1 or 2 hands when playing Heads-Up in +TC games

[Automatic Monkey]

...It is mentioned in a different chapter, at the end of the SCORE discussion. As you pointed out, playing 2 hands will usually give you more hands per hour. Another benefit is that the bigger bets (per round) often make up for the fewer number of rounds per shoe.

CVData deals in rounds per hour, no? You're going to get slightly fewer rounds per hour playing two hands against the dealer instead of heads-up.

You also conserve cards playing one hand in that when you bust, surrender, or get a natural on that one hand the dealer won't be drawing any extra cards. This effect is amplified considerably in a NHC game.

 

[burneyj5]

Yes the SCORE will be better, but if I am correct SCORE is based on 100 rounds/hr. But if you are playing two hands you aren't playing the same 100 rounds/hr you would for a single hand heads-up.

 

[Sonny]

You're going to get slightly fewer rounds per hour playing two hands against the dealer instead of heads-up.

Right, but you can often get more money on the table by playing two hands. You are playing fewer rounds but you are betting more on each round. Would you rather play 100 rounds per hour with a $100 bet or 80 rounds per hour with a $150 bet (2x$75)?

If the dealer is a fast shuffler (ASM anyone?) then you might not be missing many hands at all. You will be playing a few extra hands off the top, but that shouldn't affect your advantage much (especially in a shoe game where the extra OTT hands will be minimal). Since the variance is the same for either approach, your main concern is getting more money on the table per unit of time.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Right, but you can often get more money on the table by playing two hands. You are playing fewer rounds but you are betting more on each round. Would you rather play 100 rounds per hour with a $100 bet or 80 rounds per hour with a $150 bet (2x$75)?...

Let me modify the question- real world situation- you're towards the end of a shoe, count is high... would you rather play 2 rounds of $150 or 3 rounds of $100? :grin:

Aside from the elimination of the covariance of playing two hands, with the 3 rounds you get an extra chance to modify your bet should the TC change.

 

[blackjacktilt]

I have been trying to find the answer to this question, however I tend to keep getting different answers. If I'm not mistaken, the reason for playing two hands during positive counts is to take as many good cards from ploppies as possible. However, in a heads up game, the only person you are sharing high cards with is the dealer. That having been said, is it higher EV to play 2 hands heads up than only 1 hand? Not only does it seem that the EV would be very similar, but it seems it would draw less heat only playing one hand instead of suddenly splitting to 2.

Thanks.

In my humble inexperienced explanation it's to get it in when it's good, not to "take cards from ploppys". When the TC is at a certain point, and your bankroll can handle it (of course), it's essential to spread your wagers to increase your edge. Of course, you could also get the hands in which you might have to surrender and possibly take insurance.
It's all about your edge, and you have to have a little bit of gambler in you.
Counting is an edge, but by no means is it a sure thing.

 

[blackjack avenger]

2 is Larger Then 1

According to Blackjack Attack III, you should play one hand when heads-up and 2 hands, each of which should be 73% of the one-hand wager.

BJFan

I believe Don now thinks 2 hands when alone is better or equal? I think it's because of the speed of play argument, which I mentioned. Though, I wonder if he was nagged into it and didn't want to argue the point anymore. Probably Qfit knows the answer to that question.

I still think the most important factor is to play as fast as you can before another player joins you, regardless if one or two hands.

:joker::whip:

 

[distractTHEdealer]

Consider it as spotting for yourself. You call your 2nd hand in when tc is high. A 2nd person that only plays when the count is favorable. You have a 33 percent chance of losing when playing 2 hands (if they are the same value bet) and 50 percent when playing one. Win win, win lose, lose lose, only one of those provides truly negative outcome. In my opinion 2 hands seems like the way to go when TC is comfortably high.

 

[aslan]

As for using up the cards for the number of rounds and money wagered, etc.
At high counts, you win because the dealer busts by pulling out a ten.
At low counts, you try to beat the dealer’s hand without busting first.
At high counts, with a single bust of the dealer, you can win twice.
An important concept in counting is that you want the count to fall, and this drop in count (release of high-value cards) gives you the advantage.
The good cards are used more “efficiently” if you play two hands with the dealer, rather than play two rounds of one hand with the dealer.
Efficiency is a concept that nobody talks about, because I created it.
Fewer cards are used when playing two hands against the dealer in one round.
More cards are used when playing one hand against the dealer in two rounds.
In both scenarios, you make two wagers. However, in the first scenario, fewer cards are used per wager, so the high-value cards are used more efficiently.

Before I read everyone's rebuttal, I want to say that you make some very good points. I have always gone the route of trying to play two or three hands in high counts where possible (and not apt to draw unfavorable attention). The one dread I have is that both or all three hands will be shot down in one fell swoop by a dealer 21 (or blackjack), or all my twenties will get nullified by a dealer twenty. But those scenarios are not strong enough in my mind to overcome the lure of greater chances at naturals, and greater chances than the dealer at good cards in general. Also, if there are others at the table, I would rather eat all the good cards up in a couple of rounds than let the ploppies eat them up because I elect to play one hand. More than once I have been pleased to see a blackjack fall to both of my hands at max bet. Of course, when demon card god, neg'varian', strikes:devil:, you lose twice as fast and twice as much with two hands. :devil::devil:

 

[aslan]

Thank you for this very fine explanation. But that just means that there are two correct answers to the question.

I now understand what the author meant by that statement, and I agree that he's correct. However; he was talking about special conditions, where you're playing optimally to a certain BR. So his statement can be improved upon with a great big IF. Because if your bankroll happens to be large enough that you can afford to play max bet on both hands, then obviously his statement does not apply; and two hands IS the correct answer to the question, because in the long run you're going to be able to get more money onto the table.

Right! Everyone always assumes one is playing his bankroll to the hilt, when that is not always the case.

 

[aslan]

The 2 hands are not somehow linked, they are linked. Often you will lose both, which raises ror. This is why we bet less on "each" hand then we do on 1 hand.

I believe speed is an important factor when playing. One would want to play heads up as fast as possible before another player joins you. So one could test the dealers/your speed when playing 1 or 2 hands. The speed of play, of finishing the shoe faster may make playing 2 hands superior.

:joker::whip:

But you have to agree that where ror is not a consideration (bankroll is enough to absorb double betting), playing two hands at max is better than playing one hand at max, no?

 

[aslan]

If you're the only player, the only time you spread to multiple hands is to get deeper penetration at a high count or bet the table max on several hands.

If you're the only player, I only agree with playing one hand in positive counts if your bankroll and ror calculation are maxed out for the game you're playing. If bankroll is not an issue, playing two hands has to be better than one. For one thing, you are using less cards for getting two bets on the table than with playing one hand at a time; this results in getting more money on the table overall in positive counts. And the other reason is that you have twice the chance of getting naturals and tens over the dealer; this fact is a highly underestimated advantage.

 

[aslan]

CVData deals in rounds per hour, no? You're going to get slightly fewer rounds per hour playing two hands against the dealer instead of heads-up.

You also conserve cards playing one hand in that when you bust, surrender, or get a natural on that one hand the dealer won't be drawing any extra cards. This effect is amplified considerably in a NHC game.

But that would not overcome the waste of cards per bet when playing heads up with one hand, no?

 

[aslan]

Let me modify the question- real world situation- you're towards the end of a shoe, count is high... would you rather play 2 rounds of $150 or 3 rounds of $100? :grin:

Aside from the elimination of the covariance of playing two hands, with the 3 rounds you get an extra chance to modify your bet should the TC change.

You're assuming you would have sufficient cards to play three rounds. In this case, a bird in the hand or two rounds of $150 might be better, since the third hand might not materialize due to small cards, which never ceases to amaze me in high counts. :grin:

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

Thanks!

I would like to thank everybody for the great responses. I am working with a limited bankroll so anything to reduce ROR is definitely a plus.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Helping My Point

But you have to agree that where ror is not a consideration (bankroll is enough to absorb double betting), playing two hands at max is better than playing one hand at max, no?

I agree if 2 spot max bets are an under bet for your bank, then do so. I am a proponent of 2 hands in positive situations at all times when positive.

 

[jack.jackson]

A few years ago, i kept a detailed test on 1 hand vs 2 hands-heads-up. About 6 hours a day, for 6mo. straight for each trial. Using ao2(asc) my cover bets(no large increase) were as such.2d.

+2(x2)
+3/2x2 vs x4
+4/4x4 vs x8

What i noticed after this exhausting year, was playing 1 hand seemed alot more volatile and the variance was substanially higher. Wild swings, in the BR. You either won or lost big. While never, seeming to win at a steady pace. And would on occasion sometimes stay even(or lose) for a few week(s) at a time.

When playing 2 hands, it just felt more rounded, due to less variance, and the trial and effort in watching my BR grow were apparent. Maybe it was just variance or the way i was betting, but the results were significantly better when playing two hands. Also more enjoyable and less stressful.

 

[Multiple dk counter]

Playing two hands

The counter is at a disadvantage against the dealer most of the time, until the count rises, especially toward the end of the shoe when a plus count means more. So why play two hands when you're at a disadvantage? You're just giving money to the casino. I play two hands at 75% of my regular bet (depending on the true count) whenever the count is at least plus three and the shoe is half (or more) played through.

A high count (or any count) is notoriously unreliable early in the shoe in multiple- (six- eight-decks) deck games.

I play in Atlantic City where the eight-deck, hit soft 17 games are unbeatable except for a counter at the top of his game, including index numbers (and much more).

 

[Renzey]

I don't have a copy of that book (BJBBII), but I really would like to hear the authors' reason(s) as to why 1/2 of something good is better than 2/3 of the same thing. Perhaps there really IS a logical explanation; but on the surface it just appears to defy common sense.

You're heads up in a shoe game and the count has just reached max bet territory ($1000 for you). You've been doing the right thing -- that is, betting according to your designed ROR. There are 81 cards left before the cut card emerges.

Playing One Hand: At $1000 and 5.4 cards per completed round, you'll get in 15 hands at $1000 apiece -- or $15,000 worth of action.

Playing Two Hands: At $730 x 2 hands and 8.1 cards per completed round, you will get in 10 rounds of $1460 each -- or $14,600 worth of action.
Note that this slight inferiority might be exacerbated just a tad further by the fact that the dealer is a little more likely to use all of her 2.7 cards per hand, since you'd have to bust both of yours before she would not play her own hand out. Playing only one hand, the dealer's completed hand will use up the minimum of 2.0 cards a smidge more often.

Game Speed: Playing 15 one-handed rounds vs. 10 two-handed rounds is an argument. But it's reasonable to assume that 3 hands -- that is, the dealer's plus the player's two hands will take 50% longer than the dealer's plus the player's single hand. If this is so, then the time element is a wash.
But even if it's not, remember that while game speed is, I believe the most critical component of profitability, these big bet moments are only small snipets of your overall playing/backcounting/small betting elapsed time.

Finally, note that as soon as a second player enters the game, the question is not a close one anymore, and two hands should be played in positive counts.

Counter Point: All the aforementioned stuff has been a purely arithmetical argument. Spookily enough, my own sims show a modestly higher EV and dollar win per 100 rounds by playing two hands heads up thru positive counts. However, I think the "per 100 rounds" may be the fly in the software ointment, since in the example above, it will tack on five extra rounds of additional random play before tabulating each "100 rounds" result when the player plays two hands.

I'm open to further analysis there.

 

[zengrifter]

I mix it up as much and whenever I can - 1 hand, two, three hands - and in both minus and plus EV.
But if I didn't feel the need to mix it up, I would play ONE hand heads up except on the last round. zg

 

[aslan]

You're heads up in a shoe game and the count has just reached max bet territory ($1000 for you). You've been doing the right thing -- that is, betting according to your designed ROR. There are 81 cards left before the cut card emerges.

Playing One Hand: At $1000 and 5.4 cards per completed round, you'll get in 15 hands at $1000 apiece -- or $15,000 worth of action.

Playing Two Hands: At $730 x 2 hands and 8.1 cards per completed round, you will get in 10 rounds of $1460 each -- or $14,600 worth of action.
Note that this slight inferiority might be exacerbated just a tad further by the fact that the dealer is a little more likely to use all of her 2.7 cards per hand, since you'd have to bust both of yours before she would not play her own hand out. Playing only one hand, the dealer's completed hand will use up the minimum of 2.0 cards a smidge more often.

Game Speed: Playing 15 one-handed rounds vs. 10 two-handed rounds is an argument. But it's reasonable to assume that 3 hands -- that is, the dealer's plus the player's two hands will take 50% longer than the dealer's plus the player's single hand. If this is so, then the time element is a wash.
But even if it's not, remember that while game speed is, I believe the most critical component of profitability, these big bet moments are only small snipets of your overall playing/backcounting/small betting elapsed time.

Finally, note that as soon as a second player enters the game, the question is not a close one anymore, and two hands should be played in positive counts.

Counter Point: All the aforementioned stuff has been a purely arithmetical argument. Spookily enough, my own sims show a modestly higher EV and dollar win per 100 rounds by playing two hands heads up thru positive counts. However, I think the "per 100 rounds" may be the fly in the software ointment, since in the example above, it will tack on five extra rounds of additional random play before tabulating each "100 rounds" result when the player plays two hands.

I'm open to further analysis there.

When playing two hands in positive counts, if you look at each round as a separate event, not just you with a specific advantage against the dealer, is it not so that in each of those separate events you have a decided "extra" advantage against the dealer as to obtaining the "good cards" likely to be dealt in positive counts. In fact, just keeping the dealer from having an equal chance for getting those blackjacks is a decided advantage, is it not?