2 or 4 spots?

S

smithj

Well-Known Member
Hello ppl, I have a quick question... at a high true count (let's say > 6), if the casino allows it, would you consider going from 2 to 4 spots? (don't consider heat and this is heads up; 6D, DAS, S17, Surrender)

Thanks,

J.
 
Why would you NOT want to play as many hands as possible at +EV?
A better way to phrase your question would be "What would you rather have - $5 or $10?". Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking.
 
Sucker said:
Why would you NOT want to play as many hands as possible at +EV?
A better way to phrase your question would be "What would you rather have - $5 or $10?". Because that's EXACTLY what you're asking.
Click to expand...

That is only true if that is just before the cut card (i.e. last round before the shoe is shuffled).

IN blackjack attack, there is a section called the optimum number of rounds/hands, so in a positive situations you want as many rounds as possible. Also only the first hand represents the closest to the true count as possible, like the futher away from the first hand, the further your estimation of your advantage is.

In a heads up situations to achieve optimal number of rounds is to play one hand, and just before the cut card play all the boxes (assumnig there is no heat).

Ming
 
The optimal number of hands to play heads up in a positive TC when you aren't near the cut card is 1.

This is due to covariance (all your hands are playing against the same dealer hand ... dealer busts with a 5 showing and you're going to win every hand ... dealer has BJ you lose every hand). and card consumption. Your optimal bet on each of the two hands is around 75% of your optimal single hand bet. When spreading to 3 hands, this drops to 66%.

If heat isn't an issue, you do want to spread to 2 hands with 1 or 2 other people at the table, and 3 hands if there are 3 other people at the table.

When faced with the last round in a positive TC, you want to spread to as many hands as possible ... this is because the issue of card consumption becomes moot. You still need to decrease the size of bets in relation to the number of hands you're playing, due to covariance.
 
Oooook this is something new for me... First, thanks sabre and yc for your reply. You guys are telling me that "since I am playing hu" I should stay in 1 spot even if the true count is > 2 (if I am not closed to the cut)??? :confused:
 
sabre said:
The optimal number of hands to play heads up in a positive TC when you aren't near the cut card is 1.
Click to expand...
There are other reasons to play more than one hand. For example,
1. The table has a relatively low maximum bet and you want to get more money out that you can put on one spot.
2. Some casinos have a threshold for notifying the pit of your bet. As stupid as it is, suppose the dealer calls "checks play" for $200 or more. If you put $150 on 2 spots, they keep quiet.
 
smithj said:
Oooook this is something new for me... First, thanks sabre and yc for your reply. You guys are telling me that "since I am playing hu" I should stay in 1 spot even if the true count is > 2 (if I am not closed to the cut)??? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, and there is one additional thing to add to the card consumption angle: if there is one hand in the game, and you bust your hand or get a natural, the dealer will not play out his hand. This amplifies the card conservation effect when you are playing heads-up.

So to take this a step further, if you are in a negative or neutral count and your minimum bet is significantly higher than the table minimum, you might want to consider spreading to 2 or 3 hands then (at the table minimum.) This eats bad cards more quickly and will force the dealer to draw cards even if you bust a hand. Think of a shoe as like a movie- you can fast-forward through the lousy parts this way and get to the money shots more quickly, at which point you slow it back down.
 
ycming said:
IN blackjack attack, there is a section called the optimum number of rounds/hands, so in a positive situations you want as many rounds as possible. Also only the first hand represents the closest to the true count as possible, like the futher away from the first hand, the further your estimation of your advantage is.
Ming
Click to expand...

This is a very fine book. I do not remember him making this statement in the book, but if so;this is one of the FEW errors in this book. He's saying that if you play three hands with a high count, the chance of the first hand being a good hand is higher than the chance of the other two? I don't think so...

Let us suppose that the count is high enough that you deem yourself to have a 10% advantage. This means that you have a 10% advantage on ALL three hands equally, no matter HOW many hands you play. To believe anything else is analogous to the player who believes the (pervasive) myth that bad players can somehow cause him to lose. If ANYTHING, when you play 3 hands,you have a GREATER advantage on the 3rd hand, because you've just seen at least 5 extra cards which you can factor into your playing strategy when you pick up the 3rd hand. (Unless the game is dealt face-up, of course; but even THEN, you'd get to see any HIT cards that came out)

Your statement about the optimal bet sizes when playing two or three hands sounds about right, so -
Let's go back to that 10% advantage:
If you play one hand and bet $100, you've earned $10.
If you play two hands & bet $75, you've earned $15.
If you play three hands & bet $66, you've earned $19.80.

Finally, addressing the issue of card consumption;
Supposing you have a high count; with this 10% edge; your maximum bet is $100; and you estimate that there are about 25 cards left, before the cut card comes out. If you play one hand and intend to spread to 3 hands of $66 on the last round, that means that there will be approximately 4 rounds left.Let's assume that the count will remain the same until the end (It actually rates to DROP somewhat). You rate to play 6 hands in all. Your earn will be $30 for the first three rounds, and $19.80 for the last round. Total earn: $49.80.
If you immediately spread to 3 hands, you'll get two rounds for sure, and three rounds approximately 60% of the time. You earn $39.60 forty per cent of the time and $59.40 sixty per cent of the time, for an average earn of $51.48. Now this might be only a small gain, but the extra factor that would easily swing this for ME is the fact that when the count is high; although it MIGHT go up as the deck progresses, and it MIGHT go down; it actually RATES to go DOWN. I say "Make hay while the sun shines".

In short; the reason it's better to play as many rounds as possible: You DO have to worry about card consumption - you need the DEALER to consume as few cards as possible.
 
Automatic Monkey said:
Yes, and there is one additional thing to add to the card consumption angle: if there is one hand in the game, and you bust your hand or get a natural, the dealer will not play out his hand. This amplifies the card conservation effect when you are playing heads-up.

So to take this a step further, if you are in a negative or neutral count and your minimum bet is significantly higher than the table minimum, you might want to consider spreading to 2 or 3 hands then (at the table minimum.) This eats bad cards more quickly and will force the dealer to draw cards even if you bust a hand. Think of a shoe as like a movie- you can fast-forward through the lousy parts this way and get to the money shots more quickly, at which point you slow it back down.
Click to expand...
Good example! Thanks all for the good advice.
 
Sucker said:
This is a very fine book. I do not remember him making this statement in the book, but if so;this is one of the FEW errors in this book. He's saying that if you play three hands with a high count, the chance of the first hand being a good hand is higher than the chance of the other two? I don't think so...

Let us suppose that the count is high enough that you deem yourself to have a 10% advantage. This means that you have a 10% advantage on ALL three hands equally, no matter HOW many hands you play. To believe anything else is analogous to the player who believes the (pervasive) myth that bad players can somehow cause him to lose. If ANYTHING, when you play 3 hands,you have a GREATER advantage on the 3rd hand, because you've just seen at least 5 extra cards which you can factor into your playing strategy when you pick up the 3rd hand. (Unless the game is dealt face-up, of course; but even THEN, you'd get to see any HIT cards that came out)

Your statement about the optimal bet sizes when playing two or three hands sounds about right, so -
Let's go back to that 10% advantage:
If you play one hand and bet $100, you've earned $10.
If you play two hands & bet $75, you've earned $15.
If you play three hands & bet $66, you've earned $19.80.

Finally, addressing the issue of card consumption;
Supposing you have a high count; with this 10% edge; your maximum bet is $100; and you estimate that there are about 25 cards left, before the cut card comes out. If you play one hand and intend to spread to 3 hands of $66 on the last round, that means that there will be approximately 4 rounds left.Let's assume that the count will remain the same until the end (It actually rates to DROP somewhat). You rate to play 6 hands in all. Your earn will be $30 for the first three rounds, and $19.80 for the last round. Total earn: $49.80.
If you immediately spread to 3 hands, you'll get two rounds for sure, and three rounds approximately 60% of the time. You earn $39.60 forty per cent of the time and $59.40 sixty per cent of the time, for an average earn of $51.48. Now this might be only a small gain, but the extra factor that would easily swing this for ME is the fact that when the count is high; although it MIGHT go up as the deck progresses, and it MIGHT go down; it actually RATES to go DOWN. I say "Make hay while the sun shines".

In short; the reason it's better to play as many rounds as possible: You DO have to worry about card consumption - you need the DEALER to consume as few cards as possible.
Click to expand...

Sorry it was from professional blackjack, read page 210-211.

"playing fewer hands means estimating your advantage more often between shuffles hence more precisely .. "

I never said your advantage drop if you played more hands, but the first hands brings us as close to the TC as possible hence more precisely.

As for optimal number of hands BJA page 26 table 2.4, it will give you the win rate according to how many hands u play and how many players around you.

Thanks
Ming
 
Last edited:
Automatic Monkey said:
So to take this a step further, if you are in a negative or neutral count and your minimum bet is significantly higher than the table minimum, you might want to consider spreading to 2 or 3 hands then (at the table minimum.) This eats bad cards more quickly and will force the dealer to draw cards even if you bust a hand. Think of a shoe as like a movie- you can fast-forward through the lousy parts this way and get to the money shots more quickly, at which point you slow it back down.
Click to expand...

Question - since the TC theorem says that the TC will, on average, not change depending on what it is, how is this so? Because aren't you saying that you want to "eat up bad cards" hoping that the TC will go positive more quickly, even though on average it won't change?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top