Playing 2 hands - When and Why?

I would like some advice on playing 2 hands. When should it be done? Is it just a way to get more money out on the table? Or is there othere reasons? Does it matter how many players are at the table? (meaning - is there a time when you play 2 spots if your the only player?). I use a simple level 1 unbalanced and I remember hearing somewhere that some will play 2 hands not only in positive counts, but in negitive counts as well to eat up cards. Is this correct? LAst but not least, is there a time when a BS player should play 2 hands?

Thanks for your time and advice.

AK

This can be a way to eat cards, a way to get more money in action, a way to decrease variance, and a cover tool. There is no set answer. Generally, when heads up if you increase your hands played in +ev vs -ev counts then the cost in card eating totally negates your gain. With others at the table you gain because you get more than your share of the cards during high counts at the expense of the other players. When heads up, multiple hands in negative counts increases the TC frequency of the +ev counts and can improve your win rate if your spread is sufficient. Run sims for more specific answers. Precise answers are more likely to be matters of personal preference than mathematical fact.

to the right player/dealer among other reasons.

Playing two hands is commonly used to disguise the bet spread between your minimum bet and the bet you make when the count is high. Consider if you have been making $10 (two red chip) minimum bets. The count slowly climbs, and you find yourself making your max bet of $120. The pit boss glances over (when the dealer hollers 'cheques play!') and notices what is normally a $10 bettor with a huge pile of 24 red chips in the circle. What the hell is going on here?, he thinks. Perhaps you wouldn't have raised the pit's radar with two bets of $85. (Three greens, capped off with two reds, a slightly bigger pile, but not as obvious.) No cheques play call, and mathematically the same as betting one hand of $120.

As long as the ratio of your low bet to your high bet isn't too far out of line, then spreading to multiple hands in negative counts can also be a good idea. If I am normally spreading $25 to $200 in a double deck game, but the pit doesn't mind me spreading to three hands of $10 in a negative count, then the extra $5 I am betting is worth the extra cards I am eating (especially if the pit starts comping me at an average bet X 3 hands rate).

Another situation for spreading to multiple hands. Suppose you are at a table with 3 other players. You know a blackjack is going to come out on the next round, you just don't know where. The odds of you getting the blackjack are 20% (you, 3 other players, and the dealer.= 1/5). If you would have spread to two hands, the odds of you getting the blackjack have increased over 50% to a 33% chance. (your 2 hands, 3 other players, and the dealer = 2/6).

You can view a high positive count in the same light. You know tens and aces are more likely to come out, by spreading to multiple hands, you are more likely to get the good cards rather than the other players. This is a balancing act. You have to keep in mind that by playing multiple hands, you are using more cards, and therefore will not get as many positive advantage rounds dealt to you.

In some single deck games the opposite is true. The dealer will deal a fixed number of rounds to you playing a single hand heads up, and by moving to 2 hands against the dealer, you will actually get dealt deeper into the deck.

In "Blackjack Attack" by Don Schlesinger there is an analysis of optimal points to spread to multiple hands in positive counts based on the number of other players at the table.

I can think of no reason for a BS player to play mulitple hands, unless he is operating on some other type of inside information.

Can you explain why you wouldn't want to spread two hands, (or three), on a +TC? What difference does it make if I have two hands out now on a +TC, as compared to getting another +TC round with one hand out? If I have one hand out and get 2 ten value cards with a +5 TC this round, then the TC on the next round will be lower. Why not get the money on the table now?

"If I have one hand out and get 2 ten value cards with a +5 TC this round, then the TC on the next round will be lower. Why not get the money on the table now?"

On average, the TC doesn't change as the deck(s) are depleted. Many commonly think incorrectly that a high count means that the big cards are likely to come (which is true to this point) which will cause the TC to fall (which is false). TC is not expected to change on average as cards are depleted, and from past threads it seems that this is a very hard concept for many to understand.

As an example, assume 2D remaining with a RC of +8. This gives us a TC of +4. Deal 52 of those cards (half of the remaining cards) and we expect them to contain 4 more big cards than little, on average. So even if the big ones come out as expected, we are still left with a RC of +4 with 1D to go, or the same TC of +4. More big cards came out, but the TC didn't change due to depletion. Continue on and deal another 1/2 deck. We expect to see 2 more big cards than little on average, and now we have a RC of +2 with 0.5 deck remaining, or the same TC of +4. Same result... more big cards coming out, but the TC not changing.

The decision to go to 2 hands should depend more on it's effect on the rounds dealt before shuffle and card eating effects (and perhaps cover) as others have explained. Spreading to two hands to get the hands in before the count goes down is not a valid reason unless you are Ms. Cleo and can see into the future. Sure the TC may drop as you suggest, but it just as well can go even higher. On average, it will not change.

where he claims that card eating is effective, making the same claims you refute.

He twists the TCT into a claim that the benefits of card eating showup in high counts from speeding the removal of low cards. But he ignores the rounding errors he may be making in those TCs, by ignoring how he is really just slightly deepening the penetration for those subsequent higher counts, and thus is really just dealing with higher actual TCs for them.

That is why I made the post I entitled here: Blame Rob McCarvey. It was to link the True Count Theorem, via a simpler proof of it, to all of the Floating Advantage and value of a True Count fallacies. There are bow effects but the counts where they are maximum are the same counts where your true count accuaracy is compormised. Attempting to cardeat is just putting more money out when the True Count is unfavorable.

Please comment!

You haven't really said what you mean by spreading to multiple hands. Do you mean making multiple bets of the same amount you would bet on one hand? If so, you win more, of course. You have more money in action. But if you are talking about 2@ $50 instead of 1 @ $100 you are gaining nothing. 3 hands at the table, the dealer and two player hands, uses up the rich portion of the deck in 50% fewer rounds than 2 hands. Unless you have increased your action by at least 50% then you are costing yourself money. The exception is when you know it is the last round before the shuffle regardless of the number of hands you play.

The true count comment that you made at the end doesn't make any sense. The number of hands you play has no effect on the true count. The expected true counts after N cards are dealt is always the same as it is now, although it will be more volatile as the deck nears the end. If the count is +2 you are no more likely to get two high cards now than you will on the next round, or if you dealt them to yourself off the bottom of the deck, or the middle of the deck, etc. Unless you are shuffle tracking, you always assume a homogeneous mixture.