The practicality of playing multi handed without taking heat into consideration

I saw this chart of average hands per hour based on players....

Players. Hands per hour
1. 209
2. 139
3. 104
4. 84
5. 70
6. 60
7. 52

My question is, if you are playing two hands a round alone you'd get 139 rounds an hour, 278 hands an hour, right?

If you re playing three hands a round alone you'd get 104 rounds an hour, and 312 hands an hour, right?.

Seems like a bad trade off.

The answer will depend on your preferences, playing conditions, etc. I usually just play basic strategy, and I usually try to play two hands. It's a little more interesting for me, and it reduces variance. (though, it does increase my expected total loss per unit of time) If you're counting, you'll want to alter your number of hands depending on the count to the extent that it's possible. Also, you may want to monopolize a table if there's something like a hot-seat promotion going on and there's a benefit to playing, for example, $5*5 instead of $25*1.

playing two hands reduces variance.
playing two hands allows you to bet more when its favorable.

Depends upon your objectives.
Spreading from one hand of $10 to two hands of $200 each is a 40:1 spread, with less risk than going from $10 to $400 playing only one hand.
The caveat: There is a possibility that overall profitability could suffer if spreading to two hands significantly impacts the number of rounds dealt during the positive count.

Quote: rdw4potus

The answer will depend on your preferences, playing conditions, etc. I usually just play basic strategy, and I usually try to play two hands. It's a little more interesting for me, and it reduces variance. (though, it does increase my expected total loss per unit of time) If you're counting, you'll want to alter your number of hands depending on the count to the extent that it's possible. Also, you may want to monopolize a table if there's something like a hot-seat promotion going on and there's a benefit to playing, for example, $5*5 instead of $25*1.

Note that it reduces variance compared to playing 1 hand of double the size.

ie, 2x$100 has lower variance than 1x$200, but not lower than 1x$100.

So it's not really correct to say that "it lowers variance but increases your average loss" -- It depends what you are comparing it to.

Going from 1x$100 to 2x$100 increases your total loss AND increases variance.

Going from 1x$200 to 2x$100 reduces variance but leaves your total loss the same.

Hmmm which is better. Spreading on high counts or inverse spreading on high counts (card eating on low counts)?

Quote: rdw4potus

The answer will depend on your preferences, playing conditions, etc. I usually just play basic strategy, and I usually try to play two hands. It's a little more interesting for me, and it reduces variance. (though, it does increase my expected total loss per unit of time) If you're counting, you'll want to alter your number of hands depending on the count to the extent that it's possible. Also, you may want to monopolize a table if there's something like a hot-seat promotion going on and there's a benefit to playing, for example, $5*5 instead of $25*1.

If you want to play two hands without increasing variance, you must bet less on each hand. I think the number is 72% of each hand but most round to 75%. Some call it the 150% rule. If you are betting 1x$100 you would spread to 2x$75. That's because there is co variance meaning that both hands are played against the dealer's hand.

If you were able to play two tables simultaneously or had a partner at another table, playing from the same bankroll, each of you would bet the full $100.

Quote: Swanson234

Hmmm which is better. Spreading on high counts or inverse spreading on high counts (card eating on low counts)?

Heads up I usually go with the one hand spreading to two or even three hands just before the shuffle to get better penetration. With others at the table I spread to get my share of blackjacks and other good hands. In negative counts, there go my weak kidneys again.

Wong suggested that going to three hands was only marginally more profitable after adjusting for the covariance, and likely to attract more heat. The 150% rule is the way to go with 2 hands.

Players. Hands per hour
1. 209
2. 139
3. 104
4. 84
5. 70
6. 60
7. 52



If a guy makes $100 EV playing bet spread X alone, he'll make $133 duplicating bet spread X on two hands. He gets 278 hands per hour in two handed. 278/209 * 100 = $133. If he just doubles bet spread X on one hand, he makes $200 an hour. The variance on $200 single max bet is higher compared to two hands of $100 max, but the EV is also significantly higher due to more rounds per hour.

Regarding rule of 150%. Lets say you re alone at a table and make $100 EV playing $100 max bet on one hand. You decide to split the hand into two, betting $72 on each hand. Playing $72 max bet on each hand nets you $72 hourly profit per hand (hand, not round). 278/209 * $72 = 95.77 an hour!!!

If you 're alone at a table, playing two handed at 72% of original bet nets you less hourly EV with same SD because of loss of hands per hour.
To rephrase it, you make $144 every 209 rounds (round, not hand) with two bets of $72 a round at this same empty table. You get 139 rounds an hour cause you 're playing two handed. 139/209 * $144 = $95.77 hourly EV.





Playing multi handed seems like a bad trade off on empty tables. I think card eating/inverse spreading is best option. Always playing multi seems good only when a table is already half full when the drop in hands per hour is insignificant.

The chart I first posted I found on Wizard of Odds and it is taken from Casino Operation Management by Jim Kilby. I m guessing it's an average based upon all players of all blackjack games of all deck types (including CSM and 6:5 crapjack one deck).



Actually I just saw this in a blackjack info.com thread


Wong's Professional Blackjack has a table showing the speed of various games. He gathered actual data for this effort. For the Atlantic City 6-deck game, he comes up with the following:



1 player: 248 rounds
2 players: 158
3 players: 116
4 players: 91
5 players: 76
6 players: 64
7 players: 56

So if that's a six deck game, I'm guessing the numbers on the chart I gave more closely mirror a 2 deck game (or are somewhere in the middle between 2 deck and six deck)