Pitch Games Multiple Hands

[assume_R]

In SD or DD I recall reading somewhere that some people play multiple hands at negative counts to try to eat up the cards and get to the cut card quicker, but not in positive counts to not "use up" all the good cards? While other people play multiple hands at positive counts to increase EV with no additional Risk. Is there a consensus as to what's correct?

The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it's definitely the last round and the count is positive, then play as many hands as you can.

 

[creeping panther]

assume

In SD or DD I recall reading somewhere that some people play multiple hands at negative counts to try to eat up the cards and get to the cut card quicker, but not in positive counts to not "use up" all the good cards? While other people play multiple hands at positive counts to increase EV with no additional Risk. Is there a consensus as to what's correct?

The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that if it's definitely the last round and the count is positive, then play as many hands as you can.

I used to play 2 spots in DD when there were other players, all the time, and dropping to 1 at -2 .

In heads up I would play 1 unless the ace side called for swinging to 2 and then in + near end always go to 2.

When I was in an aggressive mood, often, I would go from 1 to 2 based on count,,,but because of my fear of getting any more barrings I use that technique sparringly now.

My recommendation,,,mix up the strategy session to session,,,slipper to slipper. Heat is what you need to be concerned about.

CP

 

[zengrifter]

In SD or DD I recall reading somewhere that some people play multiple hands at negative counts to try to eat up the cards and get to the cut card quicker, but not in positive counts to not "use up" all the good cards? While other people play multiple hands at positive counts to increase EV with no additional Risk. Is there a consensus as to what's correct?

Both approaches are correct.

Here is a discussion of the method known as inverse-spreading, consolidation-betting, and/or grifters' gambit -->>
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=37493

 

[assume_R]

Okay, thanks guys.

ZG, in your old post you mentioned that there's a larger variance and hence you need a larger BR, so right now in my career that isn't quite an option for me.

A few questions:
1. ZG: If I am betting 1xTable_Min in negative counts anyway, is there still an advantage in the GG to betting 3xTable_Min?

2. When people talk about "eating up cards", that's in reference to getting to the cut card quicker, right? I ask because in + counts in pitch games, it seems playing multiple hands you play less rounds between shuffles, but on the other hand you can get more EV with the same Var... so what's more worth it is the question.

3. CP: You mention heat, and in your experience there would be less heat betting 1x$200 vs. 2x$150 (higher EV, same var), or 2x$100 (same EV, lower var) for example?

 

[zengrifter]

Okay, thanks guys.

ZG, in your old post you mentioned that there's a larger variance and hence you need a larger BR, so right now in my career that isn't quite an option for me.

A few questions:
1. ZG: If I am betting 1xTable_Min in negative counts anyway, is there still an advantage in the GG to betting 3xTable_Min?

2. When people talk about "eating up cards", that's in reference to getting to the cut card quicker, right? I ask because in + counts in pitch games, it seems playing multiple hands you play less rounds between shuffles, but on the other hand you can get more EV with the same Var... so what's more worth it is the question.

3. CP: You mention heat, and in your experience there would be less heat betting 1x$200 vs. 2x$150 (higher EV, same var), or 2x$100 (same EV, lower var) for example?

The correct #hands to play in +counts, other than the last round as you noted,
is a function of how many other player hands are engaging the table.

Roughly, it works like this, excluding 1D games (see Schlesinger BJA)--
(I may be off, if anyone cares to quote from BJA?)

0 other - play ONE
1 other - play ONE
2 other - play TWO
3 other - play TWO
4 other - play THREE

I'm not religious on the above. I "mix it up" - sometimes my topBet may be 3 hands, sometimes 1 or 2 hands.

You would not want to bet the 2x100 as a substitute for 1x200 without understanding that its the overall equivalent of only 1x140 or so.

As for making three min bet hands instead of 1 min bet in a -count, that is where the extra variance comes in requiring a higher BR - your minimum net effective bet is larger by a factor of 1.5 (not 3, which is counter-intuitive). zg

 

[creeping panther]

Assume

Okay, thanks guys.

ZG, in your old post you mentioned that there's a larger variance and hence you need a larger BR, so right now in my career that isn't quite an option for me.

A few questions:
1. ZG: If I am betting 1xTable_Min in negative counts anyway, is there still an advantage in the GG to betting 3xTable_Min?

2. When people talk about "eating up cards", that's in reference to getting to the cut card quicker, right? I ask because in + counts in pitch games, it seems playing multiple hands you play less rounds between shuffles, but on the other hand you can get more EV with the same Var... so what's more worth it is the question.


Assume,

Keeping in mind the splits and doubles in the DD with Das, Doa, which bet vs. bankroll would make you more comfortable so as not to let the "money play the cards"? As to heat,,,2x $100, just because I think it draws less attention and is a better play and easier to mask. IMHO.

CP

 

[assume_R]

Thanks, ZG and CP.

Roughly, it works like this, excluding 1D games (see Schlesinger BJA)--
(I may be off, if anyone cares to quote from BJA?)

I'll have to check on BJA about the 1D games because there are a few 1D games I've found that I want to play. I'm only concerned about how quick the count can go from requiring MinBet to MaxBit in 1 round! Yikes :flame:

You would not want to bet the 2x100 as a substitute for 1x200 without understanding that its the overall equivalent of only 1x140 or so.

Same EV as 1x200 (since same $$$ on the table), but with about the same RoR of 1x140 though, right? That's how I understand it.

 

[zengrifter]

I'll have to check on BJA about the 1D games because there are a few 1D games I've found that I want to play.

Its a different consideration for 1D. The previous table is for 2D.
For 1D, you must first detirmine the #others AND the #rounds per shuffle, as well as the rules, of course.

Refer to Snyder BBIBJ or BJ formula. Can anyone quote the formula please? zg

 

[zengrifter]

Same EV as 1x200 (since same $$$ on the table), but with about the same RoR of 1x140 though, right? That's how I understand it.

Bets like that reduce EV as a function of time-motion. You may use that snapshot hand of EV, but the real world is comprised of hands per hour, which you are degrading. That said, if my BR was dangerously low, that is how I would play it - my normal 1hand topBet spread across two. zg

 

[assume_R]

You may use that snapshot hand of EV, but the real world is comprised of hands per hour, which you are degrading.

Because you'll get to the cut card quicker? And play less rounds per shuffle? But on the other hand, while you may play less rounds you could have played more hands per shuffle too. I suppose it's a function of the rules of the game and how they decide when to shuffle.