Multiple Hands
Two hands decreases standard deviation and a lower EV? Lower risk of ruin? Less money less volatile?
Single hand increases standard deviation and higher EV? Higher risk of ruin? More money more volatile?
What would unbalanced betting between the two hands do to the two hand scenario? Example two hands above now at $100/$300 instead of split evenly at $200/each.
Betting any amount on any multiple number of hands will yield the same results as betting only one hand of an equal amount?
The part about decreasing variance or volatility is correct. If you are spreading your money out into EQUAL amounts, you are in a sense creating a larger sample size and a larger sample size always helps you get closer to expectation. BUT, spreading your money out into unequal amounts works against you, creating more variance....at least short term.
Over a big enough sample size, it would probably not matter and even out, but short term, the $100/$300 split could be disastrous. What if you win all the $100 wagers and lose all the $300 wagers. You are in a big hole when you should be even. Now..'ALL' isn't likely, but what if you win the majority of your $100 wagers and lose the majority of $300 wagers....your in a hole, when you should be even. Could work the other way as well....win all your big bets and lose the small ones, for larger win than you should have. Either way, that's more variance.
So my question now is why would anyone play one hand when they have the advantage and could play two or three? Same EV with less variance sounds like an advantage play right? I guess it wouldn't matter if you had an unlimited bankroll huh?
Are there times when you have an advantage and one hand would be optimal?
Quote: RevJordanRegarding EV that makes sense although I thought that I'd read somewhere that pushes (20v20) created a slight drop in EV for multiple hands at + counts.
So my question now is why would anyone play one hand when they have the advantage and could play two or three? Same EV with less variance sounds like an advantage play right? I guess it wouldn't matter if you had an unlimited bankroll huh?
Are there times when you have an advantage and one hand would be optimal?
How many decks? How many players?
Quote: RevJordanSo my question now is why would anyone play one hand when they have the advantage and could play two or three? Same EV with less variance sounds like an advantage play right? I guess it wouldn't matter if you had an unlimited bankroll huh?
If you can get away with it, you should. But the biggest problem is you look a lot like a counter if you do this. Also, the covariance in the hands gives you decreasing returns above 3 hands. Standing recommendation is 2 hands in good counts.
Quote: RSPlaying 1x400 has more EV for the shoe than 2x200, because when you bet two hands you're eating up cards and will receive less rounds.
This doesn't sound right, if anything it's backwards. You want the good cards, not necessarily more rounds. You get more good cards than the dealer in +counts if you have 2 or more hands, compared to 1 hand.
Edit: Misread the post. I need coffee before reading, evidently.
Quote: VenthusThat sounds reversed-- wouldn't you want two hands when the number of aces is high to catch more of them and decrease the chance they'll be in the dealer's hand on a given deal?
No, the clump of good cards is finite. Let's say you were playing 10 hands at $100 each versus 1 hand at $1000. On the first scenario you might use the rest of the shoe in just one round. By playing 1 big hand there are still lots of good cards remaining in the shoe.
Quote: VenthusThat sounds reversed-- wouldn't you want two hands when the number of aces is high to catch more of them and decrease the chance they'll be in the dealer's hand on a given deal?
He said less than expected dealt, meaning a high number left in the shoe.
Quote: bigfoot66No, the clump of good cards is finite. Let's say you were playing 10 hands at $100 each versus 1 hand at $1000. On the first scenario you might use the rest of the shoe in just one round. By playing 1 big hand there are still lots of good cards remaining in the shoe.
Well this is great if you're playing heads up in a no MS game(but even then, don't you want to gobble up the good cards instead of the dealer? My logic might be wrong about this though). I'd certainly rather gobble the good numbers when playing with others of course.
Quote: bigfoot66No, the clump of good cards is finite. Let's say you were playing 10 hands at $100 each versus 1 hand at $1000. On the first scenario you might use the rest of the shoe in just one round. By playing 1 big hand there are still lots of good cards remaining in the shoe.
Your total amount bet while having the advantage would be higher playing one hand and could lead to higher total win?
Quote: Lemieux66Well this is great if you're playing heads up in a no MS game(but even then, don't you want to gobble up the good cards instead of the dealer? My logic might be wrong about this though). I'd certainly rather gobble the good numbers when playing with others of course.
That is really not how it works. It is not about whether you or the dealer get the "good cards". The deck composition changes the expectation of the game, with the understanding that both your hand and the dealer's hand will be dealt from the same deck.
This comes back to a previous discussion, which is that the expectation of the true count after the next hand is dealt is the true count before the hand. Since true count more or less determines expectation (not quite, but, whatever, close enough) your goal is to get as much money down as possible before shuffle, subject to your bankroll restrictions. If you were playing heads up against the dealer and hand a bankroll large enough to bet 7 hands at table max, and cover was not an issue, then you would accomplish this by playing all 7 spots at table max, until you got down to the point where playing all 7 spots would cause the cut card to come out. At that point you would play 1 round at as many hands as possible without causing the cut card to come out, and then you would play 1 funal round at 7 hands.
But it has nothing to do with you getting the good cards vs the dealer. It has to do with betting as much as possible with an edge.
If your betting is limited by your bankroll rather than the table max, then you generally want to just bet 1 or 2 hands (you can bet 0.75 times as much on each of two hands as you would on one hand, so you are betting 1.5x as much but also using up 1.5x as many cards, so it's basically a wash. On the last round, you want to spread to 2 hands if betting just 1 hand would bring out the cut card.
Quote: RevJordanYour total amount bet while having the advantage would be higher playing one hand and could lead to higher total win?
Yes, you can expose more money to the positive ev that way.
Quote: bigfoot66Yes, you can expose more money to the positive ev that way.
So the EV of one hand vs multiple hands is the same, but playing a single hand may prolong the time at which you can play with the advantage and expose a larger amount of money to a higher EV and potentially result in a larger win?
I'm coming to Vegas this weekend! I'd love to talk cards if anyone is interested :)
Found a game, 6D S17 DA2 DAS RSA late surrender and 75-80% pen. That's a pretty decent game.
On cloud nine. Bankroll is almost at the threshold for pro play!!!!!!
Quote: RevJordanAbout to hop on the plane back to HI. Insane weekend cleared $30k and am now up over $20k for the year.
Found a game, 6D S17 DA2 DAS RSA late surrender and 75-80% pen. That's a pretty decent game.
On cloud nine. Bankroll is almost at the threshold for pro play!!!!!!
Great job! MGM property? May we have some details? Perhaps a little trip report?
What was your trip bankroll, base bet and top bet?
How many hours did you play? Was it all at the same casino?
What was your longest session?
Did you play rated? If so did you have a host that took good care of you?
Were you ever down? What was the most you won in a single session?
Did you experience heat at the table or at the cage?
How much did you cash out at one time? Were you asked for ID so a CTR could be filed?
Did you travel alone? Were you hassled at the airport by TSA for carrying over 30k in cash? Was the money on your person or in a bag?
I know it's a lot of questions but your experience could help other aspiring card counters and that's what we're all about here at WOV.
Quote: RevJordanAbout to hop on the plane back to HI. Insane weekend cleared $30k and am now up over $20k for the year.
Found a game, 6D S17 DA2 DAS RSA late surrender and 75-80% pen. That's a pretty decent game.
On cloud nine. Bankroll is almost at the threshold for pro play!!!!!!
Wow, nice weekend, congrats. $30k is a very good win -- that is better than my best trip ever.
As for bankroll size, remember that you can lose it just as fast as you win it. I'm not sure what your betting was like to win that much, but I suspect that you need more money than you think you do.
Quote: 1BBDid you travel alone? Were you hassled at the airport by TSA for carrying over 30k in cash? Was the money on your person or in a bag?
I've done this. The money was in my pockets. I just pulled it out and held it in my hand as I went through the scanner. The guy looked at me, said "I don't feel like looking through all that", picked up some scanner wand or something (I assume it's a metal detector?), waved it over the bundle of cash as I held it, and waved me through.
Obviously this is just one data point, YMMV, and all that.
Also, I would assume that the TSA agents in Vegas are used to people going through with large amounts of cash. You might get a different reaction from agents in places where they don't see that on a daily basis.
The next day, when I went to the bank, I did find out that a brick of $30k does not fit under the little bullet-proof divider thing that they have between the tellers and customers at some banks. I had to break it up into two bundles.
The game mentioned above was an MGM property I found similar games at CET that actually won me more money.
What was your trip bankroll, base bet and top bet?
Bankroll was $10k, spread $25-400 playing only shoe games
How many hours did you play? Was it all at the same casino?
I played approximately 19 hours
What was your longest session?
Just shy of an hour
Did you play rated? If so did you have a host that took good care of you?
Always rated, had one host try but she was a pretentious B word so I didn't bother. But yes everything on the trip was comped.
Were you ever down? What was the most you won in a single session?
I was down the first four sessions. $4350 to be exact. I only lost one session after that.
Did you experience heat at the table or at the cage?
Only at the Encore, but I was being obnoxious and it could have easily just been annoyance on the PBs part.
How much did you cash out at one time? Were you asked for ID so a CTR could be filed?
The most I cashed out was $9000. To my knowledge no CTR was filed.
Did you travel alone? Were you hassled at the airport by TSA for carrying over 30k in cash? Was the money on your person or in a bag?
All alone. I'm a credit union member and all winnings less $4000 were deposited in a shared branch a few miles off the strip. No questions asked other than "Are you some kind of pro?" haha
I know it's a lot of questions but your experience could help other aspiring card counters and that's what we're all about here at WOV.
Yes I'm excited to contribute more! I'm still tired as hell but I will try and add more details in the coming days.
On multiple sessions I maintained my max bet as the count deteriorated. Essentially letting my final max bet ride until I lost and then reset at min bet.
I rode out the max bet on four sessions well into negative counts without losing a hand (reset to min bet at shuffle). Chock one up to positive variance.
I did not keep detailed records on this but best educated guess is this produced about 60% of the trip win.
Yes, I got lucky.
Quote: RevJordanOne detail that I'm sure I may catch some flack for.
On multiple sessions I maintained my max bet as the count deteriorated. Essentially letting my final max bet ride until I lost and then reset at min bet.
I rode out the max bet on four sessions well into negative counts without losing a hand (reset to min bet at shuffle). Chock one up to positive variance.
I did not keep detailed records on this but best educated guess is this produced about 60% of the trip win.
Yes, I got lucky.
You know what you did so no flack from me. Yes, you got lucky.
After four sessions you lost almost half your bankroll. You then took $5650 and, in about 15 hours, turned it into almost 35k including your original loss. This while employing only a 1-8 spread and a $400 max bet.
That is incredible! Do you have any idea what your win rate should have been?
Quote: 1BBYou know what you did so no flack from me. Yes, you got lucky.
After four sessions you lost almost half your bankroll. You then took $5650 and, in about 15 hours, turned it into almost 35k including your original loss. This while employing only a 1-8 spread and a $400 max bet.
That is incredible! Do you have any idea what your win rate should have been?
WIN rate you say? Lol
Quote: Lemieux66WIN rate you say? Lol
He averaged over $2300 an hour. You've heard the old question. Would you rather be lucky or good? I wish I could be both at the same time.
Quote: RevJordanOne detail that I'm sure I may catch some flack for.
On multiple sessions I maintained my max bet as the count deteriorated. Essentially letting my final max bet ride until I lost and then reset at min bet.
I rode out the max bet on four sessions well into negative counts without losing a hand (reset to min bet at shuffle). Chock one up to positive variance.
I did not keep detailed records on this but best educated guess is this produced about 60% of the trip win.
Yes, I got lucky.
Of course you were lucky. But you are expected to be lucky sometimes. So, enjoy it. Eventually you will be unlucky and have a horrible losing streak, so, when that happens, remember this win.
Note that, as a form of cover, only reducing bets on losses is much (much, much) cheaper than only increasing on wins, so, if you must engage in this form of betting cover, you are doing it the right way.
I am not a huge fan of cover, but I would generally not suggest going from max to min bet when a new shoe starts. Either leave the max bet out there, or get up and leave.
Quote: Lemieux66WIN rate you say? Lol
He probably has +EV at a good 6-deck game on the strip (3:2, DAS, DOA, RSA, Surrender, 75% pen). It does not take a monster spread to beat this game.
But his win rate is obviously not very high, and a $10k bankroll is extremely small for these stakes. I'd want a minimum of a $100k bankroll, probably more with the way that he is playing (not reducing bets after wins is not particularly expensive EV-wise, but it increases variance significantly -- the huge upswing that he experienced is an example of that) You can lose $30k just as easily as you can win $30k.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHe probably has +EV at a good 6-deck game on the strip (3:2, DAS, DOA, RSA, Surrender, 75% pen). It does not take a monster spread to beat this game.
But his win rate is obviously not very high, and a $10k bankroll is extremely small for these stakes. I'd want a minimum of a $100k bankroll, probably more with the way that he is playing (not reducing bets after wins is not particularly expensive EV-wise, but it increases variance significantly -- the huge upswing that he experienced is an example of that) You can lose $30k just as easily as you can win $30k.
It's just the part about keeping the max bet out there with negative counts. If I had a wife and she did this, it's legit grounds for divorce in my eyes.
Quote: Lemieux66It's just the part about keeping the max bet out there with negative counts. If I had a wife and she did this, it's legit grounds for divorce in my eyes.
This is relatively cheap, as far as cover goes. It is way cheaper than waiting for a win to increase your bet (which many people do)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThis is relatively cheap, as far as cover goes. It is way cheaper than waiting for a win to increase your bet (which many people do)
I was playing $25 minimum with a $400 max bet, 1-16 spread with the rules stated I was playing a +EV game.
It was cheap. I did play my max bet into negative counts. But not before I played it at +5TC, then +4 then +3 and so on. My bet at +4TC would have been $300 if I played per my spread, so risking $100 by keeping my $400 max bet out. Had I lost the max bet at any time as the count deteriorated I would have and many time did reset to the correct bet or leave the table if the count was junk.
Is not the actual most winning hands in blackjack when the count is huge and then quickly deteriorates? The big cards that you knew were in there are coming out in force and the money is coming in hot.
My TRIP bankroll was $10K yes, total BR about $35k before the trip.
Three day trip with my spread I brought 25 max bets as BR. Is this not kosher?
Had I not left my max bet out I still would have been up about $10k on the trip. A great win playing what I think is a decent strategy.
Quote: RevJordanI was playing $25 minimum with a $400 max bet, 1-16 spread with the rules stated I was playing a +EV game.
It was cheap. I did play my max bet into negative counts. But not before I played it at +5TC, then +4 then +3 and so on. My bet at +4TC would have been $300 if I played per my spread, so risking $100 by keeping my $400 max bet out. Had I lost the max bet at any time as the count deteriorated I would have and many time did reset to the correct bet or leave the table if the count was junk.
Is not the actual most winning hands in blackjack when the count is huge and then quickly deteriorates? The big cards that you knew were in there are coming out in force and the money is coming in hot.
My TRIP bankroll was $10K yes, total BR about $35k before the trip.
Three day trip with my spread I brought 25 max bets as BR. Is this not kosher?
I think $10k is fine for a trip.
$35k is nowhere near enough for your level of betting though, IMO, unless it's replaceable (in which case it's not really a bankroll)
Quote:Had I not left my max bet out I still would have been up about $10k on the trip. A great win playing what I think is a decent strategy.
Well, it is definitely better to pull your bet back when the count drops. The only reason not to do it is for cover purposes. If you're doing it for any other reason (which it sounds like from what you wrote above) then you're making a mistake. Betting big in negative counts is the exact opposite of what you want to do.
Quote: RevJordanI was playing $25 minimum with a $400 max bet, 1-16 spread with the rules stated I was playing a +EV game.
It was cheap. I did play my max bet into negative counts. But not before I played it at +5TC, then +4 then +3 and so on. My bet at +4TC would have been $300 if I played per my spread, so risking $100 by keeping my $400 max bet out. Had I lost the max bet at any time as the count deteriorated I would have and many time did reset to the correct bet or leave the table if the count was junk.
Is not the actual most winning hands in blackjack when the count is huge and then quickly deteriorates? The big cards that you knew were in there are coming out in force and the money is coming in hot.
My TRIP bankroll was $10K yes, total BR about $35k before the trip.
Three day trip with my spread I brought 25 max bets as BR. Is this not kosher?
Had I not left my max bet out I still would have been up about $10k on the trip. A great win playing what I think is a decent strategy.
Sorry I missed the 1-16 spread. That makes more sense. I remember you said 1-8 in another thread.
Was it hard to find the 0.28% house edge at $25 minimums on a weekend? Will you look into double deck at some point? Again, great trip!
Quote: 1BBSorry I missed the 1-16 spread. That makes more sense. I remember you said 1-8 in another thread.
Was it hard to find the 0.28% house edge at $25 minimums on a weekend? Will you look into double deck at some point? Again, great trip!
Saturday was tough to find good conditions. Sunday was good. Monday was easy to find games but it was mostly a play-all situation with little other action.
Double deck games were there and they were playable but I got so killed at double deck earlier in the year so I'm hesitant.
Bankroll is replenishible as I work full-time with a decent salary. Will continue working until I have $100k bank plus another $12k for living expenses. Hopefully by the end of the year!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think $10k is fine for a trip.
$35k is nowhere near enough for your level of betting though, IMO, unless it's replaceable (in which case it's not really a bankroll)
Well, it is definitely better to pull your bet back when the count drops. The only reason not to do it is for cover purposes. If you're doing it for any other reason (which it sounds like from what you wrote above) then you're making a mistake. Betting big in negative counts is the exact opposite of what you want to do.
The goal I have set for myself once I start full time is having 200 max bets for my BR, playing 1-20 spread $25-500. That would equal $100k. Do you think that's a pretty decent start?
I left my max bet out to pad my win. It's not something I've really ever done before and I don't believe I will do it once I begin full-time play except sparingly for cover and not at negative counts.
Quote: RevJordanThe goal I have set for myself....playing 1-20 spread $25-500.
If you're gonna hit the $500 threshold (scrutiny wise), you may as well go above and beyond, with a $800 max bet (shy of the next, $1,000 threshold).
You are better off playing 1 hand (1x200) instead of 2 hands (2x100) because you preserve cards by playing only one hand. The benefit of playing 2 hands is to reduce variance and/or if you are restricted by table max, or some other scrutiny threshold (ie: $500 or $1000 bets on a hand).
Think about this -- what do you think is better (in this hypothetical situation) -- playing 1 hand of $1,000 or playing 100 hands of $10? Both result in the same EV for that round ($1000 * edge)....but playing 100 hands, you only get one round (272.7 cards)...but playing 1 hand, you get a whole bunch more rounds. This is using 2.7 cards as the average # of cards per player/dealer hand.
Quote: RevJordanThe goal I have set for myself once I start full time is having 200 max bets for my BR, playing 1-20 spread $25-500. That would equal $100k. Do you think that's a pretty decent start?
Your required bankroll depends on your variance, which depends on your playing style. My opinion is that most requirements that you see online or in books are SEVERE under-estimates. They tend to be based on sims which assume perfect play and no cover. In real life, you will occasionally make mistakes, and you will employ some cover. These reduce your expectation. Also, some forms of cover (eg, not reducing your bet after a loss, even if the count drops) severely increase variance. As your expectation drops relative to your variance, your bankroll requirements go up. In the end, if you are going to take this that seriously, I think you should want to run a sim that includes all the forms of cover that you plan on taking.
Quote:I left my max bet out to pad my win. It's not something I've really ever done before and I don't believe I will do it once I begin full-time play except sparingly for cover and not at negative counts.
So, basically, once you were ahead, you stopped being an AP and made some large bets in -EV situations in an attempt to try to win more. It's great that it worked out for you, but, if you're going to take the game seriously, these are the sort of things that will kill you. Your edge is NOT large. If you expect to beat the game long-term, you can't give EV back because you are on a rush and having a good time.
I know that it might seem strange because you just won so much in a short period of time, but at the stakes you are playing, your edge might be a couple of dollars per hand, on average. That's it. If you go and make $400 bets at a 2% or 3% disadvantage, you are giving a big chunk of it back.
Quote: 1BBRevJordan, I'm going to suggest that you purchase the software that is often discussed here and on other forums. If you're not familiar with it someone will tell you. It is worth it.
I took the advice of yourself and others and am now running sims like a madman on CVdata.
A lot of options and most of it is over my head. But I'm having fun and learning.
It's showing me I have a win rate of $84.06 and standard deviation of 92.87 according to the strategy I play as mentioned earlier in the thread. The simulated win rate seems high and the standard deviation makes me nervous.
Will continue to sim and report back.
Quote: RevJordanI took the advice of yourself and others and am now running sims like a madman on CVdata.
A lot of options and most of it is over my head. But I'm having fun and learning.
It's showing me I have a win rate of $84.06 and standard deviation of 92.87 according to the strategy I play as mentioned earlier in the thread. The simulated win rate seems high and the standard deviation makes me nervous.
Will continue to sim and report back.
That can't be right, unless if the units are different. There is no way that the standard deviation is that low compared to the win rate. If that were right, your n_0 would be barely over an hour.
