Playing multiple hands

[Kingfish]

In a 6 deck shoe game of 21, I believe playing one hand is superior to playing multiple hands. Is there any empirical evidence to support this? Assume using correct basic strategy based on a casino's rules, and using good money management in both situations.

[KenSmith]

For a basic strategy player, there's no difference in the percentage house edge whether you play one hand or two. But there are differences...

If we compare betting $100 on one spot to betting $50 each on two spots over the same number of rounds, the expected loss for a basic strategy player is identical in these two alternatives. However, the variance will be lower on the two-hand option. That is, the net wins and losses will be generally smaller when you're betting two hands instead of one. They'll still average out to the same end-result over many hands, but there will be fewer big winning sessions and fewer big losing sessions.

The other factor that can apply here is speed of the game. Playing two hands of $50 takes more time than playing one hand of $100, so you'll get fewer hands per hour with 2x$50, and that means your expected loss per hour will be lower.

[RavenSlay3r]

Was wondering the same but assuming correct application of Hi-Lo or other favorite basic card-counting/betting strategy on top of B.S.

(Figure standard rules, tables w/ and w/out indexes)

Raven