muliplie hands

6D DAS 80% pen

>2 = 10
2 = 75
3 = 150
4 = 250
5 = 400

At +4 I am forced to play multiple hands. I am usually the only one at the table.

should I split to 2 hands of $100 at +3 and 2 hands of $175 at +4 and 3 hands of $200 at +5? or should I play single up to +3 and only split at +4?

There is usually no gain to split to many hands when you play alone at the table. The more money you put in action amount to the additionnal cards you are using (roughly 50%).

So your saying to play single until I must split would be the best strategy in this case?

This is a recurrent subject. If you play two hands you can bet 50% more with the same risk but you will also use 50% more cards.So technically it's equivalent and just a matter of personal preference.
Of course if the table limit is 200$ as you seem to imply you have to go to two hands if you want to bet more.
How much you should bet depends on your bankroll in the first place and on your ability to take losses in the second place.
If your bankroll is only 20k, your suggested 3*200 maxbet seems far too bold to me (it's more than full Kelly which means an irresponsible risk of ruin). This can only be done if the bankroll is readily replenishable.

Francis Salmon

Read Francis post.

I appologise at the time I was contimplating a 36,000 bankroll where this bet spread would be totally fine. Thank you for the clarification on splitting

you can get through more positive shoes per hour played by playing two hands whenever you have the advantage. It's not just a question of dollar per round but think about it in terms of if you go on a BJ trip of 16 hours of total play...if you play 1 hand per round heads up for 16 hours wonging out of 1 shoe per hour you will play about 5 shoes per hour. That is 80 shoes in a trip. If you play 2 hands in positive counts you might be able to get in 5.5 shoes per hour...that is 88 shoes. Now if 1 shoe per hour goes substantially positive you will get an extra 1 or 2 big shoes per trip playing two hands versus one hand.

First, let me say that in positive rounds, I go to two hands myself (or even three).In case other players join the table it's clearly better and it's less showy than putting the whole money on one spot.
In the course of a discussion here about the speed issue some years ago, I decided to make an extensive test.I found that there was practically no time gain playing multiple hands. Alone against skilled dealers, it took me on average 6 minutes to deplete a normally cut shoe, no matter how many hands I played.
There is of course one great argument for multiple hands and that's at the end of the shoe when the cut card is bound to come out. Here the card eating is actually in the player's favor because it allows deeper penetration.

Francis Salmon

Francis Salmon wrote about playing two hands:
" it's clearly better and it's less showy than putting the whole money on one spot."

Guess I never considered this, but could playing two spots be a type of cover? (i.e. getting more money on the table without being "showy")

I certainly respect the knowledge and experience of Francis, but I think you draw more attention to yourself when you switch back and forth between 1 and 2 hands. Most players do one or the other. Sometimes, players will add a hand announcing "let's change the flow of the cards." Maybe they are counters since I think counters somehow feel that they have to explain their moves while most non-counters do what they are going to do without announcing their inentions. Again, IMHO, very very few players play three hands, and I think that brings even more attention to you.

Yes revereman, I tend to agree with you-some ploppies will go back and forth between one and two hands to try to get the "flow" right. But Salmon's mention of a big bet being "showy" when placed on one spot made me wonder about that statement's validity. :)

The first reason for playing multiple squares is to counter table limits and the second one is to reduce variance.A third one, which is the allegation that it brings a time gain, was the main object of my post. Having said that, I'm still convinced that betting 500 on one spot raises far more attention than betting 3*200. And I have seen many ploppies playing 3 hands.

Francis Salmon