2 hands during low counts

Is there other reasons for playing 2 hands during low counts besides trying to eat up cards?

Cliff

With a great deal more of an impact than you probably begin to realize. I've been in several very long threads about this so I now simply advise people to run some sims and decide for themselves.

Suppose we normally bet $100 on one hand. When the count goes south, you need to specify just how much it is that we're betting on each of those two hands, David, otherwise, we're talking in a void.

Don

All you really do is reverse the equations you use when playing multiple hands in + counts. You have a negative segment of a shoe that consists of N cards. At an average rate of card consumption per round it will cost you how much $ per card dealt to get through this segment.

If heads up, you can increase your total action by as much as 50% and consume cards for the same cost, 2 hands of $15 rather than one hand of $20, for example. Suppose you have a segment with a -1% ev that is an average of 16.2 cards. With an average of 2.7 cards used per round, 5.4 total for you and the dealer when heads up, it takes 3 hands to eat up the negative segement. At $20 per hand on one hand the three rounds gives you $60 of total action exposed to the 1% negative ev to get through this segment. If you play two hands then a total of 8.1 cards per round are used, with a total of $30 in action per round. You get through the negative segment in two rounds for the same $60 of total action. The ev is the same. If you feel like you can get through two rounds of two hands faster than you can three rounds at one hand then there is a time savings. I believe there is a time savings for multi-hand in face up shoe but not in pitch.

As more players are added to your table the value of multi-hand in negative counts decreases and the harm you normally cause to yourself by playing multi-hands in + counts decreases as well. You have others to eat your negative cards while you can eat up their positive cards.

When one's spread is very big, you can sometimes gain even by playing multi-hands in negatives with twice the action you would bet on one hand. This occurs when the actual value of a card (or 2.7 cards) consumed becomes greater than the negative ev. For example, a backcounter could calculate a value for each card he observes (if there was no value to counting them then he would obviously not be doing it). When the negative ev on a hand played is so minimal that it is actually less than the gain for seeing the cards then it is of value to play the additional hands. Example, you are backcounting a game with only one player and it is going very slow. You would gladly stick a penny on each of the other six spots on the table just to see the cards dealt because the value of seeing them far exceeds the negative ev of your one cent bet.

Because of the complexity and the can of worms it can open, I think players will do well to simply simulate their intended strategy on SBA or something and look at the results for various numbers of players at the table and playing various numbers of hands at different counts. To get a fair comparison of hourly win rates, which some are not all that concerned with, one needs to assess an estimate of play speed (rounds per hour) associated with their single and multi-hand strategies.

DD---I've done sims on DD games with one and two hands in neutral and negative situations and there is a 23% greater hourly ev by playing just one hand. I use the Uston APC, although my suspicion is that doesn't matter.

I used BJRM for my sims which assumes three players at a table (including me). I did not reduce my bet for two hands--same amount just on two spots. Could cause a difference as you pointed out above.

If you're playing one hand of $20, why in the world would you want to play 2 hands of $15 in negative-EV counts, when you could play, for example, two hands of $10 each?

Don

would be the main reason. Your minimum bet might be $25 whether you play one hand or two. If someone had a very large spread, such as a max of 2@ $500 , then they would most likely gain by playing two hands in negative ev counts, especially true count of zero. In fact, the biggest overall gain for playing two hands comes from playing two hands at tc=0.

But, if you have the choice, a smaller bet per hand when playing the second hand would be better, of course.

Another reason for increasing total action would be to have a smaller total spread. Suppose someone has a max of one hand of $500. If he plays one hand of $25 during neutral and negative counts he is spreading 1:20. If he plays two hands he is spreading only 1:10. You can certainly get a much better win rate for the same spread size when playing two hands in minus counts.

When your unit size is about at the table minimum, and the casino requires double the minimum for two hands, it throws a monkey wrench into this plan. Obvouisly you don't want to increase action 4X.

Some of these things are not intuitive, but simulations clearly show their merit.

I generally always play two hands for a combination of theoretical and practical reasons. For one, I know the other spot is available when I want it. For another, spreading to two hands only in +ev situations just looks too obvious to me. It is what nearly all beginner counters do. And two handed play offers the opportunity for a great many more low cost cover options.

As I said, others should simulate because it will vary depending on conditions. It does not surprise me that one hand did better with two other card eaters at the table. And in pitch games I don't believe you have any gain in speed for playing the second hand either, or practically none.

Try a heads up 6D game with a 1:16 spread.

in any case. The spread size is important, of course. Frequency is rounds dealt per 100 at that count. When you increase card consumption at one tc, you decrease the frequency of that true count and increase the frequency of others. The bigger the big bets are the bigger the increase in frequency matters. The more players you have at the table, the smaller the impact your additional hand has on the TC frequency. You could copy the true count frequencies & EVs to a spread sheet for each case and then calculate how big your positive ev bets would need to be to gain. It is easy to see, in principle, that when the bets reach a certain weight that the value given by Action * Frequency * EV in the +ev counts will overcompensate for the increase in weight in negative ev counts.

Although BJRM can be used for this, if you know how, it is not all that easy. BJRM uses the same number of hands played at the table on the canned sims. When you set it for two hands it removes one of the other players so that the hands dealt per round remain constant and the TC frequencies are unchanged.

Under todays casino conditions the only other reasons I can think of is if you would like to force yourself into huge bet spreads in order to make up all the money you have lost on negative hands and like to attract attention from the pit.

DD - "The ev is the same. If you feel like you can get through two rounds of two hands faster than you can three rounds at one hand then there is a time savings. I believe there is a time savings for multi-hand in face up shoe but not in pitch."
-------------

The key in QUALITY pitch games (heads-up) is to play 3hands in neg-counts and 1hand in posi-counts. G

I don't understand the point there. You can generally achieve the same win rate with a smaller spread if you play more than one hand in negative counts. If your large bet is normally 16 units, with 1 unit on one hand in negative counts, you would not have to increase your top bet to 32 units to get the same win rate if you played a second hand of one unit in negative counts. Doing so would, in fact, generally double your win rate. Smaller spreads are required with multiple hands to get the same win rate. More money in action, yes, but a smaller spread.

if only because you don't want a ploppy to suddenly waltz in at the wrong (right) moment.

Also, Doubles and Splits? Any of these better than average during a low count?

I appreciate everything that you have to say about this game, DD'. You're obviously a powerful player and so I hope you don't get too frustrated with my novice question. But when you say "more money in action"...

...do you mean "more money in action" because of the fact that when you spread to 2 hands you have a total of ~50% more $$ on the table (max $100 on one hand = max $75 on two hands, in order to maintain same win rate)...

...or do you mean "more money in action" because while you do use a smaller bet spread (1-10 on one hand = ~1-8 on two hands, in order to maintain same win rate), you are having a greater number of units on the table at a given time (ex: max bet in total units on one hand = 10 units, max bet in total units on two hands = 16)...

...or do you mean "more money in action" because when moving to two hands and reducing your spread, you in effect raise your unit size in terms of actual $$ value and so because of unit resizing you have more $$ on the table (1-10 on one hand, the unit size is $25; 1-8 on two hands, the unit size is ~$30)...

or is it a combination of the three? Or am I just running around in circles?

No, of course I did not mean if you play 2 hands in negative counts you must double your large bet in positive counts.
Let me explain myself. Under todays conditions as we know, most casinos require doubling your green when playing 2 hands. We must be able to recoup the many $100 bets of bad action.
Your post is little confusing "You can generally achieve the same win rate with a smaller spread if you play more than one hand in negative counts. " !?

At a green table playing 2 hands in neg. counts , this equates to 2 hands of $50 = $100 total. If I manage to average 200 hands an hour I will be betting $100 approx 72% of the time I'm at a disadvantage.
I'm not a math-theorist expert, but anyone can see how I am forced to raise my spread in order to recoup my loses, not to mention my risk of ruin may also be in jeorpardy.

I think I'll play the rookie way of avoiding minus counts or bet the least amount possible when they occur. I also enjoy spreading to 2 or 3 hands in juicy counts.

little boy blue

First you said that most casinos require a $100 bet to play 2 spots at a $25 table. But many of the casinos I play in do not require this. I would say the majority of casinos I play do not. Of course, mine is not a random sample, because this policy is one reason why I chose to play these casinos.

Few casinos require doubling the bet at $100 tables.

If you are spreading 50-500, then you would be better to play 2 spots of @50 in negative counts rather than 1 spot of $50. If you are playing 25-200, you would be better to play 2 spots of $10/15 rather than 1 spot of 25 in negative counts.

Now you may not be able to find table minimums that support this. But you may wish to evaluate your game selection based upon these considerations. If your minimum bet is $40 or more, you can always play 2 spots at $20 tables. Some people have a macho reaction to playing at $10 tables, because they are green chip players. You are probably not one of them. But I mention this for those that are. Sometimes it is better to play lower minimum tables, if it give you more options.

There are good mathematical reasons to play higher-limit tables. Often they are less crowded. Sometimes the only acceptable game is at a higher limit table. Sometimes you can get no mid-shoe entry at these tables also.

But I caution you about the following. The worst situation is when you are playing heads-up, and you are betting `1 pot in negatives, and 2 spots in positives. Sim that, and compare that with either of the alternatives.