fatcat519: Two hands questions

[fatcat519]

I hesitate to ask this. I know the "how many hands" question has been much discussed and some people don't want to get into it again, but I still need some help with it. DD' has been adamant that two hands always is best. And "Blackjack in Color - How Blackjack Works", Chapter 4.9 clearly shows the same result.

I can understand that always playing two hands is better than always playing one, because of getting more money out without increasing risk. But I'm having a hard time accepting that always playing two is better than playing one when the casino has the advantage, and switching to two when your advantage turns positive, (ignoring cover and availability). Why doesn't betting less when you are at a disadvantage improve results?

I've tried running some sims with CVCX, and when I do it, switching from one to two comes out on top. Maybe I'm not setting up the sims properly.

Again, aside from cover and availability, what's the best way to play heads up? I've been sticking to one hand as per BJA3, Table 2.4.

Also, if the "double minimum" rule applies how would always playing two compare? (You could sometimes get around this by playing a table where the minimum was half your normal unit.)

Thanks for any answers.

[Don Schlesinger]

I read this three days ago, planned to answer, then got sidetracked and forgot it was here. If you've known me over the years, you know I always answer as soon as I read something, so my apologies.

> I hesitate to ask this.

But it didn't stop you! :-)

> I know the "how many
> hands" question has been much discussed and some
> people don't want to get into it again,

You have no idea!! Every time I read it, I cringe and think, "Here we go AGAIN!"

> but I still
> need some help with it. DD' has been adamant that two
> hands always is best.

Adamant means that he's adamant, not that he's right! :-)

And "Blackjack in Color -
> How Blackjack Works", Chapter 4.9 clearly shows
> the same result.

You need to consider the betting scheme, and what it means to bet two hands. And, you need to consider the speed with which the game is played.

> I can understand that always playing two hands is
> better than always playing one, because of getting
> more money out without increasing risk.

You DO increase risk (as expressed by standard deviation, or variance), commensurate with increased return, so that risk of ruin is the same

> But I'm having
> a hard time accepting that always playing two is
> better than playing one when the casino has the
> advantage, and switching to two when your advantage
> turns positive, (ignoring cover and availability). Why
> doesn't betting less when you are at a disadvantage
> improve results?

It does.

> I've tried running some sims with CVCX, and when I do
> it, switching from one to two comes out on top. Maybe
> I'm not setting up the sims properly.

You're doing it just fine! :-)

> Again, aside from cover and availability, what's the
> best way to play heads up?

One hand all the time, or two hands all the time, each for 50% as much, will produce identical results, once the speed factor is accounted for (David likes to overlook this part!). If you play one hand in negative counts and two optimal hands in positive, you'll win more, but you'll also get thrown out more.

> I've been sticking to one
> hand as per BJA3, Table 2.4.

Fine. Two optimal hands (or whatever you can get away with, on the negative side) also fine.

> Also, if the "double minimum" rule applies
> how would always playing two compare? (You could
> sometimes get around this by playing a table where the
> minimum was half your normal unit.)

You answered your own question. If you're forced to bet twice as much as you're supposed to be betting, just to play two hands, what's the point?

> Thanks for any answers.

I'd like to say "thanks for the question," but you know how I feel about this one. :-)

Don

[fatcat519]

No apology necessary. I don't mind waiting for the kind of enlightening and civil answer I know I will get here.

At the risk of more cringing, I have a follow up comment/question. Maybe you answered this when you said: "You need to consider the betting scheme, and what it means to bet two hands. And, you need to consider the speed with which the game is played." If so, I still don't understand what sim settings Norm would have used to get the Chapter 4.9 chart showing two hands at all counts to be better than one hand, going to two when you have an advantage.

Wait a minute! I just tried my CVCX sims again, and instead of keeping the same max bet for both two hands always, and going from one to two at +1, I kept the same spread in the CVCX Betting box. That made the max bet twice as big for two hands always, and that caused the SCORE values to reverse, putting two hands always well ahead.

Is this the solution to my dilemma?

Thanks for your patience.

[Don Schlesinger]

> Is this the solution to my dilemma?

> Thanks for your patience.

Furnish numbers! Tell me precisely what your bet scheme is, doing it both ways. And, tell me how many players are at the table.

Don

[fatcat519]

> Furnish numbers! Tell me precisely what your bet
> scheme is, doing it both ways. And, tell me how many
> players are at the table.

Conditions and bet schemes:

6 deck; 4 players; S17, DAS, LS; 4.5/6
100hands/hr; play all; BR=20K

Scheme 1) 2 hands, 1-6 spread
Count Bets
<=-1 2x25

0 2x25

1 2x50

2 2x125
>= 3 2x150
Win/Hr=63.08, ROR=16.3, SCORE=28.6

Scheme 2) 1 hand, then 2, 1-12 spread
Count Bets
<=-1 25

0 25

1 2x50

2 2x125
>= 3 2x150
Win/Hr=67.65, ROR=10.0, SCORE=38.05

Scheme 3) 2hands, 1-12 spread
Count Bets
<=-1 2x25

0 2x25

1 2x50

2 2x125

3 2x200
>= 4 2x300
Win/Hr=102.89, ROR=19.6, SCORE=48.09

Based on answers to questions I've asked in the past, I think that though going 1x25 to 2x150 looks like a 1-12 spread, in effect it's really more like about 1-9. When I put that spread into Scheme 3, it still came out slightly ahead of the other two.
My conclusion to all this is that two hands at all counts is best if your BR allows a big enough spread, with acceptable ROR.

[fatcat519]

I may have beaten this horse to death, and beyond.
I'll take the information I've gathered and apply it, to the best of my ability, in whatever game conditions I'm faced with.

[fatcat519]

It seems I'm in Don's dog house over my questions on this topic since my last two posts weren't acknowledged.
I know he doesn't suffer fools gladly, but I'm not sure what I may have said to put me in that category.

If I posted on a different topic would I get an answer?

[Don Schlesinger]

> It seems I'm in Don's dog house over my questions on
> this topic since my last two posts weren't
> acknowledged.

What was I supposed to say? You furnished data from sims, and you didn't ask any further questions. In fact, you said that you had probably beaten this to death and I figured that was the end.

> I know he doesn't suffer fools gladly, but I'm not
> sure what I may have said to put me in that category.

Nothing of the sort. I just have a weak spot when it comes to discussing playing two hands and having DD''s opinions thrown around for the millionth time. I just can't discuss it anymore. It just rubs me the wrong way. I apologize. It isn't your fault. But, over the past 30 years, there isn't a single BJ topic that I have discussed more and that STILL isn't understood. after a while, I just can't go over the whole thing for the 500th time. I'm really sorry.

> If I posted on a different topic would I get an
> answer?

Everyone in the history of this site has gotten an answer to everything that has ever been asked, usually within 24 hours or less. (Sometimes the answer is "I don't know.") You got an answer to this question, too, but you didn't like what it was! That isn't necessarily my fault.

Don

[fatcat519]

Now that I reread it, it did look like I had signed off on that topic. Sorry if I sounded whiny.

I have another question that I'll post separately.
And I do appreciate your help.

BTW - You gave me a new word a while back: "eidetic". Strangely, it's not in my old "Concise Oxford Dictionary", but is in my "Oxford American Dictionary".

fc

[Don Schlesinger]

> Now that I reread it, it did look like I had signed
> off on that topic. Sorry if I sounded whiny.

No problem.

> I have another question that I'll post separately.
> And I do appreciate your help.

Any time.

> BTW - You gave me a new word a while back:
> "eidetic". Strangely, it's not in my old
> "Concise Oxford Dictionary", but is in my
> "Oxford American Dictionary".

Funny, but I don't remember ever using/writing that (which is ironic, if you think about it!). I have always known that "eidetic" is the official name for having a photography memory, but I, er, um, don't remember writng it! (I'm going to regret admitting that!)

Don