Two More Stupid Blackjack Questions
1) In a situation in which the dealer doesn't draw any cards, such as all the players busting or having blackjack, the dealer still flips over the hidden (down?) card. What's the purpose of this? If the answer is just that it's customary or historical or what's always been done, then I don't care. I really just wonder if there is a reasonable reason why this should be done. I guess it seemed to me that if the casinos really want to cut down on card counters, why bother to flip over that card. All the players are out of the hand, there's no need for them to know that card. Granted, one card probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but the casinos are already burning off 1-3 cards from the top of the shoe, another card when the dealer changes, and only doing 75% penetration. Why not jump at the chance to hide yet another card?
2) I watched a guy playing two hands at a time, in a strange, at least to me, way. At the start of any shoe, he would play two hands. The casino required that he bet twice as much as the minimum on each hand, which he did. So he was playing 2 units each on 2 spaces. He would do this until he took a couple of losses on one or the other hand, or if he had a situation in which he lost both hands. Then he would go back down to playing 1 unit on 1 space. At a new shoe, he would be back to 2 units each on 2 spaces.
My question is actually in regard to card counting. I know that a lot of (all?) card counting systems have times when they indicate that the counter should bet more. So, when cards are unfavorable, the counter bets 1 unit, or 0 units. When the count becomes favorable, the counter should be betting 2 units or 4 units or 16 units, or whatever.
So, if the count gets to a point where you should be betting 4 units, is it better to bet 4 units on 1 hand, or 2 units each on 2 hands?
Similarly, if the count indicates to bet 4 units, would you be better off to bet 4 units each on 2 hands?
Regarding the other matter, I have a question myself. Has it ever been proven that there is an advantage to playing two hands instead of just betting the same amount in one hand? Is this essentially your question too? [I assume it has nothing to do with table limit]
When a new player wants to join a game, but is unable because one or more current players are playing multiple hands, what is the custom? I assumed the dealer would ask a player playing multiple hands to give up one and allow the new entrant, but a recent experience at the Mirage showed me to be dead wrong in that assumption. (Save your ass+u+me jokes, thanks.) What's the norm?
Quote: SonofLPBWhen a new player wants to join a game, but is unable because one or more current players are playing multiple hands, what is the custom? I assumed the dealer would ask a player playing multiple hands to give up one and allow the new entrant, but a recent experience at the Mirage showed me to be dead wrong in that assumption. (Save your ass+u+me jokes, thanks.) What's the norm?
It really depends on the gaming jurisdiction and how many casinos are competing for your dollars. In limited gaming markets, they will most likely have the multiple-seat holder to give up one to allow you to play. If you don't get that seat, you may leave and they don't want that to happen.
In Vegas, it's probably going to be okay for you to find another table. There are plenty of tables, not only at the Mirage, but at other MGM casinos so they're going to let the guy who is playing more money have two seats. Then again, it depends on shift managers, pit staff, how much the person is betting, etc.
So to answer your question, there is no set policy from casino to casino. However, if you see a sign on a table that says you may be asked to give up a seat if playing multiple hands, then definitely bring it up.
Quote: konceptumCouple of questions that came to my mind at my most recent outing.
1) In a situation in which the dealer doesn't draw any cards, such as all the players busting or having blackjack, the dealer still flips over the hidden (down?) card. What's the purpose of this? If the answer is just that it's customary or historical or what's always been done, then I don't care. I really just wonder if there is a reasonable reason why this should be done. I guess it seemed to me that if the casinos really want to cut down on card counters, why bother to flip over that card. All the players are out of the hand, there's no need for them to know that card. Granted, one card probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but the casinos are already burning off 1-3 cards from the top of the shoe, another card when the dealer changes, and only doing 75% penetration. Why not jump at the chance to hide yet another card?
2) I watched a guy playing two hands at a time, in a strange, at least to me, way. At the start of any shoe, he would play two hands. The casino required that he bet twice as much as the minimum on each hand, which he did. So he was playing 2 units each on 2 spaces. He would do this until he took a couple of losses on one or the other hand, or if he had a situation in which he lost both hands. Then he would go back down to playing 1 unit on 1 space. At a new shoe, he would be back to 2 units each on 2 spaces.
My question is actually in regard to card counting. I know that a lot of (all?) card counting systems have times when they indicate that the counter should bet more. So, when cards are unfavorable, the counter bets 1 unit, or 0 units. When the count becomes favorable, the counter should be betting 2 units or 4 units or 16 units, or whatever.
So, if the count gets to a point where you should be betting 4 units, is it better to bet 4 units on 1 hand, or 2 units each on 2 hands?
Similarly, if the count indicates to bet 4 units, would you be better off to bet 4 units each on 2 hands?
1) My guess is it's part tradition, part procedure, and part practicality. The eye is watching the dealer to make sure he's not pulling any funny business with the hole card. I've always seen it done this way, though some dealers flash it very quickly, and would be suspicious of a casino that did not do this.
2) Your guy had a novel way of streak betting, though some counters (and counting systems) will spread to more than one hand based on the count.
I'm surrounded by math geeks on this board, and I'm surprised they haven't chimed in already. The reason why it's better to spread to multiple hands is that it reduces variance. A quick example. Suppose you have $20 available to bet on a hand or two of blackjack. When you put it on one hand, there are four possible results (I'm ignoring double downs, splits, and surrender for now):
a) Blackjack! You win $30
b) You win the hand (+$20)
c) You lose the hand (-$20)
d) You push the hand (0)
With two bets of $10, there is a much wider range of results:
a) Blackjack on both hands!! (+$30)
b) Blackjack on one hand, win the other (+$25)
c) Blackjack on one hand, lose the other (+$5)
d) Blackjack on one hand, push the other (+$15)
e) Win both hands (+$20)
f) Win one hand, lose the other (0)
g) Win one hand, push the other (+$10)
h) Lose both hands (-$20)
i) Lose one hand, push the other (-$10)
So if you have a limited bankroll, and can get away with spreading to two hands, then 2 hands of 2 units is better. 2 hands of 4 units would be overbetting.
Quote: rainmanAction is action the casino doesnt care. If a player gives up one of his spots so u can play he is a nice guy. however the casino wont ask him to do so. First come first serve.
It depends on a casino, but usually they will actually.
Quote: konceptum
2) I watched a guy playing two hands at a time, in a strange, at least to me, way. At the start of any shoe, he would play two hands. The casino required that he bet twice as much as the minimum on each hand, which he did. So he was playing 2 units each on 2 spaces. He would do this until he took a couple of losses on one or the other hand, or if he had a situation in which he lost both hands. Then he would go back down to playing 1 unit on 1 space. At a new shoe, he would be back to 2 units each on 2 spaces.
My question is actually in regard to card counting. I know that a lot of (all?) card counting systems have times when they indicate that the counter should bet more. So, when cards are unfavorable, the counter bets 1 unit, or 0 units. When the count becomes favorable, the counter should be betting 2 units or 4 units or 16 units, or whatever.
So, if the count gets to a point where you should be betting 4 units, is it better to bet 4 units on 1 hand, or 2 units each on 2 hands?
Similarly, if the count indicates to bet 4 units, would you be better off to bet 4 units each on 2 hands?
Playing 2 hands of 2 units has the same Ev as playing 1 hand of 4 units BUT it has a lower variance.
The most important reason of playing 2 hands is to give the impression of a smaller spread and is a form of cover.
Example: Speading 1 hand from 1:12 versus sprading 1 hand 1 unit to 2 hands of 6 units. Gives the impression that the spread is only 6 whereas it is 12.
This though might not work on sophisticated casinos and might be counterproductive.
The second issue to condider is card eating. Even though the Ev is the same in playing 2 hands you eat more cards at a high count playing 2 hands.
This is especially in a situation that you play alone. So the specific Ev might be the same, but the overall Ev might be better playing one hand becasue of the card eating effect.
This does not apply when it is going to be the last round howver many hands you play. (ie the cut card is 2 cards away). Then, if you a high count the best is to spread to as many hands as possible. I have seen a counter playing 6 hands on the last round of a high count (not in the US).
If there are many players, then the opposite applies and it is better to spread to 2 hands. Say there are 4 players including you. If you stay with 1 hand you will be getting 1/4 (25%) of the good hands. If you play 2 hands you will be getting 2/5 (40%) of the good hands. And because variance is reduced playing 2 hands you can bet more money (around 30%) with the same risk of ruin.
Quote: AceTwoPlaying 2 hands of 2 units has the same Ev as playing 1 hand of 4 units
If you get good cards on your first hand, that reduces count, so EV of the second hand is lower. If the first hand is bad, then EV of the second one increases, but probability of this happening is lower than the opposite because the count is high. I think, playing more than one hand at high count decreases the EV, especially when the cut card is out (meaning, that there are few cards left in the deck, and every 10 or ace out will significantly affect the TC).
Consider spreading to six hands with half deck remaining, and running count +3 (TC=+6). If you get a 20 on the first two hands, you get to play the remaining four at a negative count.
