confusion about playing 2 hands

For the advanced omega 2 count the author recomends a 1-8 spread for a 6 deck game. There are numbers in the book telling you when to bet 2 units, more than 2 units, and 8 units. I've read instead of going from 2 units to 4 units its better to play 2 hands of 2 units each. You have the same amount of money on the table but will your expectation be exactly the same? If so it seems not a good idea since it uses up more cards. So with a 1-8 spread in a 6 deck game what would be the best betting strategy to follow? What is your max bet for 2 hands when the index says bet 8 units?
Thanks

4 units on 1 hand you can play 6 units spread out as 3 on each of two hands. 2x300 has the same risk as 1x400 but you get 50% more EV because you're betting $600 instead of $400.

So when it says the max bet is 8 units on one hand you should max out instead at 2 hands of 6 units each for 50% more ev? It does use up more cards but you overall results will be better if you play like this?
If a player bets 1 hand of 1 unit up to 2 hands of 6 units each he calls this a 1-12 spread. Would his overall results be the same if he spread 1-12 on just one hand?

>For the advanced omega 2 count the author recomends a 1-8 spread for a >6 deck game. There are numbers in the book telling you when to bet 2 >units, more than 2 units, and 8 units.

The "numbers" (for AO2 the Running Count) in the book refer directly to bets = 2 units, and bets > 2 units. If you want to follow all of Carlson's recommendations, the RCs to use for an 8 unit bet have to be worked out according to what he says on pg 89:

"In multiple-deck games, to moderate swings in your bankroll, I suggest you shade the index (i.e. RC) numbers up slightly for 8 unit bets -- say, by about one running count point *per* remaining deck."

So, for example, to place an 8 unit bet in 6 deck Vegas game, 6 decks remaining, the RC should be >= +33 (27 + 6 [#decks]); 5 decks remaining, RC should be >= +26 (21 + 5), etc.

>I've read instead of going from 2 units to 4 units its better to play >2 hands of 2 units each.

I'm sure there are many opinions on the 2 hand question, but see pg 83 for what Carlson has to say. He give 2 reason to move to playing 2 hands:

1. Camo
2. "Fluctuations in your playing stake are reduced somewhat..."

Note: Carlson's comments apply to *all* bets > 2 units, not just max bets.

>You have the same amount of money on the table but will your expectation be exactly the same?

Sorry, I'm not a math wiz. Maybe someone else will comment on the "expectation" aspect.

>If so it seems not a good idea since it uses up more cards.

In a 6 deck game, I don't think using up the additional cards are going to hurt you in any significant way.

>So with a 1-8 spread in a 6 deck game what would be the best betting strategy to follow?

If you like the idea of reducing the fluctuations in your playing stake, play 2 hands.

>What is your max bet for 2 hands when the index says bet 8 units?

It's 8 units. You certainly have the option of playing 1 hand with 8 units, but if you follow Carlson's recommendations, spread to 2 hands of 4 units each.

Nomad

since Carlson's book was written. I strongly suggest you ignore the bet ramps in his book. They were written for much better games which virtually don't exist anymore.

It's already been demonstrated here and elsewhere dozens of times that it's far better in terms of more money on the table with smaller swings and higher SCORE to always play two hands (unless at a single deck game where playing two hands would force worse penetration). Use CVCX or BJRM, tools for finding optimum bet ramps. These tools did not exist (as did much of todays modern betting theory) when Bryce was writing his excellent book.

The betting in the book in not accurate? When you say to ignore the ramps do you mean the 2 index #s on the chart where it say to bet 2 units or more than 2 units according to the running count, so I would need to come up with a whole new chart? Or are you talking about the 3 charts for 1 deck, 2 deck and shoes where it tells you how to bet depending on a + or - count, and if you won the previous hand?

As Bigplayer wrote:
>I strongly suggest you ignore the bet ramps in his book.

Bigplayer,

I do not disagree. I get the sense from his posts that
there are two things Deprived seems to be struggling with here as he works his way through BJFB:

1. With AO2 when do I increase my bets?

This would be according to the RC indices in BJFB, no?

2. By how much do I increase my bet, and how best to do that for a 6 deck game?

Answer contained in your responses to his post.

Nomad

Deprived,

I believe Bigplayer is saying: replace the betting ramp table 5.6 on pg 87 of BJFB with the method he outlined in his posts. As he says, a lot has been written about betting ramps. You might want to buy a copy of Blackjack Attack by Don Schlesinger to read up on this.

However, I believe table 5.7 on pg 89 of BJFB (i.e. *when* to increase your bet) is still accurate and a viable way to play. If not, hopefully Bigplayer will comment and we'll learn something! ;-)

Nomad

BJFB are not optimal in the least. They were designed to beat games that no longer exist and are not even optimal for those games. The ramps in BJFB were designed for games like the Plaza in downtown LV.

If you plug those ramps into BJRM for the typical h17 60& pen double deck game found today using Carlson's polite 1-4 spread you probably won't even get a 0.5% edge. According to BJRM, with 62 cards dealt on an h17 das double deck game you only get a SCORE of $24.90 and an 0.72% edge. At 8-1 spread (no cover) you get a SCORE of $50.69 and an N0 just below 20,000 hands with an edge of 1.22%. This is considered the minimal threshold for a playable game. This is still not a good game by any measure.

The Optimal Spread is to hit your Max bet at an AO2 true count of +7 with 3 units at +3 and 6 units at +5 and otherwise bet 1 unit.

In short, in today's games you need to spread much bigger than Bryce Carlson indicates. AO2 is a very powerful count, but it's not powerful enough to overcome bad rules and mediocre penetration.

In blackjack attack early in the book he does a simulation on how many hands should be played. The simulation shows play 1 hand heads up, and play 2 hands with anyone else at the table. Now in another section of the book about the score it says play 2 hands to increase the score. Does this mean play 2 hands even when heads up? I thought the simulation said 1 hand heads up is better.

None of the SCORE simulations in BJA3 are done for head-up play. You're told to play two hands to increase SCORE because all the sims are done for assuming other players at the table. See, for example, p. 211, #9.

Don

You wind up with the same amount of action per shoe betting 1x or two hands of 0.75x with x as your max bet. But when playing two hands you get though the shoe much faster and through the good and bad cards faster. Speed is important because the worst thing that can happen is for you to finally get your big shoe and either have a civilian sit down to play two hands of $25 and eat all your good rounds. The other thing that can happen is the pitboss can back you off before you can finish the shoe. Playing two hands makes it more likely that you'll get though the shoe before either of these things happen. Remember, it costs you more for another player to eat good cards in your big plus rounds than you gain by other players eating bad cards for you in negative rounds.

bp

Suppose you're playing at a shop where switching back and forth
one to two hands generates no heat at all.

I figure it is better to play one hand, min bet, on negative
and 0 counts, and two hands on all positive counts, right?
Assuming play all is necessary, and 2 decks.

I know I should know the answer, but I'm recently switching to
generally 2 hand play at higher stakes, and recently been getting
hammered bad at a supposedly very good game. Just checking my
sanity.

The assumption that it is better to play one hand in negative ev counts is, I believe, incorrect when playing heads up. It creates a less favorable true count distribution. Francis Salmon argued otherwise and believe that multi-hands in negatives saves only seconds per shoe. I don't intend to replay the thread but it is likely still on this page if you search back a few weeks.

Switching from 2 spots to 1 spot saves little, you cut your bet by 50% but play 33% more rounds in exchange. It's only a good idea in stores where you have to play 2x table min to play two spots...in this case you cut your bet by 75% and only play 33% more rounds.

As an example dropping from 2x50 to 1x50 is really the same as betting 1x75 in terms of spread when heads up (final round of shoe when cut card is about to come out is the exception). So 1x50 to 2x500 is not really 20-1 but when heads up it's more like 13.333-1 spread.

and I was travelling abroad a few weeks ago.

Besides, I like digging up again anything you experts disagree on :-)

Thanks for the reply though.