2 Hands Heads Up
- Thread starter SleightOfHand
- Start date
an experiment one player vs two players against dealer
i set up two simulations with sage blackjack software (no relation, lol).
one player against the dealer of a double deck s17-double10,11 ndas game with 75% pen. player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. i ran the sim for 38 minutes.
then
two players against the dealer of the same game. each player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. this sim was also ran for 38 minutes.
the player heads up with the dealer had a $10,000.00 bankroll and used a $10.00 unit.
each player of the two players against the dealer game had a $5000.00 bankroll and used a $5.00 betting unit.
so just in my mind this may be a fair comparison, where one can compare apples and apples sort of thing.
a comparison of playing one hand heads up against the dealer to a player playing two hands against the dealer.
i set up two simulations with sage blackjack software (no relation, lol).
one player against the dealer of a double deck s17-double10,11 ndas game with 75% pen. player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. i ran the sim for 38 minutes.
then
two players against the dealer of the same game. each player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. this sim was also ran for 38 minutes.
the player heads up with the dealer had a $10,000.00 bankroll and used a $10.00 unit.
each player of the two players against the dealer game had a $5000.00 bankroll and used a $5.00 betting unit.
so just in my mind this may be a fair comparison, where one can compare apples and apples sort of thing.
a comparison of playing one hand heads up against the dealer to a player playing two hands against the dealer.
Attachments
sagefr0g said:
i set up two simulations with sage blackjack software (no relation, lol).
one player against the dealer of a double deck s17-double10,11 ndas game with 75% pen. player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. i ran the sim for 38 minutes.
then
two players against the dealer of the same game. each player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. this sim was also ran for 38 minutes.
the player heads up with the dealer had a $10,000.00 bankroll and used a $10.00 unit.
each player of the two players against the dealer game had a $5000.00 bankroll and used a $5.00 betting unit.
so just in my mind this may be a fair comparison, where one can compare apples and apples sort of thing.
a comparison of playing one hand heads up against the dealer to a player playing two hands against the dealer.
one player against the dealer of a double deck s17-double10,11 ndas game with 75% pen. player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. i ran the sim for 38 minutes.
then
two players against the dealer of the same game. each player used hi/lo and a 1-6 spread. this sim was also ran for 38 minutes.
the player heads up with the dealer had a $10,000.00 bankroll and used a $10.00 unit.
each player of the two players against the dealer game had a $5000.00 bankroll and used a $5.00 betting unit.
so just in my mind this may be a fair comparison, where one can compare apples and apples sort of thing.
a comparison of playing one hand heads up against the dealer to a player playing two hands against the dealer.
i'm wondering about the risk of ruin depicted in the very last image for the one on one player playing two hands.
the ror is so much lower for the player playing two hands?
:whip:i guess the next thing to do is see how the sageblackjack sim true count frequencies compare to the cvcx freq's.
edit: added in comparison of tc's between sims image below.....
Attachments
Last edited:
ok, so looking at all the data that has been presented and a general trust with Schlesinger, playing 1 hand has the advantage of playing slightly more hands at an advantage. However, I still have a belief that the speed at which you are going through the decks makes for a better game in terms of WR assuming the same risk. idk...
that's i guess the 'magic' of covariance.
just, i've noticed when playing two hands as opposed to one hand, it's like a lot of times win one hand, lose the other, i guess if it had of been just one hand maybe lost it or won it. then you could end up winning both or losing both. then you could end up splitting one or both, or doubling one or both, or get snappers on one or both, or make an insurance bet on one or both sort of thing, winning or losing how ever, not to mention i think a whole lot of other combination's of how things could play out.
but what ever, i guess you get all that with like you say making same dollars per hour with less money exposed or more winnings with the same risk to the same roll, depending how your roll is.
i'm not sure what goes on but i guess it's got to do with covariance, however, what ever happens as to what goes on with covariance.:whip:
just my guess is two things, the true count frequencies don't change for going from one to two hands for cvcx and how does one guess what to set the number of hands per hour at for the two ways?
just, i've noticed when playing two hands as opposed to one hand, it's like a lot of times win one hand, lose the other, i guess if it had of been just one hand maybe lost it or won it. then you could end up winning both or losing both. then you could end up splitting one or both, or doubling one or both, or get snappers on one or both, or make an insurance bet on one or both sort of thing, winning or losing how ever, not to mention i think a whole lot of other combination's of how things could play out.
but what ever, i guess you get all that with like you say making same dollars per hour with less money exposed or more winnings with the same risk to the same roll, depending how your roll is.
i'm not sure what goes on but i guess it's got to do with covariance, however, what ever happens as to what goes on with covariance.
:whip:just my guess is two things, the true count frequencies don't change for going from one to two hands for cvcx and how does one guess what to set the number of hands per hour at for the two ways?
Last edited:
Cvdata
cvdata is an excellent program that i recently used in order to come up with my own answers to this problem. The true count frequency is something that is not really as important. If you are playing the same deck, the frequency of seeing a plus count will be the same no matter how many hands you play. (you will just play through that section of the deck faster). The amount of money put down in these positive counts is what you are after though. CVdata shows the amount of money bet (initial bet) at certain true counts. I looked at a true count of +10, and by playing 1 hand only, the player bet 1.07 times as much as a similar two handed spread with the same ROR (.73 x 1 handed amount).
The win rate on the 2 handed sim was still higher though. This was because for each player playing 100 ROUNDS, the 2 handed player plays through many more cards, and many more hands overall, and therefore has more overall money on the table. My conclusion-the win rate figures do not tell the whole story about playing heads up, and a person should only play 1 hand heads up if possible.
cvdata is an excellent program that i recently used in order to come up with my own answers to this problem. The true count frequency is something that is not really as important. If you are playing the same deck, the frequency of seeing a plus count will be the same no matter how many hands you play. (you will just play through that section of the deck faster). The amount of money put down in these positive counts is what you are after though. CVdata shows the amount of money bet (initial bet) at certain true counts. I looked at a true count of +10, and by playing 1 hand only, the player bet 1.07 times as much as a similar two handed spread with the same ROR (.73 x 1 handed amount).
The win rate on the 2 handed sim was still higher though. This was because for each player playing 100 ROUNDS, the 2 handed player plays through many more cards, and many more hands overall, and therefore has more overall money on the table. My conclusion-the win rate figures do not tell the whole story about playing heads up, and a person should only play 1 hand heads up if possible.
sagefr0g said:
i'm not sure what goes on but i guess it's got to do with covariance, however, what ever happens as to what goes on with covariance. :whip:
just my guess is two things, the true count frequencies don't change for going from one to two hands for cvcx and how does one guess what to set the number of hands per hour at for the two ways?
:whip:just my guess is two things, the true count frequencies don't change for going from one to two hands for cvcx and how does one guess what to set the number of hands per hour at for the two ways?
Except to say, the results of playing 2 hands vs same dealer upcard renders the hands not "independent", as indepentdent as they would be had they been played at 2 different tables.
If the dealer has a 6 up, the 2 hands will likely either win if he busts or win if he doesn't. They are tied to the same dealer total.
What co-variance does not mean is that somehow, on average, the way you play 1 hand will in some way effect whether you win the other hand or not.
It's just a way of measuring how closely the results of both hands are tied to the dealer's upcard.
As to your second point, that's exactly why I don't think cvcx is the software of choice to explore this question. I view cvcx more as a "post-sim" calculator than a guy who can handle the effects of various betting in various ways with differing number of people at a table etc. I could be wrong on this lol.
I don't really know why since I have neither except, like you say, it seems to me sometimes frequencies and advantages don't change as I would expect them to in cvcx sims. Which means, really, nothing, obviously.
Like, clearly, if playing heads-up, the dealer will have fewer cards per round since, if the player busts, he will not take an extra card. If he is playing against 6 players, chances are greater he will have to take an extra card because it is less likely all 6 players will bust.
Although i'd guess the effect of the extra cards he may have to take would be diluted over the number of players. But still, an effect.
When cvcx is spreading, it seems to me, the cvcx "x hands"/hr really means "x" rounds"/hr. So you stick "80" in that box, it assumes 80 rounds per hour whether you are playing 1 box or 2 boxes. And most of the stats are based on 80 "rounds" rather than "160" hands.
Not to mention, as you suggest, I don't know how one can blithely assume that, when playing 1 hand at 80 an hour one can also blithely assume one plays the same 80 "rounds" per hour when playing 2 boxes. It just seems logical it would take a little longer to play 80 rounds.
Perhaps, like maybe alot of people, I have problems exactly undersatnding exactly what I am looking at.
Like N0 number of "hands" always seems to be expressed in "hours" not physical rounds. Like if back-counting say. Or even if not but "hours" does not mean 100/hds/hr.
But "hourly" SD seems to be based on physical number of rounds played if, say, back-counting while the 1 round SD is based on a physical round played.
Yet "$won/hand" seems sometimes to be some sort of avg of physical $'s won/round based on # of hands per hour and I have to work hard to figure out what I am supposed to $win if I play 1 round. Or Hand.
This all assuming sometimes the descriptive non-changeable "Hands" may actually, under other circumstances actually mean "rounds".
JUst me making another mountain out of a molehill. Maybe the documenattion addresses such questions and, if it didn't to my satisfaction, and I couldn't figure out what I was looking at by tweaking my variables in multiple sims, I'd just ask the Man Himself and then I'd know what I'm looking at. I'm not gonna waste his time asking when I don't even have this stuff - I have more fun trying to figure it out anyway lol.
Sometimes, I confess, I just wish he'd make life simple for me and just give me EV and SD in units per physical round and N0 in physical rounds played and let me count how many rounds I have played lol.
So the more hands you spread to the more action you get get on the table keeping a similar RoR but spreading to many hands increases cards per round which decreases the betting oppertunities for the counter to capitalize on. Iinteresting.
Just btw tho the dealer uses 2.9 cards on average while the player uses 2.7 cards each round.
Just btw tho the dealer uses 2.9 cards on average while the player uses 2.7 cards each round.
Last edited:
Wong has some stuff on this in Professional Blackjack, pages 231 thru 234.
just for instance for a single deck game he says a player of average speed might get in a heads up game that deals out seven rounds before shuffling about 177 rounds/hr.
he then says add another player (imagine instead another hand for you) and the number of rounds between shuffles would be about five, the speed will be cut to about 126 rounds/hr.
i guess this means you'd actually be getting to shuffles quicker and i guess that means the ratio of playing time to sitting while shuffling is done would become such that you'd see more shuffling, hence more time not playing.:whip:
so it would seem speed would actually be cut down by playing two hands heads up against the dealer instead of one hand.
Wong makes an additional statement that the more hands played also means playing against more freshly shuffled cards, since there would be less rounds per shuffle played. where you would actually prefer to play longer against a shuffle where you have seen some cards, than more times against a new shuffle where you haven't seen any cards.
well, really here Wong was writing about playing heads up as opposed to playing against the dealer with other players at the table, so i really don't know if i'm looking at this scenario properly.:whip:
just for instance for a single deck game he says a player of average speed might get in a heads up game that deals out seven rounds before shuffling about 177 rounds/hr.
he then says add another player (imagine instead another hand for you) and the number of rounds between shuffles would be about five, the speed will be cut to about 126 rounds/hr.
i guess this means you'd actually be getting to shuffles quicker and i guess that means the ratio of playing time to sitting while shuffling is done would become such that you'd see more shuffling, hence more time not playing.
:whip:so it would seem speed would actually be cut down by playing two hands heads up against the dealer instead of one hand.
Wong makes an additional statement that the more hands played also means playing against more freshly shuffled cards, since there would be less rounds per shuffle played. where you would actually prefer to play longer against a shuffle where you have seen some cards, than more times against a new shuffle where you haven't seen any cards.
well, really here Wong was writing about playing heads up as opposed to playing against the dealer with other players at the table, so i really don't know if i'm looking at this scenario properly.
:whip:
sagefr0g said:
Wong has some stuff on this in Professional Blackjack, pages 231 thru 234.
just for instance for a single deck game he says a player of average speed might get in a heads up game that deals out seven rounds before shuffling about 177 rounds/hr.
he then says add another player (imagine instead another hand for you) and the number of rounds between shuffles would be about five, the speed will be cut to about 126 rounds/hr.
i guess this means you'd actually be getting to shuffles quicker and i guess that means the ratio of playing time to sitting while shuffling is done would become such that you'd see more shuffling, hence more time not playing.:whip:
so it would seem speed would actually be cut down by playing two hands heads up against the dealer instead of one hand.
Wong makes an additional statement that the more hands played also means playing against more freshly shuffled cards, since there would be less rounds per shuffle played. where you would actually prefer to play longer against a shuffle where you have seen some cards, than more times against a new shuffle where you haven't seen any cards.
well, really here Wong was writing about playing heads up as opposed to playing against the dealer with other players at the table, so i really don't know if i'm looking at this scenario properly.:whip:
just for instance for a single deck game he says a player of average speed might get in a heads up game that deals out seven rounds before shuffling about 177 rounds/hr.
he then says add another player (imagine instead another hand for you) and the number of rounds between shuffles would be about five, the speed will be cut to about 126 rounds/hr.
i guess this means you'd actually be getting to shuffles quicker and i guess that means the ratio of playing time to sitting while shuffling is done would become such that you'd see more shuffling, hence more time not playing.
:whip:so it would seem speed would actually be cut down by playing two hands heads up against the dealer instead of one hand.
Wong makes an additional statement that the more hands played also means playing against more freshly shuffled cards, since there would be less rounds per shuffle played. where you would actually prefer to play longer against a shuffle where you have seen some cards, than more times against a new shuffle where you haven't seen any cards.
well, really here Wong was writing about playing heads up as opposed to playing against the dealer with other players at the table, so i really don't know if i'm looking at this scenario properly.
:whip:
MMk well lets say we are talking a deeply dealt 6D game with an ASM. The shuffle time is very small compared to the dealing time. What about now?