Multi Seat Betting: Diminishing Returns or Possible to Go Negative?

If a casino allowed it, could a player actually hurt their bankroll by playing every spot? It is assumed that at a positive count, going to multiple spots increases the players chances of catching good hands. However, doesn't it also mean that, with more at risk, the player could lose more if the dealer just happens to catch the "good" hand (even doing so multiple times)? The dealer has just as much of a chance of drawing the 20 or BJ as any individual spot.

Quote: Ayecarumba

If a casino allowed it, could a player actually hurt their bankroll by playing every spot? It is assumed that at a positive count, going to multiple spots increases the players chances of catching good hands. However, doesn't it also mean that, with more at risk, the player could lose more if the dealer just happens to catch the "good" hand (even doing so multiple times)? The dealer has just as much of a chance of drawing the 20 or BJ as any individual spot.

I guess on the face of it, or over short-term variance, a player could bust out faster, because of exactly what you say. But if it's an advantage over the long run to one hand, I would think it's an advantage to all, and so what you're really asking is whether counting itself works. My understanding is it does, so as long as the player has the bankroll to get through a run of bad variance, it should be an advantage to take a maximum position on as many hands as possible. Again, assuming the casino will let the player spread that far.

In +EV rounds, to maximize EV, the player should bet on only one hand. Bet $500 on one spot instead of betting $100 on 5 spots. If you play 5 spots, you're hurting yourself because you get less rounds in. To reduce variance (while reducing EV), bet 5 spots of $100 instead of 1 spot of $500.

Catching the good cards or likelihood of catching a good card doesn't even make sense.

Quote: RS

...Catching the good cards or likelihood of catching a good card doesn't even make sense.

Thanks. What I mean is that if the count is positive for the round, doesn't that also mean the count is positive for the dealer's hand too? The dealer has the same chance of catching a 20 or BJ as the player. Playing multiple spots in that situation allows the player to have two or more chances to have good hands vs. the dealer's one. The downside is the round when the dealer is the one with good cards, and all the other spots are big bets that end up with 15's and 16's.

Quote: Ayecarumba

if the count is positive for the round, doesn't that also mean the count is positive for the dealer's hand too?

Yes, but the dealer plays under different rules than players following basic.

Dealer blackjacks don't get paid 3:2.

Quote: Ayecarumba

If a casino allowed it, could a player actually hurt their bankroll by playing every spot? It is assumed that at a positive count, going to multiple spots increases the players chances of catching good hands. However, doesn't it also mean that, with more at risk, the player could lose more if the dealer just happens to catch the "good" hand (even doing so multiple times)? The dealer has just as much of a chance of drawing the 20 or BJ as any individual spot.

No, not with appropriate bet sizing. It does NOT increase risk, it reduces variance--and can be used to reduce risk. This is why counters do it. Yes you could lose more (because you are betting more in a positive count), and of course you could win more (because you are betting more in a positive count). The reality is it increases your chances of a push. If there were 6 spots, you would NOT divide your bet by 6 and put 1/6 of it in each spot. Instead, you bet slightly more than 1/6 on each spot because of the reduced variance. However, after 3 spots, this really becomes insignificant..most won't go beyond 2. So thered be no point to betting more than half the table. If you use inappropriate bet sizing like RS suggests, this would hurt your bankroll GROWTH, but reduce your risk.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Thanks. What I mean is that if the count is positive for the round, doesn't that also mean the count is positive for the dealer's hand too? The dealer has the same chance of catching a 20 or BJ as the player. Playing multiple spots in that situation allows the player to have two or more chances to have good hands vs. the dealer's one. The downside is the round when the dealer is the one with good cards, and all the other spots are big bets that end up with 15's and 16's.

Yes the count is positive for the dealer. Yes you correctly identified an unfortunate situation that sometimes occurs. This doesn't matter. If you are suggesting that counting does not work, or that playing multiple hands does not work for its intended purpose (which is NOT to have 2x odds of catching cards against the dealer), you are incorrect. However, playing multiple hands may be a good idea to prevent other players from playing as many rounds in positive counts.

The count is a ratio or rather how overpopulated a part of the shoe is, either rich or deficit of good cards. That ratio (TC) tends to stay constant and does not tend to 0. If you're at a TC +3, you expect to remain at a TC +3 throughout the rest of the shoe. You do not expect the TC to approach 0 if it is currently +3. So, it's not like "the good cards are gonna start coming out now, and in a few rounds I'll be back at a TC 0".

I'm thinking OP may be under the impression that the TC always tends toward 0, which would explain the confusion.

Quote: RS

The count is a ratio or rather how overpopulated a part of the shoe is, either rich or deficit of good cards. That ratio (TC) tends to stay constant and does not tend to 0. If you're at a TC +3, you expect to remain at a TC +3 throughout the rest of the shoe. You do not expect the TC to approach 0 if it is currently +3. So, it's not like "the good cards are gonna start coming out now, and in a few rounds I'll be back at a TC 0".

I'm thinking OP may be under the impression that the TC always tends toward 0, which would explain the confusion.

I really don't think he has nearly that much of a grasp on it. I'd consider that AP-level thinking to question what happens to TC. I think he doesn't understand that the player having the ability to stand before reaching 17 where the dealer cannot is part of the advantage; and that when the count and bet are high, the dealer is more likely to bust his bust cards, and any stiff hand. Or that blackjacks and potential blackjacks pay 150% to the player and somewhere in the neighborhood of 99% to the dealer for counters. I'm making a giant leap and assuming he knows the dealer cannot double down, at least not when the count is high.

Quote: Sonuvabish

... The reality is it increases your chances of a push. If there were 6 spots, you would NOT divide your bet by 6 and put 1/6 of it in each spot. Instead, you bet slightly more than 1/6 on each spot because of the reduced variance. However, after 3 spots, this really becomes insignificant..most won't go beyond 2. So thered be no point to betting more than half the table. If you use inappropriate bet sizing like RS suggests, this would hurt your bankroll GROWTH, but reduce your risk.

Thank you for the information. I know the rules of the game, but am not an AP or counter by any stretch of the imagination. I know the casino will not let players take all the spots, and forces plyaers to increase their bet size when they take multiple spots. Bankroll management and appropriate bet sizing in this situation are currently two steps beyond me. I assumed if you have a positive count, you should maximize the exposure of your bankroll to it by increasing your bet size, and betting multiple spots. Howver, it appears that there is a limit to the advantage of multiple spots, and the limit is not for the reasons I originally thought.

Quote: RS

The count is a ratio or rather how overpopulated a part of the shoe is, either rich or deficit of good cards. That ratio (TC) tends to stay constant and does not tend to 0. If you're at a TC +3, you expect to remain at a TC +3 throughout the rest of the shoe. You do not expect the TC to approach 0 if it is currently +3. So, it's not like "the good cards are gonna start coming out now, and in a few rounds I'll be back at a TC 0".

I'm thinking OP may be under the impression that the TC always tends toward 0, which would explain the confusion.

I have to get my mind around this concept. My thinking: The count is dynamic. It changes with each new card identified. If you were allowed to play six spots, and know that many high value cards were used up in the first three hands, would that change your approach to double and split decisions in hands four - six, or would you stick with the count when the round started?

The opportunity to collect additional information about what values may remain before making a decision is why I always thought "third-base" was a coveted spot for advantage players.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Thank you for the information. I know the rules of the game, but am not an AP or counter by any stretch of the imagination. I know the casino will not let players take all the spots, and forces plyaers to increase their bet size when they take multiple spots. Bankroll management and appropriate bet sizing in this situation are currently two steps beyond me. I assumed if you have a positive count, you should maximize the exposure of your bankroll to it by increasing your bet size, and betting multiple spots. Howver, it appears that there is a limit to the advantage of multiple spots, and the limit is not for the reasons I originally thought.

No prob. Some casinos make you double the minimum to play two spots because they don't want a minimum bettor taking up two spots. In a positive count, you should bet a certain percentage of your bankroll; the percentage increases with the count. Most set a max because ultra-high counts are rare. So you do want to max the amount you bet, within reason. Playing multiple hands does not impact your advantage the same way. You bet a little bit more (less on each hand, but more in total) because of reduced variance...which translates into a higher likelihood of a push, or a lower likelihood that you will lose big. Betting multiple hands is good because variance is not good for a counter--we have the advantage, variance can make us lose (also win big, but luck is for ploppies). Also, betting multiple hands gives other players less good cards, so it will increase the number of hands (not rounds) at an advantage if you're not playing heads up. I'm not sure about the math, but that has a positive effect on your expectation versus time spent I'm sure.