The heads-up debate of 1 hand vs 2 hands

Well, looking over my last 800 hours, ive noticed that all my big losses have always if not most of the time come at times when i was heads up vs dealer and played 2 hands vs the standard of 1 hand as recommended by many BJ authors. There has been much debate on this forum as well as other forums over the years. I have always been an advocate of two hands to reduce a bit of variance. Yes you eat up more cards but you're also getting more money on the table for the same level of risk so it's basically a wash. I have gone through all the previous threads and some have ran sims on this and two hands is slightly better, EV wise and variance wise, but im not too sure anymore. All my big losses have come from playing two hands heads up vs dealer. Im starting to wonder if i should just go to the industry standard one hand and wondering if this is why i have gotten my a$$ beat every time i had a big loss. Ive had more big losses heads up 2 hands than any big wins from what i can remember. My betting pattern would be aggressive wong-outs at -1 and play 1xtable minimum usually 1x25 and spread to 2x50 at +1 with a max bet of 2x250 at +5.

Thoughts?

I thought most of your losses were when the casino didn't spread the cards out and therefore cheated you. Now it
is because you can't handle the dealers one on one? Your game has more holes than your stories.

I cant handle the dealer one on one? I didnt say i was making mistakes, just wondering why it's happening. I guess it's just a coincidence. The EV is the same if not slightly better with two hands even if you're wasting more cards, you're getting more money on the table at the same risk. It's just that these big losses have made me start to think that somehow two hands are inferior to one in terms of EV when playing heads up and that maybe it's not recommended. I know most authors recommend 1 hand heads up due to more positive EV rounds and less cards being used up, but regardless i shouldnt be doing so poorly everytime i play dealer heads up with two hands.

The answer should be obvious. Either you are being cheated or....

How's the Vegas planning coming along?

Quote: AxelWolf

How's the Vegas planning coming along?

Leaving first week of May. I got the bankroll already and barring an epic negative variance collapse, I should be there sometime within 1st-2nd week of May.

You gonna alert the Oklahoma cops and vegas casinos that I'm coming? Thanks.

Quote: ZenKinG

Leaving first week of May. I got the bankroll already and barring an epic negative variance collapse, I should be there sometime within 1st-2nd week of May.

You gonna alert the Oklahoma cops and vegas casinos that I'm coming? Thanks.

No, I wanted to sell you a pair of really big shoes.

I feel like with a good act you should stick to one hand until TC +3 or so and you can spread to multiple. When you're heads up with the dealer you can break out all kind of ploppy VOODOO... Thus, I'm a fan of playing 1 hand and then working in 2 hands usually around TC +3 or higher, but triggered off of a winning or losing event... or another player coming to the table then leaving.

"I won when he was here, so I wanna keep his hand in!"

At TC +2 or TC +3 when you lose a hand: "Hmmm, maybe I need to change it up for a couple hands" as you add another hand to the game.

"This game you gotta figure out when it's a dealer shoe and change it up with hands to mess up the dealers hands!"

etc, etc.

Quote: Romes

I feel like with a good act you should stick to one hand until TC +3 or so and you can spread to multiple. When you're heads up with the dealer you can break out all kind of ploppy VOODOO... Thus, I'm a fan of playing 1 hand and then working in 2 hands usually around TC +3 or higher, but triggered off of a winning or losing event... or another player coming to the table then leaving.

"I won when he was here, so I wanna keep his hand in!"

At TC +2 or TC +3 when you lose a hand: "Hmmm, maybe I need to change it up for a couple hands" as you add another hand to the game.

"This game you gotta figure out when it's a dealer shoe and change it up with hands to mess up the dealers hands!"

etc, etc.

Thanks Romes, but the thread was more about if somehow 2 hands is the culprit for me getting my a$$ handed to me when playing heads up. Of course common sense tells me its just variance, but looking over my results, all my big losses came when playing heads up at 2 hands and so I'm starting to think that maybe I should from now on only play one hand heads up. Also most BJ authors subscribe to only playing one hand vs dealer when heads up to get in more positive rounds per dollar bet.

Well everyone knows the casinos have programmed the machines to cheat you when you play 2 hands,so obviously 1 hand is the answer. 😃

Quote: Hunterhill

Well everyone knows the casinos have programmed the machines to cheat you when you play 2 hands,so obviously 1 hand is the answer. 😃

Only Sands and Harrahs.

I am not aware that there is a 'debate' over playing one hand vs playing two hands when playing heads up. It is easily determined by software which is optimal for whatever circumstances. The only debate would be when 'heat' is considered, because that can't be measured by simulation.

But it doesn't appear that is what ZenKing is talking about. It looks like he is concerned about negative short term results, conflated by selective memory. Anyone who plays regularly likely deals with this at one time or another. Fight the temptation to draw conclusions from a small sample size and selective memory. Focus on long term results.

As an observer for a while, I am disappointed in all the negative and sarcastic comments and replies directed at ZenKing, since he started posting here. I know he brings some of that on himself, but why return volley like that. I think it is important to remember that questions, comments and advice aren't just about the singular person who posted. There are other newer players, who read, presently or at a later time that can benefit from the replies and advice. Setting a negative tone with snarky, sarcastic shots only discourages other new players from participating and being subject to the same.

Quote: LVkid

I am not aware that there is a 'debate' over playing one hand vs playing two hands when playing heads up. It is easily determined by software which is optimal for whatever circumstances. The only debate would be when 'heat' is considered, because that can't be measured by simulation.

But it doesn't appear that is what ZenKing is talking about. It looks like he is concerned about negative short term results, conflated by selective memory. Anyone who plays regularly likely deals with this at one time or another. Fight the temptation to draw conclusions from a small sample size and selective memory. Focus on long term results.

As an observer for a while, I am disappointed in all the negative and sarcastic comments and replies directed at ZenKing, since he started posting here. I know he brings some of that on himself, but why return volley like that. I think it is important to remember that questions, comments and advice aren't just about the singular person who posted. There are other newer players, who read, presently or at a later time that can benefit from the replies and advice. Setting a negative tone with snarky, sarcastic shots only discourages other new players from participating and being subject to the same.

Appreciate the response Lvkid. Actually there has been much debate about this topic in the past. Most BJ authors recommend one hand, but if i remember correctly from another forum, someone ran the sims and two hands edged out 1 hand in EV using the rule of 73% of your one hand bet size on each of the two hands to keep the same risk. The one hand proponents say they get in more positive rounds per dollar bet wagered, but the two hand propenents say although they waste more cards and get in less rounds they're also putting 50% more money on the table each round.

What did your simulations come up with?

Quote: LVkid

As an observer for a while, I am disappointed in all the negative and sarcastic comments and replies directed at ZenKing, since he started posting here. I know he brings some of that on himself, but why return volley like that. I think it is important to remember that questions, comments and advice aren't just about the singular person who posted. There are other newer players, who read, presently or at a later time that can benefit from the replies and advice. Setting a negative tone with snarky, sarcastic shots only discourages other new players from participating and being subject to the same.

He needs some BJ mentoring, and he's a cute young thing from what I understand. (-;

Ignoring heat and just looking at performance, always playing two hands is generally the best.

In shoe games with a single player, switching from one to two hands at +4 increases SCORE by about 10%. But, always playing two hands increases SCORE by almost 50%. With multiple players, the gain from switching between one and two hands is 15% or more. The gain from always playing two hands is still almost 50%.

Single deck is more complicated (with most anything). You will generally still gain SCORE by moving from 1-2 hands (more than with shoes) and additional gain by always playing two hands. But, the amounts can vary dramatically depending on the number of players, the seat, and how the dealer handles penetration. I've always said that single-deck is a fundamentally different game.

The above assumes optimal betting adjusted to obtain a fixed risk of ruin for each situation. Of course there are other factors, like speed, and the fact that switching the number of hands will scare off some players, which is a positive.