If a person plays perfect BS is there any advantage of playing two positions for $25 verses playing one for $50 under the following rules? (Not a counter)...or two for $25 verses playing one hand for $25?
6 Deck, S17, RSA, DOA, 3/2 BJ, and late surrender...
Just may be a stupid question, but that's why I'm here to ask.
Thanks
Jim Penn,
Using Eric Farmer's BJ calculator (available for download at the link below), I calculate that the EV for the rules you specified plus DAS (double after split, almost always offered on shoes) is -0.261970387%.
Since this value is negative, your non-counting BS player is playing a negative expected value (-EV) game, so his best (that is, EV-maximizing) strategy is not to play at all.
Next best is to play for the lowest possible stakes, so if his choices are between one hand of $25 or two hands of $25, one hand is clearly better, since he'll lose less money in the long run.
If his choices are between 1x$50 and 2x$25, in the long run both will yield the same, negative, EV.
Note that if you specify much more favorable conditions, such that the game is +EV for a BS player, then the above replies will no longer be applicable. For example, change the 6D to SD and the game becomes +EV (+0.237191651%) without counting. And should you happen to find that game being offered, kindly send me an e-mail!
Dog Hand
if you know how to tether your bet to a perceived advantage.
Consider:
1)Cuts down on the number of players, speeds up play, prevents some jumping in and out and there is more room for each player.
2)You have more chances for double-downs,splits and naturals.
3)You get faster results.
4)You play twice as many hands per time spent at the table.
5)Your results are more meaningful statistically, because of increased play.
6)It increases your options(playing decisions).
7)Increases your chances of one of the positions being on a winning streak.
On other side of the coin, besides what Dog Hand mentioned, one position:
1)Is easier to control the betting.
2)One position can accomodate a smaller bankroll, even at a high limit table.
3)Is less likely to be wiped out in one shoe.
Absolutely everything you said is exactly the opposite. If you don't mention counting at all, then well, you will get faster results. You'll be out of the casino twice as fast. Your explanations about getting on winning streaks. What about losing streaks. People jumping in and out makes no difference. It does not increase your playing options, and you are MORE likely to be wiped out in one shoe.
You don't get any better results playing two hands at the same time. The only time you want to do that is towards the end of the shoe on a good count so you can get an extra hand you wouldn't have gotten cause the cut card came out.
If you have a rebuttle to this post, please explain yourself more.
mine are as a non-counter.
I play basic strategy and probably get better results than most counters. It would be foolish to go into details.
A counter will jump in and out and effectively skew the results of a basic strategy player. It has the effect of a preferential shuffle against the BS player.
Any computer sims I seen, show it's unusual to have two winning positions together but does increase your chances of one winning position out of the two. You end up with a blended result for that session.
I've seen it time and time again, when a player playing two positions
can't maintain it, ends up skewing his own results by droping down to one position, trying to change the dealers cards.
One thing a counter should keep in mind, is that he's getting two results. One is the result of his counting session and another is the result of his basic strategy session.
If playing BS gives you anything more than a negative EV of about 0.5%, and some comps, I'm all ears.
So it's apparent you don't 'just play' basic strategy. That's all well and good; no elaboration neccessary. I would just hate for some new guy to think that was all it took to earn the money.
Your statement still have no effect on the game. Where did you learn any of this stuff. There is no book out there that mentions any of the points that you mentioned. I hear the same stuff from BS players and I don't where they came up with these ideas. Playing 2 hands means nothing. Its the same as 2 separate people playing 2 separate games and combining their money at the end. The only thing you can expect from playing 2 hands is to lose twice as fast. You don't have to admit you're wrong or anything, but if you are going to stand your ground on this subject then you need at least some valid reasons. Maybe a book reference or some math stats or something.
North Wind has been around for years here. His favorite place to hang out was the progression pages. Does that answer your question?
when reading anything. I've learnt a great deal from counters who post here, but don't always agree with their conclusions.
The reference books are the ones you're reading; the interpretation is up to you.
I gave reasons for and against playing two hands. Which ones do you disagree with?
I struggle with some of my conclusions, but do have reasons for them.
with all the well written posts and occasional surprises.
Being a non-counter among counters didn't bother me and neither did it prevent me from learning what I needed to know that was relevant to my system.
Many respected posters posted on the progression page and I'm glad they did. I hope you're not suggesting we're a lesser breed.
Seems counters have hit the wall and now only talk about the good old days. I don't have that problem.
Nice of you to notice that I've been around for years.
