"The Color of Blackjack" – My Observations

[Bodarc]

Playing two hands. Playing heads-up one hand is preferred.

I have never quite understood this even though I have heard it many times. To me it seems if there is a high count and you play 1 hand, you'd get 50% of the good hands and the dealer would get the other half. If you played 2 hands, you'd get 66 2/3 of the good hands. Will someone explain this to me?

[Freightman]

I have never quite understood this even though I have heard it many times. To me it seems if there is a high count and you play 1 hand, you'd get 50% of the good hands and the dealer would get the other half. If you played 2 hands, you'd get 66 2/3 of the good hands. Will someone explain this to me?

Heads up, Betting optimally, you would have a lower bet per hand, though fairly well in excess of the single unit bet. Accordingly, in advantageous counts, the sum total of your bets on 2 hands will be less than the sum total of your single unit hands when taking into account that you will reach the cut card much more quickly. Card eating effect. So, from a math perspective, heads up, the only time it really makes sense to go to 2 hands is when you're at table max. Example, I was playing at a small town casino with a 200 max bet. Last hand went to 3x200 since count justified. To put this into slightly more perspective, heads up, 2x16 is really not 32-1, depending on specifics, more like 24-1.

Using the same logic, if you can play 2 hands at the same minimum as 1 hand, it makes sense in negative situations to play 2 hands, since you are eating cards At faster rate and will reach the cut card more quickly.

[Stealth]

To put this into slightly more perspective, heads up, 2x16 is really not 32-1, depending on specifics, more like 24-1.

It is the same as 32:1 from an EV perspective. The 24:1 view is the effect on variance.

[Freightman]

It is the same as 32:1 from an EV perspective. The 24:1 view is the effect on variance.

Agreed for the most part - though 24-1 would be your EV for the balance of the shoe, unless of course, you are at table max.

[PinkChip]

Heads up, Betting optimally, you would have a lower bet per hand, though fairly well in excess of the single unit bet. Accordingly, in advantageous counts, the sum total of your bets on 2 hands will be less than the sum total of your single unit hands when taking into account that you will reach the cut card much more quickly. Card eating effect. So, from a math perspective, heads up, the only time it really makes sense to go to 2 hands is when you're at table max. Example, I was playing at a small town casino with a 200 max bet. Last hand went to 3x200 since count justified. To put this into slightly more perspective, heads up, 2x16 is really not 32-1, depending on specifics, more like 24-1.

Using the same logic, if you can play 2 hands at the same minimum as 1 hand, it makes sense in negative situations to play 2 hands, since you are eating cards At faster rate and will reach the cut card more quickly.

I don't understand at all these explanations, because it is not clear what your betting pattern is. E.g. that "single unit" stuff, and what is "3x200". 3 boxes of 200 each? 600 on one box? But your max bet is 200 not 600? Or splitting to three hands of 200 each? Why should it make sense to play two hands only for max bet but not for nearly max bet? Totally confused.