the location of the cut card is the same as the penetration. Considering the importance of penetration I'm surprised I haven't notices this in the literature. But then most of the literature makes little mention of number of players besides talking to speed.

> Still in yet, seems to me speed is the primary
> consideration for the majority of us who, for the most
> part, are focused on the Ill 18 (22).

If speed were the only criterion, we would never backcount:-)


CVCX Online