2 hands?

SleightOfHand

SleightOfHand

Well-Known Member
Do casinos give additional heat from playing 2 hands (all) vs 1 hand (all)? Do they see much difference between playing 2 hands of 25-200 vs 1 hand of the same ramp?
 
Playing 2 hands of the same ramp you are winning twice as much money so you should definitely do that. But if 2 hands of 200 is equal to 1 hand of 300 I think the 2 hands of 200 gets less heat than the 1 hand of 300. This definitely is the case if you bet 2 hands of 400 vs. 1 hand of 600 because you cross the psychological line in the pit boss' mind of 500.

Many years ago at the Mirage if you bet 1 hand of $500 they had to call the shift boss, but 2 hands of 450 was fine.

As with everything, individual casino mileage may vary.
 
Sleight

SleightOfHand said:
Do casinos give additional heat from playing 2 hands (all) vs 1 hand (all)? Do they see much difference between playing 2 hands of 25-200 vs 1 hand of the same ramp?
Click to expand...


Good info from Pro.;)

The heat comes also from swinging from 1 to 2, something I do very often. And then of course back and forth, 1 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 1:yikes::juggle:

CP
 
Adding a bit

I agree with pro and panther but would also add that the level of heat increases with the reduction in the number of decks when you go from one hand to two.

Easily, without any significant increase in heat, I can go from one hand to two in a 6 deck game, especially after a loss throwing in a little steamer act.
The same kind of move in a double deck game will get me much more attention. Point being that it is tougher to go from 1 to 2 in double deck.

ihate17
 
It can draw heat. But it's also MUCH better from every statistical perspective you can imagine. Better winrate, lower variance, lower risk of ruin, etc.

So, you decide. I play two hands all the time.
 
moo321 said:
It can draw heat. But it's also MUCH better from every statistical perspective you can imagine. Better winrate, lower variance, lower risk of ruin, etc.


So, you decide. I play two hands all the time
Click to expand...

Don't forget about the extra cards that two hands uses up. You'd usually like to play 1 hand in neutral and negative counts -- and two hands at 70-to-75% of your single hand max in positive counts providing there's at least one other player at the table.

Playing two hands in neutral and negative counts uses up 15% to 50% more cards per round -- but takes twice as much money per round to do that at the table minimum. Not a good trade-off.

Now if your single hand unit were $25 at a $15 minimum table, and you dropped to two hands of $15 at undesirable counts, that would be worth it at a 1-to-3 handed table -- but not at 4-handed and above.

This of course is all just mathematically speaking. There are places I simply won't go to two hands because of the potential for heat after having already ramped up.
 
Last edited:
moo321 said:
It can draw heat. But it's also MUCH better from every statistical perspective you can imagine. Better winrate, lower variance, lower risk of ruin, etc.

So, you decide. I play two hands all the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what the studies indicate and is certainly the current common wisdom.
 
Renzey said:
Don't forget about the extra cards that two hands uses up. You'd usually like to play 1 hand in neutral and negative counts -- and two hands at 70-to-75% of your single hand max in positive counts providing there's at least one other player at the table.

Playing two hands in neutral and negative counts uses up 15% to 50% more cards per round -- but takes twice as much money per round to do that at the table minimum. Not a good trade-off.

Now if your single hand unit were $25 at a $15 minimum table, and you dropped to two hands of $15 at undesirable counts, that would be worth it at a 1-to-3 handed table -- but not at 4-handed and above.

This of course is all just mathematically speaking. There are places I simply won't go to two hands because of the potential for heat after having already ramped up.
Click to expand...

So if you are playing heads up is it better for the winrate to just play one hand for your max bet or even if you are heads up should you have 2 hands for your max bet?
 
1357111317 said:
So if you are playing heads up is it better for the winrate to just play one hand for your max bet or even if you are heads up should you have 2 hands for your max bet?
Click to expand...

First, if your max bet for one hand is say, $300, your max bet on each of two hands should be roughly $220 to keep your "gambling stakes" the same since they're both played against the same dealer's hand.

But if you're heads up in a positive count, playing two hands will use up 8.1 of those precious cards to get $440 in action -- or $54.32 per card used.

Playing one hand will use up 5.4 cards on $300 worth of action -- or $55.55 per card used.

With at least one other player at the table, those stats begin to reverse. And the more players, the better it is to play two hands in positive counts. But not in negative counts unless you can cut the size of your single unit down substantially.
 
Last edited:
Renzey

Renzey said:
First, if your max bet for one hand is say, $300, your max bet on each of two hands should be roughly $220 to keep your "gambling stakes" the same since they're both played against the same dealer's hand.

But if you're heads up in a positive count, playing two hands will use up 8.1 of those precious cards to get $440 in action -- or $54.32 per card used.

Playing one hand will use up 5.4 cards on $300 worth of action -- or $55.55 per card used.

With at least one other player at the table, those stats begin to reverse. And the more players, the better it is to play two hands in positive counts. But not in negative counts unless you can cut the size of your single unit down substantially.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

That was well explained and good info. Especially for me as I look for heads up but because I face the hide rule am forced to go to two, but I have another great game with no hide and I have been playing as you have suggested in the above.;)

CP
 
1357111317 said:
I did a quick heads up sim in CVCX and a 1-2x6 ouperformed a 1-9 by about 25%. Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

What exactly is a "1-2 x 6"? Does it play two hands of 6u at a count where you would've played one hand of 9u? Does it also play two hands of 4u where you would've played one hand of 6u, etc. And do they both bet one hand of 1u at all non-advantaged counts played?

If all this is so, then I have to say those results are highly questionable. You can see with basic arithmetic that at 2.7 cards per completed hand, playing heads up you get more units on the felt at positive counts by playing one hand of 9u rather than two hands of 6u each while running thru any given slug of positive cards. Right now, I don't know what else to say.
 
Yeah I just let cvcx calculate optimal spreads. One thing about your math though. You calculated something like 55.5$ per card with 1 hand and 54.2$ or something with two hands. Lets just ballpark and say you have a 5% advantage at that point. That extra dollar will only make you 5 cents a hand which seems basically negliable at that betting level.

Lets look at a different situation now. Lets say its a no hole cards game with surrender. The cards per hand will be much less since theh dealer won't take a card when you bust or surrender. In this situation is it even better to only play one hand since that way the dealer wont have to take a second card much more often since you are only playing one hand?
 
1357111317 said:
Yeah I just let cvcx calculate optimal spreads. One thing about your math though. You calculated something like 55.5$ per card with 1 hand and 54.2$ or something with two hands. Lets just ballpark and say you have a 5% advantage at that point. That extra dollar will only make you 5 cents a hand which seems basically negliable at that betting level.

Lets look at a different situation now. Lets say its a no hole cards game with surrender. The cards per hand will be much less since theh dealer won't take a card when you bust or surrender. In this situation is it even better to only play one hand since that way the dealer wont have to take a second card much more often since you are only playing one hand?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point I hadn't considered. Actually, my original figures assumed the dealer will always play her hand out. And based on that, it's marginally better to play one hand in high counts when you're heads up. But even in a regular game, the dealer doesn't always play her hand out -- and the fewer player hands there are, the more often this will happen, which widens the efficiency gap between playing one hand vs. two when you're heads up.

Perhaps Norm or someone has stats on how many cards are contained in a dealer's hand depending upon the number of players.
 
Yeah I guess that is not considered when playings heads up. My guess is that during high counts the average number of cards played heads up with no hole card and surrender would be closer to 4 per round than 5 per round. Any blackjack against a non face or ace, the 15% of the time the player busts or anytime a player surrenders the dealer only takes one card.
 
Fred,
Does playing two hands offer any advantage, at all, for a basic strategy player? I'm trying to decide if it means LOSING faster, or slower.
 
multi hand trick!

Sometimes if the count is negative and the dealer is boarder line shuffle or one more hand you can spread to two or three hands to force the shuffle. This only works in one or two deck games other wise the red cut card tells the dealer when to shuffle. If the count is positive on a boarder line shuffle you also might not want to play too many hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top