Two hands rather than one?

Is it better to play two (or three) hands rather than one?

If every trial were independent of each other, than playing one hand at $200 gives you the same odds as playing two hands at $100. But of course, each hand at blackjack is not independent, particularly when counting cards.

Playing more than one hand seems to better help exploit a card counting strategy, no?

It's better only in the case where there is a more-or-less 50% chance of winning, and you're trying to not lose.

Betting two hands gives you about a 75% chance of not losing both. But it's now about 50% of breaking even, and only 25% for winning.

Quote: austintx

Is it better to play two (or three) hands rather than one?

If every trial were independent of each other, than playing one hand at $200 gives you the same odds as playing two hands at $100. But of course, each hand at blackjack is not independent, particularly when counting cards.

Playing more than one hand seems to better help exploit a card counting strategy, no?

I'm not a counter but from what I've read two hands in blackjack have are slightly correlated for winning and losing. You would reduce variance but not as much as having two hands of blackjack at independent tables. Additionally, in positive counts, the extra blackjack hands would remove cards at a higher rate from the positive count of the deck thereby decreasing the amount of money wagered at a positive count if you are halving your max bet and spreading it to two hands.

Most tables allow you to bet the table max on both hands. So you can further escalate your bet on positive counts. Also, with positive counts, more of the cards come to you, and not the dealer. Lets say it is just you and the dealer, then half of the cards are initially dealt to you. If you are playing two hands, then 2/3 of the cards are coming to you. So in positive counts, you are actually getting more cards relative to the dealer, which seems like a good thing. You are also getting more in bad counts, but then you are wagering less. To me, the fact that you are pulling more cards in your direction in positive counts, may mean that it is better to play two hands rather than one when counting. Tell me if I am wrong.

FYI: I neglected to consider card counting when I replied. And I had just read your $17,500 win thread.

I don't count, so I can't comment on that part.

It would seem to make sense to play solo against the dealer, then suddenly play seven hands against the dealer when the count is good. All of the betting strategies (Kelly, etc.) seem to not take into account increasing the number of hands you play -- just increasing the bet size. I am saying, what about varying the number of hands? Why give the dealer 50% of the good cards? Why wouldn't you want to take 7/8ths? Perhaps it would be easier to be discovered as a counter, that is not the point, the point is mathematically if there are a finite number of good cards during a good count, why would you not want more?

If you don't count, there is no difference to playing two versus one hand other than decreased variance (assuming the amount bet is the same, e.g., 1x$200 vs. 2x$100), because sometimes you'll win one and lose one, resulting in a push. If you do count, there is an advantage to getting more money out on the table in high counts, and most card counters will spread to two hands because they don't like variance either and want a better chance to catch that ten or ace. Other times counters will spread to two hands of low bets to eat up small-value cards when the count is low, but I don't think that's a very common play. Most will just drop out.

I've never been in any casino that lets you play more than two spots.

Well, one thing is certain.
You can't go away from the table muttering about that absolute jerk whose ridiculous playing cost you cards that should have been dealt to you. If its you yourself who are making the decisions about the first hand, that second hand is not going to be subject to someone who "took your cards".

Quote: Lote

I'm not a counter but from what I've read two hands in blackjack have are slightly correlated for winning and losing. You would reduce variance but not as much as having two hands of blackjack at independent tables. Additionally, in positive counts, the extra blackjack hands would remove cards at a higher rate from the positive count of the deck thereby decreasing the amount of money wagered at a positive count if you are halving your max bet and spreading it to two hands.

If you are playing heads up, halving your max bet and spreading to two hands will result in using 50% more cards while betting 50% more money. I've always considered that a wash and would play one hand. If there are other players at the table, spreading is the way to go in positive counts.

Don't forget to spread right before the cut card comes out to get deeper pen.

As always, be careful and know your casino. These are all red flags.

Playing multiple hands is worthwhile only if you have an advantage over the casino, from counting cards and because the rules the casino offers are so liberal that the player has an edge "off the top". If you do have an edge in the game, playing more than one hand is an excellent way of increasing your betting spread both in online blackjack or in land based casino blackjack while you are still appearing like a gambler, rather than a counter.