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

SWFL Blackjack

SWFL Blackjack

Well-Known Member
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.
 
According to BJBBII play two hands when the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table-also if the count is elevated and it appears the last round is about to happen play two or even three hands whether or not other players are at the table.
 
prankster said:
According to BJBBII play two hands when the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table-also if the count is elevated and it appears the last round is about to happen play two or even three hands whether or not other players are at the table.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I thought, however I have been told by some to play two hands in positive counts, even when playing heads up.
 
If the count is elevated and you play one hand, and are heads up against the dealer; you will get half of the cards and the dealer will get the other half. If you play two hands, then you'll get 2/3 of those rich cards vs. 1/3 for the dealer.

I don't have a copy of that book 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.
 
Sucker said:
If the count is elevated and you play one hand, and are heads up against the dealer; you will get half of the cards and the dealer will get the other half. If you play two hands, then you'll get 2/3 of those rich cards vs. 1/3 for the dealer.

I don't have a copy of that book 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.
Click to expand...

It says it in Repeat Until Rich. Perhaps not the most reliable source, however it made me give it a second thought. Thanks sucker. You raise a very valid point regarding the 2/3 vs 1/2 of the rich cards.
 
Sucker said:
If the count is elevated and you play one hand, and are heads up against the dealer; you will get half of the cards and the dealer will get the other half. If you play two hands, then you'll get 2/3 of those rich cards vs. 1/3 for the dealer.

I don't have a copy of that book 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.
Click to expand...

Because if you bet optimally (72%) of your one hand bet on two hands your EV would be slightly lower for the same risk. If you bet 75% for ease your EV would be the same but your RoR would be slightly higher.

For example, playing heads up, if you were going to be dealt 15 rounds at a one hand bet of $40, you would have $600 in action. If you played two hands there would be 10 rounds betting 2x$30 that would be $600 in action.
 
Sucker said:
If the count is elevated and you play one hand, and are heads up against the dealer; you will get half of the cards and the dealer will get the other half. If you play two hands, then you'll get 2/3 of those rich cards vs. 1/3 for the dealer.

I don't have a copy of that book 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.
Click to expand...

Per BJBBII-You should stay with one hand through your strong counts when playing heads up. Multiple hands will use up more cards per dollar bet. If I had to give up all but one of my blackjack books I'd keep BJBBII!:joker:
 
prankster said:
Per BJBBII-You should stay with one hand through your strong counts when playing heads up. Multiple hands will use up more cards per dollar bet. If I had to give up all but one of my blackjack books I'd keep BJBBII!:joker:
Click to expand...

I agree with you Prankster, it is my favorite BJ book by far.
 
Most of the explanations for this issue have to do with high precision of the betting ramp and the risk of ruin. They consider playing two hands as making one bet during one round.
However, consider the following thought process.
When you play one hand with another patron at the table, you play at x hands per hour.
What if that second player were you? Then you’d be playing 2x hands per hour.
If a clone of you with the same bankroll plays along with you, then you’re playing at twice the rate, although you now must have twice the initial bankroll.
If you and your clone were sharing the same bankroll, then your risk of ruin will increase.
However, because you’re playing at twice the rate, the fluctuation is smoother and you get to the expected outcome faster.
The rate of play (hands per hour) is important in smoothing out the curve.
Yes, you do extract more good cards (2/3 you vs 1/3 dealer) if playing two hands.
If a blackjack were to come out, you have twice the chance than the dealer.
Don’t you also have twice the chance of getting “bad” cards as well?
Yes, but bad card situations occur at low wagers.
Good card situations, such as getting an Ace and a ten, occur at high wagers.
At high negative counts, maybe your clone should pull back and wait for the count to rise.
Most people don’t have an inflexible bankroll and rarely bet *precise* Kelly. How do you go from $50 to $65? Two green chips with three red chips on top? No. You push out three green chips.
Most people do what’s comfortable to them.
Are you comfortable betting 2x$25 to 2x$350? Then work backwards to calculate your bankroll.
Would you prefer 2x$10 to 2x$100 instead? Again work backwards and calculate your bankroll.
The concept of bankroll is interesting in that it’s very, very subjective, and will vary based on your life situation. Bankroll isn’t an immobile monolith. Even whether your bankroll is replenishable or not is also subjective, and will also vary based on your life situation.
You can assess your comfort level and determine the min/max bet and bankroll at the same time.
And then choose to play at twice the rate as everyone else by playing two hands.
 
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.
 
ArcticInferno said:
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.
Click to expand...

So are you implying that you would play more than the 2/3 rounds per hour at two hands as opposed to one hand? If so, how many would you say?
 
I think your confusion comes from rounds vs hands, etc.
The concept of "efficiency" that I introduced is new, so most people haven't heard of it.
Most people consider playing two hands per round as one single bet per round that’s spread to two hands.
They think that playing two hands is like betting once, but spread to two hands.
I'm saying that playing two hands per round is like making two distinct bets.
Consider this hypothetical scenario.
There’re two tables, and each table has one patron.
You’re allowed to play one hand in both tables simultaneously.
Because you’re playing two hands simultaneously, you’re playing at twice the rate as other patrons.
Playing two hands alone against the same dealer may seem different from the above two table scenario, but the long-run outcome is the same.
The same dealer busting or getting a blackjack may seem as if your two hands are somehow linked, but that’s just an illusion.
When you consider the two table scenario, then it seems that your bankroll and the risk of ruin aren’t affected at all.
 
burneyj5 said:
For example, playing heads up, if you were going to be dealt 15 rounds at a one hand bet of $40, you would have $600 in action. If you played two hands there would be 10 rounds betting 2x$30 that would be $600 in action.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ArcticInferno said:
I'm saying that playing two hands per round is like making two distinct bets.
may seem as if your two hands are somehow linked, but that’s just an illusion.
.
Click to expand...

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:
 
The high count would mean that the dealer would get more tens to bust his hand, but also more 20s and 21s. You likewise would also get more 20s and 21s. 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 there's one other player, the optimal number of hands to play at any positive count is always (number of spots)-1. and at any negative count is 0.

The only way to truly play more hands per hour in the same amount of time is to have a team all playing on your bankroll. Have one person for every blackjack table and each person would count and spread their bets.
 
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
 
BJFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Blackjack Attack III is completely ignoring the #hands/hr aspect of splitting to two hands.
 
Everyone who thinks playing 1 hand heads up in a shoe game is superior to playing two, do yourselves a favor and run a sim comparing these two betting ramps. You pick the rules and penetration, 6D or 8D. Post the SCORE and winrate/hr, assuming a modest 150 hands/hr for 1 hand and 200 hands/hr for 2 hands.

Ramp 1
-------
TC Bet
0 1x1
1 1x4
2 1x8
3 1x12
4 1x16
5 1x20

Ramp 2
--------
TC Bet
0 2x1
1 2x3
2 2x6
3 2x9
4 2x12
5 2x15
 
ArcticInferno said:
Playing two hands alone against the same dealer may seem different from the above two table scenario, but the long-run outcome is the same.
Click to expand...

The EV is the same but the variance is different because there is covariance between the 2 hands that are played against the same dealer hand. In that sense, the 2 hands are linked. This is very important when it comes to bet sizing and risk management. There is more info on this in the Frequently Asked Questions thread.

sabre said:
Blackjack Attack III is completely ignoring the #hands/hr aspect of splitting to two hands.
Click to expand...

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.

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