Playing 1 hand vs. multiple hands
In my opinion If you are a non counter then the only reason to increase* the number of hands played is to increase your varience, and so a greater chance of a win or a loss.
*[EDIT-or decrease forgot that earlier and was reminded by the later post. thanks for reminding me toast.]
-B
Quote: toastcmuI think it depends here - if you are normally a $10 bettor, and you "spread" to 2 $5 hands, then you reduce the variance just slightly - you end up not winning or losing as much as if you played a single hand of $10. On the other hand, as Croupier says, you're talking about 2 hands of $10 - you're going to increase your variance because you're betting more, but you'd be 'losing' less than a $20 a hand bettor at the same time. I seem to remember an Al Krigman article about this a few years ago....
-B
Interesting, that's good to know! If and/or when possible, I would perfer to play two lower value($) hands over one higher value($) hand (two hands = total of one hand). Two hands are just that much more fun!
Quote: cards247Interesting, that's good to know! If and/or when possible, I would perfer to play two lower value($) hands over one higher value($) hand (two hands = total of one hand). Two hands are just that much more fun!
The caveat here is that in Vegas, they will require 2x your bet for each spot. For example,if there is a $5 minimum, they'll require you to bet $10 per spot. Here on the East Coast, no such rule is enforced, so I usually play two hands if I feel like it.
-B
Quote: toastcmuThe caveat here is that in Vegas, they will require 2x your bet for each spot. For example,if there is a $5 minimum, they'll require you to bet $10 per spot. Here on the East Coast, no such rule is enforced, so I usually play two hands if I feel like it.
-B
I noticed a year or so ago that at the venetian on their $25 tables they will let you play up to 3 hands at $25 each. Maybe it has changed now but it was alot of fun me and another guy had the table full.
I try to play 2 hands whenever I can. It works better for my strategy which is usually to try and hang out as long as I can until a killer shoe comes along and press my bets. If the dealer is being predictable (busting on 2-6 showing) then it usually works out quite well.
Last year at the Venetian, we had a half-hour to kill before seeing "A Bronx Tale". We sat down at a $15 table not realizing the sole player (at third base) was playing two hands. He said "why don't you guys wait until this shoe is done. I'm playing heads up here." I muttered "what an ***hole" and walked away.
Quote: joenunzWe sat down at a $15 table not realizing the sole player (at third base) was playing two hands. He said "why don't you guys wait until this shoe is done. I'm playing heads up here." I muttered "what an ***hole" and walked away.
good going! I hope you said it loud enough so everyone heard.
Quote: BigTipI have never understood this concept. We all know that blackjack is a negative expectation game. The longer we play, the better chance we have of falling in to the EV of the game. Playing multiple hands means you are getting there twice as fast.
The idea here is that if you're "comfortable" always playing $10 a hand, then playing 2 hands of $5 a piece will reduce the variance. from playing one hand of $10. If $5 is all you're comfortable with, then yes, putting $10 out on the table instead of $5 will get you to the long run faster. The gambler has to look at all the factors in making that decision.
-B
Quote: joenunzLast year at the Venetian, we had a half-hour to kill before seeing "A Bronx Tale". We sat down at a $15 table not realizing the sole player (at third base) was playing two hands. He said "why don't you guys wait until this shoe is done. I'm playing heads up here." I muttered "what an ***hole" and walked away.
No, no, no. Not the correct way to do things. You're supposed to not say anything, don't even look at him and pull out a few hundred bucks. Then you play three hands to his two.
Quote: ahiromuNo, no, no. Not the correct way to do things. You're supposed to not say anything, don't even look at him and pull out a few hundred bucks. Then you play three hands to his two.
lol...i may try that tactic next time!
"The idea here is that if you're "comfortable" always playing $10 a hand, then playing 2 hands of $5 a piece will reduce the variance. from playing one hand of $10. If $5 is all you're comfortable with, then yes, putting $10 out on the table instead of $5 will get you to the long run faster. The gambler has to look at all the factors in making that decision."
Right, so as a two hand playing person, I want to insure that my bank roll is SLOWLY inevitably ground down. LOL
That's what I mean. I don't get it. We are looking for a variance in that inevitable occurrence on the chance of coming out ahead. All the harder to accomplish when you are doing all you can to mimic "in the long run" play.
Quote: NumpkinSorry for bringing up an old thread. I was wondering if the count is very low, would it be better to play one hand, or to play multiple hands so the low cards are played out more quickly so you get to positive ev quicker? Which would yield better per hour EVHThis assumes if wonging out is not an option due to lack of tables.
I know you'd only play one hand at -EV if you're not the only player at the table and I think you'd only play one hand if you were the only player at the table (depending on how many decks) because you could multi-hand yourself right in and out of a good count in a single or double deck game.
Besides, even with limited tables, wouldn't you still duck and run (or go the bathroom) if the count got REALLY bad?
Quote: NumpkinSorry for bringing up an old thread. I was wondering if the count is very low, would it be better to play one hand, or to play multiple hands so the low cards are played out more quickly so you get to positive ev quicker? Which would yield better per hour EV？This assumes if wonging out is not an option due to lack of tables.
How many decks are we talking about, Numpkin?
So for example if there are 24 cards left until shuffle and the count is very negative. Assuming average of 4 cards per hand at such negative count. I can either play 5 hands and all the cards will be used after a single round, or I can play one hand per round and all cards will be burnt after 3 rounds. The question I was wondering is that would it be better for per hour EV if I played 5 hands in one round, or play 3 rounds but it probably will take double the time to play.
Thanks for the replies!
Was he counting? Do you remember what his bets were?Quote: joenunzWhen someone is playing two hands I avoid that table like the plague. I have found multiple hands players to feel entitled...like they "own the table". And I'm talking about $10-$15 tables, not $100 tables...which me and my bankroll don't patronize anway.
Last year at the Venetian, we had a half-hour to kill before seeing "A Bronx Tale". We sat down at a $15 table not realizing the sole player (at third base) was playing two hands. He said "why don't you guys wait until this shoe is done. I'm playing heads up here." I muttered "what an ***hole" and walked away.
Generally if I think they are savvy players, Ill just ask if they mind if I jump in.
If you know they are counting and they have big bets out, jumping in will eat up the cards during a high count.
If they are just stupidstitious then FK'em.
I have kindly asked people if the could wait a few hands.
