play 1 hand or 2?

I assume most people will say to play 2 hands of BJ rather than just 1 at a less-than-full table, assuming you can afford it. Is there ever a time (when 2+ spots were available and you could afford to play 2 hands) that you would just play 1? Further, if you were alone at the table, would you ever play more than 2? Is there a point of diminishing returns, or it is "wisest" (i.e., lowest variance) to play every hand at the table, if possible?

I think I would rather play 2 hands of $25 instead of 1 for $50 to reduce my variance, but I generally find that I just play 1 hand for $50.

I'm curious what others do...

supposedly there is an advantage to playing two hands for $25 as opposed to one of $50. I guess a card counter gets more cards to count? but that is not the reason. There is the matter of the minimum for me, usually I don't want to exceed it.

I usually count cards when I play and rarely play 2 hands. For counters, there is no reason why you should play more than one hand while the count is low. You will only be increasing your expected losses. When the count is high I do prefer to play two hands. I would much rather play two $100 hands than one $200 hand. This reduces variance which is a card counters worst enemy. However, playing two hands only when the count is high can also set off red flags, so I don't always do it.

For the average player it all comes down to preference. The more dollars you bet the more you can expect to lose so it just comes down to what level of risk you like. If you play a hand at 5 spots just think of it as playing 5 hands with one spot. Except wins or losses will be strongly correlated, so you can expect a much higher variance. Now if you halve your bet when you do this, like you suggested, then yes you will be reducing variance. Variance is not necessarily good or bad. In a zero variance game you would never win so I don't think that it's always what you want to go for.

Regarding your question on diminishing returns, playing more hands will increase your variance with everything else being held equal. Increasing your bet size will also increase variance. So if you truly desire lowest variance, bet the minimum at one spot.

In positive counts, spreading to more than one hand at the end of the shoe will get you deeper penetration.

Quote: benbakdoff

In positive counts, spreading to more than one hand at the end of the shoe will get you deeper penetration.

Yes, spreading usually does give you deeper penetration...

Oh, wait, we were talking about blackjack. Well I think it is definitely beneficial as you will play more hands at the higher count. I don't think it will actually increase penetration by more than a few cards, though.

Quote: iwannaiguana

Yes, spreading usually does give you deeper penetration...

Double 'like'

Thanks for all of the replies on-topic as well xD