When the Count is High should I play 2 hands of 100 or 1 hand for 200?

Bendtackle said:
Maybe EV is not a good word to use. Lets say you are playing a six deck shoe and there are 3 decks gone. Lets say the running count is 30, so therefore the true count would be 10. The count will only be this high for so long. There is a higher chance the count will decrease than increase. Also the shoe will last longer the lesser the amount of people in the hand (If you are lucky and the count stays high). So when the count is high it is always better to have less hands on the table. This being said if you are playing two hands you are adding another hand to the table, therefore sucking up the good cards. Is it worth it to suck up the good cards just to decrease variability?
Click to expand...

Also think of this. Would you rather your be eating up a larger portion of the cards in a high TC or do you want to share them with the average Joe next to you? Somebody has to get the cards, why not you? And a high count does not mean it's more likely to decrease.
 
SleightOfHand said:
I'm sorry, but you are the one that has made the error here. Your base assumption that playing multiple hands will make the TC faster is incorrect. The True Count Theorem states that the expected true count for the next round will be the same as the true count of the round preceding it. The true count does not dictate whether the count will increase or decrease, rather it tells you the composition of the deck. If there are other players at the table, it is better to have (at least) 2 hands rather than 1 during positive counts. The more players there are, the more hands it is optimal to play (This is only the mathematical answer. Practically, playing more than 2 will most likely raise suspicion). You made an incorrect assumption about an aspect of the game, which led you to create an incorrect conclusion. This is why the answers given did not satisfy the criteria for your question.

Heads up, it is slightly better mathematically to play 1 hand than 2, although in a practical setting, I would argue that 2 will almost always be better (much higher wr at the cost of a little bit of SCORE).

So to answer your question, in general, 2x100 > 1x200, although as others have stated, if you want to keep your RoR the same, 2x150 > 2x100 > 1x200
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post. I did not add in the factor that there are less cards remaining, so that even though the running count will most likely go down, the true count will on average stay the same. So my conclusion that the true count will most likely go down is incorrect. Great insight this really helped.

On another note, I want to clarify my understanding of SCORE. If I were to simulate $100 on one hand 1,000,000 times and do the same for two hands at $50, SCORE would tell me I would have more money in the end on average with the $100 on one hand? Is this correct? The reason you say to split is because it is not worth that small amount because of the risk?
 
I think this is where you confusion stems:

"drawing cards in high counts tends to cause the running count to fall, and drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to fall. But the expected true count is unchanged."

quote from:

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

which sleight alluded to

Read, and digest :)

edit: wait a sec, should that quote be "drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to rise"? now I am confused, is there a typo in the original true count theorem!?
 
assume_R said:
I think this is where you confusion stems:

"drawing cards in high counts tends to cause the running count to fall, and drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to fall. But the expected true count is unchanged."

quote from:

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

which sleight alluded to

Read, and digest :)

edit: wait a sec, should that quote be "drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to rise"? now I am confused, is there a typo in the original true count theorem!?
Click to expand...

Yea.. looks like a typo, unless "rise" and "fall" means to increase / decrease the distance from 0.
 
So just to clarify for every1 else, this is what the true count theorem should say about this:

Drawing cards in positive counts tends to cause the running count to decrease and get closer to 0, and drawing cards in negative counts tends to cause the running count to increase and get closer to 0. But the expected true count is unchanged.
 
Bendtackle said:
If your max bet is the size of your entire bankroll, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous. I never stated that anywhere.
Click to expand...

Maybe I interpreted it wrong but I read, "$200 is the max amount I can afford to bet".

I guess I need a clarification of what you mean by "afford". In terms of bankroll? Heat? Risk? Table max?

For heat, playing multiple hands will substantially increase it.

For risk, if you play two hands of $200 when you would normally play one, you would double your risk but increase your winrate. I'll reiterate that playing two hands of $150 will increase your winrate without increasing risk. In terms of ROR, if you can "afford" one $200 hand, you can "afford" two $150 hands (even though $300 is on the table).

Anyways, if you're not too worried about heat, playing multiple hands is always better for your bottom line in terms of getting in more hands per hour and achieving a higher winrate, as long as you understand optimum betting. Yes, it is worth it to "suck up more good cards"...you're utilizing them.

edit: Additionally, playing multiple spots "defends" them from being taken by ploppies who you do not want slowing the game down, getting your good cards in the high counts, etc. Also, in my experience, jumping around from 1-3 hands pisses off ploppies more than anything (even though them not hitting A-7 vs 10 or 12 vs 3 messes up the imaginary sacred "flow" just as much) ...thus causing more of them to stay off your table and again letting you play faster and get more of the good cards.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why you guys are making it so complicated. The OP simply asked which choice is better at high counts: (a) two hands each with $100; (b) one hand with $200.

(a) or (b)?
 
The answer to the original question is that you should play the same number of hands as you would for your min bet to obtain the best SCORE.
 
SleightOfHand said:
Yea.. looks like a typo, unless "rise" and "fall" means to increase / decrease the distance from 0.
Click to expand...

"The running count must be zero at the end of the deck. Therefore, drawing cards in high counts tends to cause the running count to fall, and drawing cards in low counts tends to cause the running count to fall. But the expected true count is unchanged. "

right, the bolded part of the quote is a typo. or at least like you say the running count gets closer to zero either way.
 
my two cents

most cardcounters spread to two hands when they have a relatively significant advantage. (i.e.: some just backcount until the hi-lo is around +2 or so and some of them just start betting two hands from the time they sit down until they get up; some guys just bet one hand until it gets around +3 or so and then spread to two hands; some just play at low minimum tables and always play two hands because they can afford to.)

the trend, it seems to me, goes to playing two hands at some point or another IF YOU ARE A CARDCOUNTER. that's not to say that non-cardcounters don't bet two hands. what I'm saying is that if you ARE a cardcounter, you are "PROBABLY" betting two hands at some point or another.

So, my answer to you question is a "suggestion" to consider the possibility of ALWAYS betting one hand. weigh out on the scales the "possibility of adding longevity to you career" versus "reduced variance."

--E.H.H.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top