3CP - Multiple Hands?

Assuming a bankroll of say $300, do you think there is any significant benefit to playing two $5 hands of 3CP versus one $10 hand (or vise versa)? And by benefit I mean time at the table.

Quote: blount2000

Assuming a bankroll of say $300, do you think there is any significant benefit to playing two $5 hands of 3CP versus one $10 hand (or vise versa)? And by benefit I mean time at the table.

If you play two hands at Talking Stick, you have to double your bet on one of the hands and play one blind. So you'd increase the house edge to whatever it would be playing blind plus having to pay more to get that increased house edge. So I'd say no.

It's rare to find a casino that'll let you play the ante+play without making one hand blind. Sometimes you can just play the pair plus, but that increases variance which probably decreases time at the table.

I didn't know about the one hand blind rule. I don't like the sound of that!

Regarding the one hand versus two hands, I was mainly curious whether the variance would be higher one way or the other (assuming higher variance can mean less time at the table).


So to take those other rules out of the equation let me ask it this way:

With the assumed $300 bankroll would there be more potential time at the table if I play a single $10 hand by myself, or if me and my son each play $5 hands at the table together?

The entire bankroll is all coming from the same place (my wallet), so it's the same $300 regardless. Those of you with kids know what I'm talking about. :)

Foxwoods lets you play up to 3 hands at once, all at the minimum bet, and you need not play them blind.

In terms of math, there is very little reduction in the house edge by adjusting your strategy on your second and third hands. Seeing 6 cards outside of the dealer's hand pales in comparison to seeing one card in the dealer's hand.

Quote: JB

Foxwoods lets you play up to 3 hands at once, all at the minimum bet, and you need not play them blind.

In terms of math, there is very little reduction in the house edge by adjusting your strategy on your second and third hands. Seeing 6 cards outside of the dealer's hand pales in comparison to seeing one card in the dealer's hand.

I wish you would get that word out!

The reason they make you play one hand blind or other restrictions is that they don't want any shenanigans with card-switching. At one place, I played two hands and they didn't make me play "blind," but they did prohibit me from touching the cards of the second hand. I still made the play/fold decision, but the dealer would flip them over so I didn't have to touch them. Sub-optimal for a hole-carding game since everyone can see you fold that ace-high (or play the garbage), but at least it wasn't blind.

At a casino downtown on my last trip (don't remember which one), they completely prohibited more than 1 hand.

Quote: AcesAndEights

they don't want any shenanigans with card-switching

The way Foxwoods handles this is by placing a clear plastic cover on top of all but one of your hands. You play or fold the hand with no cover; they move the cover from hand 2 to hand 1 and you play that one; if you played 3 hands then they move the cover from hand 3 to hand 2 and you play that one.

deleted

Quote: FarFromVegas

I wish you would get that word out!

Back when Microgaming accepted U.S. players, they released a 5-hand version of Three Card Poker which still used only one deck. If you played all 5 hands, they were all dealt face-up at the same time, so you knew all 15 cards simultaneously. Even by playing 5 hands perfectly when 15 non-dealer-cards are known, the house edge was only reduced by approximately 1%. (That was determined by a simulation since there are 5,855,665,848,586,429,075,200,000 possible combinations of player and dealer hands, which of course is prohibitively large to brute-force.)