Question for everyone regarding two hands

[tthree]

if i bet $100 x 1 box,
total $147 at 2 box, total $173 at 3 bx, var 1.26.
do i encounter same ROR ?
what is SD/100 hands for above 1, 2 & 3 box respectively?
any web. or software can calulate ROR upto 1 in a million ?

thanks for any or all.

The approximate formula Ive heard to keep RoR constant as you spread is 1.5*bet/N. N is the number of hands you are spreading to and "bet" is your single hand bet amount.

 

[aslan]

High. And 1-10 spread won't cut it at this game in play-all mode anyway.
On the other hand, a 1-5 spread is plenty IF you avoid all negEV counts. zg

All my shoe advice is premised on wonging out. As such, 10 to 1 is easily ample. Maybe I did not make that clear; it is second nature to me because (1) it is so easy to do, and (2) it makes a big difference. Everyone who plays shoe games should be wonging out of bad negative counts IMO; in pitch games this may not be possible, but even there, if the count takes a nose dive, you can leave the game altogether. My exit points in KO for 6-deck are KO RC -22, -17 and -12 for 1, 2 and 3 decks dealt, respectively. For non-KO users, these are not severely negative counts, since the KO unbalanced count begins at -20 (IRC) from the beginning of the shoe.

 

[aslan]

Zen, you dont think a 1-10 spread would be sufficient for my set of rules? So with my BR you also recommend a $10 starting bet increasing to perhaps $150 at the true edge of 4+? Since I dont backcount at all, I play most hands. When the count gets too low, then I wong out but I play 90% of all hands. Could the reason of my large winning and losing sessions be the result of a high RoR? I should lower my Ror and EV and reduce my bet to a more manageable unit size then right?

A 1 to 10 spread would be sufficient with wonging out at around -1.

Even if you don't back count, you should be able to wong out at -1. The red 7 count probably has exit points in the literature which approximate your wong out points or true you up so that you can see when you are at -1 or less. I have given the exit points for KO elsewhere, but these would be meaningless to you since they are based on KO Running Count.

 

[winnawinna]

A 1 to 10 spread would be sufficient with wonging out at around -1.

Even if you don't back count, you should be able to wong out at -1. The red 7 count probably has exit points in the literature which approximate your wong out points or true you up so that you can see when you are at -1 or less. I have given the exit points for KO elsewhere, but these would be meaningless to you since they are based on KO Running Count.

The Red 7 count starts a RC at -12. So you can easily get to a -20 count after the first round. So would you recommend playing the shoe until at lest the first deck is dealt.

 

[zengrifter]

It also suggested 1 hand heads up in positive situations which didnt make sense until he pointed out this was great cover because you were doing the opposite changes to the number of hands that surveillance are trying to correlate to card counters. I wasnt sold on that argument but could see the benefit in a sweaty game.

Cover aside, ONE hand top bet heads up will win more money per hour, except go to 2-3 hands on the final round. You can also play THREE hands min bets, if you calibrate the bet-sizing right. But really you need to exit the -EV rounds aggressively UNLESS the BR is really healthy. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Zen, you dont think a 1-10 spread would be sufficient for my set of rules? So with my BR you also recommend a $10 starting bet increasing to perhaps $150 at the true edge of 4+? Since I dont backcount at all, I play most hands. When the count gets too low, then I wong out but I play 90% of all hands. Could the reason of my large winning and losing sessions be the result of a high RoR? I should lower my Ror and EV and reduce my bet to a more manageable unit size then right?

No, not really... UNLESS you change your game for more aggressive exit from -EV counts - playing only 50% or less, as opposed to 90%. For play all I would play a 1-20+ spread maxing at 2 hands of 10+.

You took a big ROR gamble betting as big, and with insufficient spread, as you did when you had 10k. zg

 

[winnawinna]

No, not really... UNLESS you change your game for more aggressive exit from -EV counts - playing only 50% or less, as opposed to 90%. For play all I would play a 1-20+ spread maxing at 2 hands of 10+.

You took a big ROR gamble betting as big, and with insufficient spread, as you did when you had 10k. zg

Yes I did "gamble" with that. All along I knew it but emotions got in the way due to a 12 hands in a row losing streak. So I now plan on playing ONE hand only unless I get a very good count and Ill spread to two hands. I will employ a 15 or 20-1 spread as well and see what happens.

 

[aslan]

The Red 7 count starts a RC at -12. So you can easily get to a -20 count after the first round. So would you recommend playing the shoe until at lest the first deck is dealt.

I don't want to answer any questions about red 7, because I am not familiar with it. But if you have a way to true up, I'd say to make your exit points at about -1 to -1.5. I will usually play a full deck in a shoe game, but it could be so bad that it's not worth digging yourself out of the hole.

 

[prankster]

I am a new member here but I have been reading the posts for some time and many of you guys have provided exceptional advice for my BJ game. I wanted to know if I am doing the right thing since I just got back from one of my worst sessions ever. I HAD a 10K bankroll prior to this session. I am using the advanced Red Seven count playing a 6 deck, S17 DAS LS with 75-80% pen. I always have played two hands during all counts from start to finish. My spread is from 1-5 (still kinda scared). I have been playing $30-$50 dollar units. Is this too high for my BR. This past two days I lost over 200 units of my BR...was this beyond the SD? Should I play one hand instead and spread to two hands during counts above my pivot of "0"? I think my RoR is very high for my game. What should I now be betting as a unit size? Thanks so much in advance...

According to Blackjack Bluebook II you should play 2 hands when the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table-or if the count is elevated and it looks like the shoe is about to end,play 2 or even 3 hands if you don't think the PC will get too excited. Also-I think you maybe want to use a 1-10 spread at a 6 decker if you're not Wonging. The rules and pen you mentioned sound fine. Good cards!:joker:

 

[winnawinna]

According to Blackjack Bluebook II you should play 2 hands when the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table-or if the count is elevated and it looks like the shoe is about to end,play 2 or even 3 hands if you don't think the PC will get too excited. Also-I think you maybe want to use a 1-10 spread at a 6 decker if you're not Wonging. The rules and pen you mentioned sound fine. Good cards!:joker:

Thanks Prankster...so if I choose to play all, go with a 1-10 spread and only one hand. Except if the count goes into + territory

 

[winnawinna]

Ive been reading that playing 2 hands lowers variance. So now Im confused. Should I play two hands with a 1-12 spread and wong out at tc<-1 or stick with one hand and spread to 2 when the TC>3. Im sorry if Im being redundant. I just want to clarify this as I always played two hands all the time in every count lol

 

[zengrifter]

Thanks Prankster...so if I choose to play all, go with a 1-10 spread and only one hand. Except if the count goes into + territory

No. The decision to optimally play 1 or 2 hands in +counts is a function of heads-up vs multiple players. zg

 

[zengrifter]

Ive been reading that playing 2 hands lowers variance. So now Im confused. Should I play two hands with a 1-12 spread and wong out at tc<-1 or stick with one hand and spread to 2 when the TC>3. Im sorry if Im being redundant. I just want to clarify this as I always played two hands all the time in every count lol

Again, this partly depends on your BR, the table minimum (in your case), and the #other players at table. zg

 

[Gamblor]

Ive been reading that playing 2 hands lowers variance. So now Im confused. Should I play two hands with a 1-12 spread and wong out at tc<-1 or stick with one hand and spread to 2 when the TC>3. Im sorry if Im being redundant. I just want to clarify this as I always played two hands all the time in every count lol

It certainly does lower variance for the hand. If you spread from one hand of a $100 to two hands of $50. To take it to the extreme, think of spreading to 100 hands of $1. Forget what the exact value is where the variance is equal, e.g., you might have to bet around $75 per hand if you split to two hands.

 

[zengrifter]

It certainly does lower variance for the hand. If you spread from one hand of a $100 to two hands of $50.

Thats not an equal trade-off. 2x50 is the equivalent of 1x75.
1x75 also has lower variance. And 2x50 will earn less than 1x100 due to card-eating. zg

 

[winnawinna]

Thats not an equal trade-off. 2x50 is the equivalent of 1x75.
1x75 also has lower variance. And 2x50 will earn less than 1x100 due to card-eating. zg

Im confused...one hand or two? Lets say Im starting a shoe and wonging out at TC-1. Should I start the shoe at 2 hands

 

[prankster]

Fred also suggests that when you play two hands you decrease your bet somewhat. Maybe by 20%??? PM Fred-he's great about answering our questions!:joker:

 

[tthree]

Fred also suggests that when you play two hands you decrease your bet somewhat. Maybe by 20%??? PM Fred-he's great about answering our questions!:joker:

25%.
1.5*S/N where S is the single spot bet and N is the number of spots you are now playing.

 

[QFIT]

As zg said earlier in this thread, generally, playing two hands always is best, irrespective of the count.

 

[Friendo]

As zg said earlier in this thread, generally, playing two hands always is best, irrespective of the count.

From my reading, I believe that the only situation in which there's any question about this is play-all alone at the table, when a single-hand-only player will have to eat a smaller percentage of the cards during low counts. And even in this case it's a close call.

But I can't remember where I read this ...