single and double deck
- Thread starter MentorZQ
- Start date
Disagree
You should always want heads up. You can play 2 spots heads up to create the pen you need at single deck. If you're not heads up you'll never know if you have a dealer who might give you 7 or 8 rounds and some do. If they give you only 5 rounds to 1 then you can spread to two hands to create a 4 rounds to 2 game. Heads up you also get fewer off the top rounds (where you might have to make negative EV cover bets) and a faster game. Preferential shuffling is more likely with other players as the dealer might not be sure they have enough cards to finish the round.
For Single Deck my favorite games are heads up playing 1 or 2 spots or sitting at third base playing two spots on a completely full 7-spot table (rare these days) with a dealer who gives always 2 rounds to 7.
For Double Deck definitely heads up. The count moves less between rounds making bet jumps more gradual and cover betting at the shuffle less expensive (off the top rounds make up a smaller percentage of overall rounds).
You should always want heads up. You can play 2 spots heads up to create the pen you need at single deck. If you're not heads up you'll never know if you have a dealer who might give you 7 or 8 rounds and some do. If they give you only 5 rounds to 1 then you can spread to two hands to create a 4 rounds to 2 game. Heads up you also get fewer off the top rounds (where you might have to make negative EV cover bets) and a faster game. Preferential shuffling is more likely with other players as the dealer might not be sure they have enough cards to finish the round.
For Single Deck my favorite games are heads up playing 1 or 2 spots or sitting at third base playing two spots on a completely full 7-spot table (rare these days) with a dealer who gives always 2 rounds to 7.
For Double Deck definitely heads up. The count moves less between rounds making bet jumps more gradual and cover betting at the shuffle less expensive (off the top rounds make up a smaller percentage of overall rounds).
With all due respect your reply is wrong. 1 player with the ability to jump to 2 spots when needed is much better than two players each playing one spot.
Problem is you cannot control the other player. Let's say 2 rounds go by and no aces come out. Now he jumps to 2 spots, to try to get those aces. You just had your advantageous situation ruined by the other player.
Heads up is always ideal. It's not even close.
Problem is you cannot control the other player. Let's say 2 rounds go by and no aces come out. Now he jumps to 2 spots, to try to get those aces. You just had your advantageous situation ruined by the other player.
Heads up is always ideal. It's not even close.
Assuming that the OP is talking about the win rate for a card counter, I'm having a hard time believing that someone would argue otherwise.
If we're talking about a ploppy or even a BS player, the optimal number of players would be: As FULL of a table as you can get. The slower the game goes, the less everyone loses in the long term.
There ARE some advanced AP techniques, with or WITHOUT team play; when certain table configurations are desired, and even sometimes are imperative. But I don't think that that's what the OP had in mind here.
If we're talking about a ploppy or even a BS player, the optimal number of players would be: As FULL of a table as you can get. The slower the game goes, the less everyone loses in the long term.
There ARE some advanced AP techniques, with or WITHOUT team play; when certain table configurations are desired, and even sometimes are imperative. But I don't think that that's what the OP had in mind here.
Respect back at ya.
The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
bj bob said:
Respect back at ya. The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
Nearly every floor-person immediately learns to be vigilant of players starting with one hand and spreading to two hands.
The way to go is to play TWO hands 'off the top' and spread to 2 hands if indicated; reduce from 2 hands to 1 hand as needed; but never spread to two hands after you have played a round with one hand.
The way to go is to play TWO hands 'off the top' and spread to 2 hands if indicated; reduce from 2 hands to 1 hand as needed; but never spread to two hands after you have played a round with one hand.
I've ran sims that show decreases across the board, but it's only a few points for each category. Of course heads up provides the best figures, but DD with 7 spots being played has a decrease of about 4 points for SCORE, a few bucks for WR/hr and less than 1,000 N0 added.
So is "2/3 other players" more of a personal preference? I guess I can see that 7 spots takes a helluva lot more time to play through than heads up or 2/3 other players, resulting in less hands/hr.
So is "2/3 other players" more of a personal preference? I guess I can see that 7 spots takes a helluva lot more time to play through than heads up or 2/3 other players, resulting in less hands/hr.
You got it. A DD table with say 4 other players really slows down the hands/hr. When 5 players (including me) are sitting at the same table, there are invariably going to be glitches in the "flow", someone wants more color, another guy is telling the dealer to call over a cocktail waitress, another bozo can't find his players card etc. Then there are the idiots who ponder "tough" hands e.g. 16 v.7 A7, v 10 "should I dd this 10 vs Dealers Queen this time?". Not to mention your second spot is in more jeopardy on a crowded table and the infamous "Could you put out that cigarette?" even when I was there long before anyone else.
The only things that will keep me at a crowded table is great pen or the lack of any other available tables.
The only things that will keep me at a crowded table is great pen or the lack of any other available tables.
bj bob said:
Respect back at ya. The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
The primary problem with spreading to 2 hands in SD is HEAT It can get pretty toasty on a heads-up SD table when you are, in effect using a 1:8 spread. Been there, done that.Starting the deck with 2 spots may be feasible. Secondly, if we assume the normal player/dealer card per hand content (2.7-2.8) and then compare a dealer dealing 7 rounds to one player vs. 5 rounds to 2 players, we get a net gain of 2.5 cards/ deck or about 5%. That difference in pen. is significant in SD. As far as a second player is concerned, you're presuming an intelligence level exceeding room temperature, where I am not.
With double deck, less players is always better. Double deck, despite being a pitch game, really plays much more like a shoe game unless you have really really deep penetration. You have to spread big at double deck and consequently you usually have to use multiple unit random bets off the top. More players means you have more off the top bets as a percentage of your total number of wagers which really cost you in terms of win rate and variance. Playing alone maybe 1 out of 8 or 9 rounds is a shuffle bet. At a full table one in 3 o 4 rounds is a shuffle bet. (Same thing applies somewhat in single deck, fewer players means fewer off the top bets with no advantage and multiple unit cover bets).
Last edited:
