Always playing two hands better?

[ArcticInferno]

Is there a difference between playing two hands of $25 versus one hand of $50?
Supposedly, there's no difference in the long run (expected value).
However, I read that playing two hands will reduce fluctuations (standard deviation).
A more efficient approach would be to play two hands during positive counts and
play one hand during negative counts. But constantly switching between one hand
and two hands irritates other players, and the dealer (and the pit) will scrutinize you.
Playing two hands of $25 is like playing at the $50 minimum table. But since I'm
playing two hands, the fluctuation will be lower than playing one hand of $50.
If the count plummets hopelessly, then of course I would Wong out.
Is my analysis correct?

 

[shadroch]

Why worry about other players?

 

[assume_R]

I can't see anything wrong with your logic. Yes, shadroch is right in that you shouldn't worry about other players. And several others on this board have said that they got the most heat from spreading to 2 hands at high counts and going back down to 1 hand at low counts, so consider your longevity in your estimations of RoR.

There are a few other recent threads regarding things, make sure you check them out.

 

[21forme]

I love switching back and forth between one and two hands, especially in a high count. It causes players to get up and leave the table, so more hands for me.

 

[ArcticInferno]

You're kind of right in that I don't care about what other players think.
However, complaints by other players attract negative attention.
If all the players start leaving one by one, the pit crew will take notice.
As a general rule, quieter the better.
Also the more important issue is heat from the pit when you suddenly spread to
two hands and raise the bet. It's often written that spreading to two hands has
a camouflage effect because you don't have a tall stack in one spot.
However, I think that suddenly spreading to two hands does alert the pit as much
as having a tall stack in one hand, so you lose some of the camouflage effect.

Larger spread yields higher expected value.
Playing at higher limit tables yields more dollars than playing at lower limit tables.
A larger spread at lower limit tables will yield the same amount as a smaller spread
at higher limit tables. I'm talking about the absolute dollar value, not units.
Which means that playing at a $50 table with a smaller spread will yield the same
amount (absolute dollars) as playing at a $15 table with a larger spread.
Yes, the EV in terms of units will be lower at the $50 table with a smaller spread.
By playing two hands of $25, I can also reduce the fluctuations.
I would Wong out at hopelessly negative counts, but always play two hands.
I would like to run some simulations and test out my theory.
http://www.QFIT.com has CVCX and CVData. Which software do I need?

 

[Finn Dog]

A more efficient approach would be to play two hands during positive counts and play one hand during negative counts.

But constantly switching between one hand and two hands irritates other players, and the dealer (and the pit) will scrutinize you.

As you stated, the Pit and Surveillance is well aware that two hands reduces variance and that counters in particular love employing this technique when the count dictates.

Just proceed with caution at Green, be observant: know your surroundings, and keep your sessions to under an hour or 75 hands.

Regards,

FD

 

[creeping panther]

Arctic

Is there a difference between playing two hands of $25 versus one hand of $50?
Supposedly, there's no difference in the long run (expected value).
However, I read that playing two hands will reduce fluctuations (standard deviation).
A more efficient approach would be to play two hands during positive counts and
play one hand during negative counts. But constantly switching between one hand
and two hands irritates other players, and the dealer (and the pit) will scrutinize you.
Playing two hands of $25 is like playing at the $50 minimum table. But since I'm
playing two hands, the fluctuation will be lower than playing one hand of $50.
If the count plummets hopelessly, then of course I would Wong out.
Is my analysis correct?

If you are playing a fine game with Skillz why would you not want to do 2 spots if you are not heads up???

More action when you are the one in control with positive EV....a no brainer.

The other part of your question in actuality has much more involved in it, more than I will care to comment on here.

CP

 

[Finn Dog]

If you are playing a fine game with Skillz why would you not want to do 2 spots if you are not heads up???

CP

Exactly right, for all the above reasons.

Also, as far as Surveillance is concerned, a counter would "never" play two spots--through good and bad counts--would he !

Regards,

FD

 

[WABJ11]

I always thought playing 2 hands was also better in +EV counts, but my results have been abysmal when I switch from one to two hands I don't know why. I also think it draws to much attention from the pit when you betting one hand of $15-25 and suddenly jump to two hands of $200. If you can get away with it than its ok, but if it draws to much attention just stick to one.

 

[kewljason]

I always thought playing 2 hands was also better in +EV counts, but my results have been abysmal when I switch from one to two hands I don't know why. I also think it draws to much attention from the pit when you betting one hand of $15-25 and suddenly jump to two hands of $200. If you can get away with it than its ok, but if it draws to much attention just stick to one.

It has been my experience that jumping to two hands during positive counts has drawn more heat than any other more I have ever made. More than the spread itself. More than splitting 10's. More than insurance play. More than running on negative counts.

As for your abysmal results, although simulations show that spreading to two hands reduces variance, those two hands are not independent of each other, both being played against the same dealer hand. So in cases when you play against that 'hot' dealer who seemingly draws 20's and BJ's on every hand, the variance will not be reduced but actually increase. You will lose more money quicker. 1.5 times quicker if you have done your 2 hand play correctly.

 

[prankster]

In BJBBII Fred says play two hands,or even three if the count is elevated and it looks like the shoe is about to end whether there are other players at the table or not. Also he says to play two hands if the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table.

 

[ArcticInferno]

I understand that if there're other players at the table, then playing multiple hands
would allow me to extract more benefit during the advantageous counts.
Even if you're alone, spreading to multiple hands near the end of the shoe will
draw more cards after the cut card.
However, constantly switching between one hand to two hands isn't worth the
heat (in my opinion).
Anyway, that's not what I was asking. It seems my question was misunderstood.
Let's say that I'm playing alone (or with others,... irrelevant to the issue).
Would playing at a $50 table with a small spread yield as much money as playing at
a $15 table with a large spread? Not in terms of units, but in terms of absolute dollars.
Also, because of the smaller spread, the fluctuation would be less as well.
Would playing one hand of $50 yield the same expected value as playing two
hands of $25? Playing two hands would reduce the fluctuation further.
Am I still on the right track?
(high limit + two hands + small spread) vs (low limit + one hand + large spread)
Both would yield the same amount in terms of absolute dollars.
Two hands + small spread = low fluctuation
Small spread = less heat
What I really want to do was run the simulation myself, but I don't know which
software to get.
http://www.QFIT.com has CVCX and CVData. Which software do I need?

 

[SleightOfHand]

I love playing 2 hands. When possible, I always play 2 (apart from neg counts of course, where I try to play 1 when I can). If you compare playing a 1.5/2 DD game spreading 25-200 versus 2x20 - 2 x 100, you get a higher SCORE and CE playing 2 hands. (Actually, this specific example could be wrong. Im just recalling a comparison I did a while ago).

By playing 2 hands all the time, you are not constantly switching from 1/2 hands, which would make you more difficult to spot compared to switching. I see ploppies playing multiple spots all the time, although rarely switching.

 

[ArcticInferno]

Hey Kewljason, yes you are playing both hands against the same dealer's hand,
so there's some chance that you will win both or lose both.
However, there're lots of cases where you lose one hand because that hand
busts before the dealer busts, or the dealer makes a number that's between
your two hands.
If the simulations reveal that the fluctuation is reduced by playing two hands,
then I would trust the math. Selective memory or selective recall can be very
deceiving, which is why computer simulation is so valuable.

 

[assume_R]

Hey Kewljason, yes you are playing both hands against the same dealer's hand,
so there's some chance that you will win both or lose both.
However, there're lots of cases where you lose one hand because that hand
busts before the dealer busts, or the dealer makes a number that's between
your two hands.
If the simulations reveal that the fluctuation is reduced by playing two hands,
then I would trust the math. Selective memory or selective recall can be very
deceiving, which is why computer simulation is so valuable.

Ha yeah, kewljason has always been one to trust the math. He was just saying that the covariance between 2 hands is not 0, so you should modify the amount you put out appropriately when playing 2 vs. 1 hand. You can't simply bet 1x$100 and then assume you can bet 2x$100 or 2x$50 in the same situation. It's somewhere in between. He gave a good rule of thumb most AP's use for playing 2 hands. The exact equations are in a really old thread somewhere, search around you'll find it.

 

[SleightOfHand]

Ha yeah, kewljason has always been one to trust the math. He was just saying that the covariance between 2 hands is not 0, so you should modify the amount you put out appropriately when playing 2 vs. 1 hand. You can't simply bet 1x$100 and then assume you can bet 2x$100 or 2x$50 in the same situation. It's somewhere in between. He gave a good rule of thumb most AP's use for playing 2 hands. The exact equations are in a really old thread somewhere, search around you'll find it.

General rule of thumb: When playing multiple hands, multiply your bet on a single hand by 1.5 and spread evenly across the hands you want to play. This will give you roughly the same RoR as if you were playing a single hand. Obviously the WR would be 1.5x.

PS: The rule of thumb is less accurate with more hands. You can multiply slightly more than 1.5x for 3+ hands

 

[ArcticInferno]

I would like to test my theory by running some simulations.
http://www.QFIT.com has CVCX and CVData. Which software should I get?

 

[SleightOfHand]

I would like to test my theory by running some simulations.
http://www.QFIT.com has CVCX and CVData. Which software should I get?

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration11.htm

Either program has the capability to show you the variance/wr of playing multiple hands (CVCX is limited to 1 or 2 hands, CVData is not)

 

[assume_R]

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration11.htm

Either program has the capability to show you the variance/wr of playing multiple hands (CVCX is limited to 1 or 2 hands, CVData is not)

CVCX's calculations with 2 hands are, as stated by QFIT, only an estimate. Comparatively, CVdata will give more accurate results with 2 hands, but doesn't calculate optimal bets at each hand.

 

[aslan]

Recently I played a few casinos where they had a rule against switching to multiple hands. If you started with two or three hands, fine, but if you started with one hand you had to stick with one hand. Seems like some casinos are wising up to playing multiple hands in positive counts.

I've tried playing from the start with two hands, but before you hit a positive count, it can be disastrous. I haven't simmed it, but instinct tells me its not the way to go (someone please verify). If you can wong in, that's the time to play two or three hands, but be ready to leave Dodge quickly after the positive run is done.