Various texts and sources recommend playing 2 boxes at a time to achieve optimal EV/risk ratio. I wonder why not play 3 boxes? Logically if the count is high, you want to get more boxes to get more cards while the count is good, otherwise the other players at the table will benefit from it instead. Would you be better off playing 2x$60 or 3x$40 at a count of, for example, TC +2 in a game with 2 other players getting cards also?
Look under "simultaneous hands" in the index. This topic is covered quite thoroughly in several sections.
You don't want to play three hands, for two reasons.
a) You're going to attract a lot of attention that you don't want, which is the real reason not explained by theory.
b) Theory explains that, by playing 3 "boxes," you're actually increasing your variance (risk) a lot, (by square root of 3/2, to be precise), for a negligible amount of added profit (because you have to decrease your optimal per-box bet size).
Hope this wasn't too technical - at least reason (a) won't be...
901
"b) Theory explains that, by playing 3 "boxes," you're actually increasing your variance (risk) a lot, (by square root of 3/2, to be precise), for a negligible amount of added profit (because you have to decrease your optimal per-box bet size)."
Thanks for reply. This surprises me, I would expect betting 3x$40 instead of 2x$60 to DECREASE the variance, because you are lowering bet per box while keeping the total bet equal ($120). Any calculations to back up your claim?
when switching to 3 boxes on really high counts but am sticking with it a little bit longer.Those dealer BJs and 20's can really be destructive when playing 2,let alone 3.A couple reasons why I switch to 3 is I'm playing a not so great,crowded game.The spot would eveentually be filled and the ploppy would be eating the cards instead.Another reason switching to 3 really pisses people off and after a dealer BJ they leave on occasion.I know this adds risk but am at present still willing to take that chance.I figure I could always grind out lower stakes down the road.However for me it is debatable still.Can a pro out there tell me if I'm totally wrong?Willi.
"when switching to 3 boxes on really high counts but am sticking with it a little bit longer.Those dealer BJs and 20's can really be destructive when playing 2,let alone 3."
You'd lose the same amount of money betting 3x40 as 2x60 when dealer gets 21. But playing 3 hands will increase your chances that at least one of your hands might be 21 or BJ, thus containing your losses.
...you were betting 3 hands of the same amount that you would have bet two.
BUT,
your expected win from playing 3x40 is slightly (but significantly) lower than from playing 2x60, because of decreased betting correlation. (It's the same reason head-on games have a higher ev PER HAND than full tables; I'm not talking about playing faster.)
also, you should NOT optimally spread from 2x60 to 3x40. You need to spread 3 so that your total $ on the table is a little higher. (If you want the 411, then read Wong's Professional Blackjack - page 203 or so in the aqua-colored paperback edition).
But anyway, if you're playing green or more:
BET TWO.
In case you didn't hear that, BET TWO.
If you play three spots with any proficiency in betting or playing strategy, then I'll call you Shakespeare.*
901
*Stupid joke: bard = barred
When spreading I know about the increase.I play green and not taking heat under consideration.Willi.
"your expected win from playing 3x40 is slightly (but significantly) lower than from playing 2x60, because of decreased betting correlation."
Well , the choice is - either you bet on that box or some plop will jump in and bet on that box. Its hard to find head-on opportunity, when the casino is not busy, they just shut down the tables that are not busy (of course, why would they pay dealers just to stand around waiting), so tables are practically always crowded.
"
If you play three spots with any proficiency in betting or playing strategy, then I'll call you Shakespeare.
"
I wasnt taking heat into consideration, was talking just from mathematical expected win rate point of view. I still think you'd be better off with 3 boxes. Not because of EV, but because of standard deviation - the fluctuations would decrease considerably if you spread more.
that one.3 is more dangerous.Willi.
