Do I Play Two or Three Hands Under This Circumstance

[blueman]

"Your ev will go up very close to 50% doing 3x400 over 2x400."

As I thought I explained, that's not true. You'll be betting 50% more, but you'll also be using up more cards per round, and, therefore, getting fewer opportunities per shoe, or per hour, to make those three bets.

With five hands per round, Wong estimates 76 rounds per hour. With six hands per round, he estimates 64 rounds. 76 x $800 = $60,800. 64 x $1,200 = $76,800. So, the increase in profits is 76,800/60,800 = 26.3% per hour.

A more theoretical, rather than empirical, solution is the following: $800 per five hands is action of $160 per hand. $1,200 per six hands is $200 per hand. The increase is 25%.

Don

I said about. I also said that if a ploppy would be playing that 3rd hand instead of you then it doesnt even matter about the card eating.

[DSchles]

"I said about."

So, instead of saying you made a mistake, you now want to claim that 25% increase is "very close to 50%"? Gimme a break.

Don

[blueman]

"I said about."

So, instead of saying you made a mistake, you now want to claim that 25% increase is "very close to 50%"? Gimme a break.

Don

Theres no way that 3x400 is a 25% increase over 2x400.... If youre playing at a full table! which is what i have been talking about the entire time. Yes i see the card eating problem if your heads up. Go back to my original post. I said at a full table. So if you or a ploppy is eating that last hand of cards, then it doesnt matter.

[DSchles]

"There's no way that 3x400 is a 25% increase over 2x400.... If you're playing at a full table! which is what i have been talking about the entire time. Yes i see the card eating problem if your heads up. Go back to my original post. I said at a full table. So if you or a ploppy is eating that last hand of cards, then it doesn't matter."

It doesn't matter what YOU said. We're talking about a SPECIFIC question asked by the original poster. You don't get to change the premise. READ!! He said there were two other players at the table with him. I answered THAT question. You don't get to make up a new one.

Don

[blueman]

"There's no way that 3x400 is a 25% increase over 2x400.... If you're playing at a full table! which is what i have been talking about the entire time. Yes i see the card eating problem if your heads up. Go back to my original post. I said at a full table. So if you or a ploppy is eating that last hand of cards, then it doesn't matter."

It doesn't matter what YOU said. We're talking about a SPECIFIC question asked by the original poster. You don't get to change the premise. READ!! He said there were two other players at the table with him. I answered THAT question. You don't get to make up a new one.

Don

The 25% makes perfect sense with 2 players and youre right that's what it originally was. But now I'm curious, what if my situation was here? What if a ploppy wanted to play that other hand instead, so there was always 6 hands going, would it then be 50%?

[blueman]

Don. Correct me if im wrong, but i did some number crunching and came up with 2 ways that it is just a tad shy of gaining an extra 50% HOURLY EV

first way, you said that with 5 players, about 76 hands will be dealt per shoe. So, at 100 hands per hour, that is 1.32 shoes per hour. So take your 76x800= 60,800 that is per shoe, so 60800x1.32= 80,256 that is per hour.

Now look at 64 hands per shoe for 6 players. Well that will mean more shoes per hour, no? At 100 hands per hour (that added extra hand will not take much time at all to add in) that is 1.56 shoes per hour. 64x1200x1.56= 119,808.

119808/80256= an increase of 49.3% of added ev PER HOUR (100 hands per hour)

another way i did it was this,

6D H17 DAS 5 decks dealt spread of:
TC0- 2x25
TC 1 2x200
TC 2+ 2x400
Win per round 2.10
2.10x76 rounds= 159.60 win per shoe

TC0- 2x25
TC1 2x200
TC2 2x400
TC3+ 3x400
Win per round 3.13

(Note, a TC of 3 or more occurs only 10.75% of the time. So 89.25% of the time he will only be playing 2 hands. So 0.1075× 12 (the difference in 6 hands or 5 hands, 76-64) =1.2 fewer rounds per shoe.
So thats 74.71 rounds per shoe when only betting 3x400 at TC3+ (that seems like a fair bet spread, which he said he would spread to the third hand, not play it the entire time)
74.71 x 3.13 = 233.84

233.84/159.60= a gain in ev per shoe of 46.5%

When i said about 50% ev, i speak in terms of ev per hour. This is not with intent of argument. I am just trying to see the clear sign. Thanks.

[Three]

first way, you said that with 5 players, about 76 hands will be dealt per shoe. So, at 100 hands per hour, that is 1.32 shoes per hour.

Now look at 64 hands per shoe for 6 players. Well that will mean more shoes per hour, no? At 100 hands per hour (that added extra hand will not take much time at all to add in) that is 1.56 shoes per hour.

You can't just assume all conditions average 100 rounds/hour. I doubt either of these would get you 100 hands per hour. More players costs more time in general. Most players take a long time to bet, make playing decisions and play the side bets. Each one of these slows the game down. Then the dealer has to deal with each bet and the cards played. The lost time per player per round adds up fast. I wish I could get ploppies to play fast but we all know that isn't going to happen except for rare exceptions. You can compare win rate/100 as apples to apples and to get win rate per hour you need to know each game's speed which is variable and can't generalized. Your assumption that the added hand makes little difference is generally flawed. It really comes down to each slow player kills game speed. One is all it takes. Most are slow to various degrees. More players means a higher likelihood of more of them being agonizingly slow. I have played very briefly with players that take 4 or 5 minutes per round. All it takes is one really slow players kill game speed. Rarely do you find a crowded table that doesn't have at least one or 2 slower players. Often they are all slow. More players means a higher chance that you are playing with slow players. Garbage in garbage out.

[DSchles]

"first way, you said that with 5 players,"

Not five players. Our player (playing two hands of $400), two others (playing one hand each), and the dealer. Five HANDS per round.

"about 76 hands will be dealt per shoe."

No! But, first, let me make a correction to my previous numbers that won't affect the final result. Wong's numbers were for PLAYERS (or total player hands) at the table, not total of all hands (which would include the dealer), so I shouldn't have used five and six for our discussion. Rather, I should have used four and five. Those values are 91 rounds per hour and 76, respectively.

"So, at 100 hands per hour, that is 1.32 shoes per hour."

No, of course not. Think of what you're saying. Makes no sense.

"So take your 76x800= 60,800 that is per shoe, so 60800x1.32= 80,256 that is per hour."

No. For four player hands, with the OP playing 2 x $400 = $800 per round, he will get 91 rounds per hour and will bet 91 x $800 = $72,800 per hour.

"Now look at 64 hands per shoe for 6 players. Well that will mean more shoes per hour, no? At 100 hands per hour (that added extra hand will not take much time at all to add in) that is 1.56 shoes per hour. 64x1200x1.56= 119,808.

"119808/80256= an increase of 49.3% of added ev PER HOUR (100 hands per hour)."

No, sorry. All wrong. With five player hands, three of which belong to the OP, he now bets $1,200 per round, for the reduced 76 rounds per hour. 76 x $1,200 = $91,200. 91,200/72,800 = 1.253, or an increase of 25.3% in e.v.

Clear?

Don

[blueman]

Ok but no those numbers don't make sense to me. Adding that 3rd hand for you as a player costs you 15 hands per hour? So you're saying it adds over 7 seconds per round to add that 3rd player hand.
91/60= 1.516 rounds per minute
60/1.516= 39.5 seconds per round

76/60=1.267 rounds per minute
60/1.267= 47.4 seconds per round

That's 7.9 added seconds per round just to add in his third bet of 400. Seems way too high

[blueman]

You can't just assume all conditions average 100 rounds/hour. I doubt either of these would get you 100 hands per hour. More players costs more time in general. Most players take a long time to bet, make playing decisions and play the side bets. Each one of these slows the game down. Then the dealer has to deal with each bet and the cards played. The lost time per player per round adds up fast. I wish I could get ploppies to play fast but we all know that isn't going to happen except for rare exceptions. You can compare win rate/100 as apples to apples and to get win rate per hour you need to know each game's speed which is variable and can't generalized. Your assumption that the added hand makes little difference is generally flawed. It really comes down to each slow player kills game speed. One is all it takes. Most are slow to various degrees. More players means a higher likelihood of more of them being agonizingly slow. I have played very briefly with players that take 4 or 5 minutes per round. All it takes is one really slow players kill game speed. Rarely do you find a crowded table that doesn't have at least one or 2 slower players. Often they are all slow. More players means a higher chance that you are playing with slow players. Garbage in garbage out.

But does adding a third hand for you really take that long? That's what the debate is. Adding that hand in for this player, not another ploppy. He will play it fast, and not take nearly 7.9 seconds to decide plus for the dealer to take or pay

[blueman]

I did read those first 76 and 64 numbers as hands per shoe, my bad. I shouldnt read this in the car anymore

[MJGolf]

I did read those first 76 and 64 numbers as hands per shoe, my bad. I shouldnt read this in the car anymore

Nor text/post...........from the car. Illegal in MOST states.....LOL

[Meistro123]

Sure there is a benefit to putting the third hand in play. You are now wagering $1200 at an advantage instead of $800. If your kelly bet is for example 2k then it might be reasonable put in the third hand so that you can get closer to it. On the other hand, playing 3 hands is considered a bit of a heat magnet. From an ROR perspective two hands of 400 is like one hand of 600 whereas 3 hands of 400 is like one hand of 800. These are not entirely independent wagers. Generally I will play only one or two hands unless I think it's last hand of the shoe or i am playing in a joint with a really low table max.