BlackJack betting question
March 13th, 2011 at 9:47:34 AM
permalink
When I play BJ I usually play the table minimum of $50 per hand. Understanding that the house always has the edge, but if I play using the basic strategy and I am not counting cards, would I have a better chance of coming out ahead if I continue playing $50 a hand or if I move to a table with a lower minimum and play two $25 hands? Whatever the answer is, why is that the best option?
Thanks
Great site, thanks for all the helpful info.
Thanks
Great site, thanks for all the helpful info.
March 13th, 2011 at 10:05:02 AM
permalink
Playing two $25 hands would have the same expected loss, but lower variance.
So by playing two hands, you have decreased your chance of a big loss over a set period of time. But you have also decreased your chance of a big win.
Another way to look at it: playing two hands will smooth out the ups and downs.
So by playing two hands, you have decreased your chance of a big loss over a set period of time. But you have also decreased your chance of a big win.
Another way to look at it: playing two hands will smooth out the ups and downs.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:20:06 PM
permalink
I agree with the lower variance, however if you are not counting cards you are subject to the house edge. If the house edge is .5% then you will over time, lose .5% of all money bet. It matters not how the bets are spread.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:25:58 PM
permalink
Quote: Another way to look at it: playing two hands will smooth out the ups and downs.[/q
Has anyone ever run any trials regarding playing two hands with slightly different basic strategy? For example, dealer has 9 showing you have a 20 and a 16, stand on 16. Example, dealer has 7 showing you have a 18 and a 15 stand on 15. Example, dealer has 10 showing you have a blackjack and a 16 stand on 16. You get the idea. I have never seen this mentioned as good or bad strategy on countless forumns about two hand playing.IF YOU PLAY "PLAY TO WIN"
March 13th, 2011 at 1:16:41 PM
permalink
The higher the minimum is on the table, the lower the house edge is (usually). So a $50 table usually has a lower house edge than a $10 table (I say $10 here because I’m pretty sure you have to play at least double the minimum at the table in order to play two hands at once). Therefore it’s usually gonna be best to sit at the $50 table cuz your loss PER HAND will be less.Quote: mgreiche...would I have a better chance of coming out ahead if I continue playing $50 a hand or if I move to a table with a lower minimum and play two $25 hands? Whatever the answer is, why is that the best option?
The only other things you have to consider is that those $50 minimum tables may be less crowded, and therefore they deal more hands per hour, which then increases your losses PER HOUR, rather than PER HAND, compared to sitting at a more crowded, lower minimum table. Your losses won't change, though, if for some reason you only sit down and play a fixed amount of hands per session, which most people don’t do.
So, if you can find a $50 table that has several people sitting at it, you can lower your losses per hand AND per hour, overall.
This is incorrect because the rules vary per table, and so therefore, the house edge does as well.Quote: dudestupidPlaying two $25 hands would have the same expected loss...
(You can refer to the Wizard's Vegas blackjack survey which I found very helpful during my last trip to Vegas and it’s on this page.)
OFFICIALLY and justifiably reclaimed my title as SuperHotBlonde!
March 13th, 2011 at 1:22:03 PM
permalink
Quote: only1choiceAnother way to look at it: playing two hands will smooth out the ups and downs.
Has anyone ever run any trials regarding playing two hands with slightly different basic strategy?
For example, dealer has 9 showing you have a 20 and a 16, stand on 16.
Example, dealer has 7 showing you have a 18 and a 15 stand on 15.
Example, dealer has 10 showing you have a blackjack and a 16 stand on 16.
You get the idea. I have never seen this mentioned as good or bad strategy on countless forumns about two hand playing.
I have never seen any such simulation results.
I do not even think any current BJ simulators can even do that.
Years ago in a dealt game of BJ (cards face down, single or double deck) one could not look at the 2nd or 3rd hand until after playing the first. It still may apply today, I do not play much BJ these days.
So in a shoe game where you see all cards and that can give you the chance to play for a push for 2 hands.
There is a website that may answer your question with their Blackjack Simulator
http://www.bjsim.com/default.aspx
It took me just a little time to figure how to adjust each sim, but it answers many questions. I do not think it may answer yours.
I do not know if you can set one BS based off another hand.
I understand your point, but I still think one must play each hand separate from each other.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:08:41 PM
permalink
Speaking of Variance. I was in AC years ago. Arrived Sunday evening and forgot Monday was some New York holiday, Place was packed, Finally got seat at $10 table, Later pregnant wife had tapped out on slots and eventually got her a seat next to me, she knows basic strategy barely. Long story short at 6 am ( closed 6-10 back then ) I was down $600 she was up over $800. Same table !
March 20th, 2011 at 10:51:36 PM
permalink
The only other things you have to consider is that those $50 minimum tables may be less crowded, and therefore they deal more hands per hour, which then increases your losses PER HOUR, rather than PER HAND, compared to sitting at a more crowded, lower minimum table. Your losses won't change, though, if for some reason you only sit down and play a fixed amount of hands per session, which most people don’t do.
I'd just like to maybe make a distinction between "HANDS" per hour and "ROUNDS" per hour.
I'f I'm at a $25 min table that happens to let me spread to two "hands" (spots) at $25 per spot, and also bet $50 per spot if I want, will I not play fewer ROUNDS/hr spreading to two spots than only playing one spot playing, say for simplicity's sake, heads up vs dealer since it it would, by nature, take longer to deal to two spots?
Therefore I must be losing FEWER $ per hour betting 2 spots at $25 compared to one spot at $50, am I not?
When one says the variance is less betting $1 on one spot compared to betting $0.50 cents over two spots, one means the total variance per ROUND is less in total in the latter case.
I'd just like to maybe make a distinction between "HANDS" per hour and "ROUNDS" per hour.
I'f I'm at a $25 min table that happens to let me spread to two "hands" (spots) at $25 per spot, and also bet $50 per spot if I want, will I not play fewer ROUNDS/hr spreading to two spots than only playing one spot playing, say for simplicity's sake, heads up vs dealer since it it would, by nature, take longer to deal to two spots?
Therefore I must be losing FEWER $ per hour betting 2 spots at $25 compared to one spot at $50, am I not?
When one says the variance is less betting $1 on one spot compared to betting $0.50 cents over two spots, one means the total variance per ROUND is less in total in the latter case.
