Has anyone got the odds or advantage/disadvantage of playing TWO HANDS during negative counts on a SINGLE DECK?
It stands to reason, when so many big cards have been played we want the dealer to shuffle and give us a chance a fresh and possible positive count in the next shuffle.
It's been working for me, but I do not know the odds.
Say each hand uses 3 cards. When you play one hand, you use up 6 cards for one unit or 1/6th of a unit per card. When you play two hands, you have to play two times the table limit and only use up 9 cards. That works out to 4/9ths of a unit per card.
Your lowest bet may not be a minimum table bet. Then it make sense to divise your small bet on two spots. This will lower variance and get to the shuffle point faster without risking more money on neg hands.
Scooter, Let's say I choose to play at different levels: not the minimum for my negative count bets. If I am at a $5 min. table, but play at an average of $20 to $75; 20 being my lowest single bet on the single deck. However, the shuffle was made and with the other two players I have a Negative 5 for my count.
My next tactic is to split up my bets Two $10 bets and burn up by card eating this deck. If I had some confederates who were at the table and did likewise, so much faster would be the shuffle.
I have been experimenting with this for years, but I have no statistics to it's reliabilty; and simms prove out over the long run.
DD,
Are you saying I should practice with a deck for millions of hands, play LIVE for millions of hands in the casino, or are you suggesting a simulation?
Where can I find an online simulator; free one?
configurations of numbers of spots played and number of rounds dealt by the dealer will yeild greater penetration at single deck. You should play the optimum number of spots to get the optimum amount of penetration.
In response to your original question...there are certain casinos that will automatically shuffle if a player adds a hand at a certain point in the game For example, if you're getting a 3r to 3 game and add a hand on the 3rd round the dealer will shuffle rather than deal it. So, if you add a hand in very negative rounds you can always force the casino to shuffle away the bad cards. This is what happens when casinos get to "mechanical" with their systems.
"configurations of numbers of spots played and number of rounds dealt by the dealer will yeild greater penetration at single deck. You should play the optimum number of spots to get the optimum amount of penetration."
bigplayer, are you being sarcastic, not that I mind, but you are going to have to rephrase that up above.
I always want greater penetration when I've seen more little cards; too many big cards out is not my sought territory.
"In response to your original question...there are certain casinos that will automatically shuffle if a player adds a hand at a certain point in the game For example, if you're getting a 3r to 3 game and add a hand on the 3rd round the dealer will shuffle rather than deal it. So, if you add a hand in very negative rounds you can always force the casino to shuffle away the bad cards. This is what happens when casinos get to "mechanical" with their systems. "
Yes, that is my point, if the deck is -4 and there is a hand or two left, and I've been playing one hand with high bets; I switch and play two or three. Result: 80 -90 % of the time the dealer shuffles. They are too mechanical!
a casino may deal 5 rounds to 1 spot but 4 rounds to 2 spots...so if you're playing heads up you will want to play 2 spots and get a better game.
A casino may only deal 2 rounds to 4 spots...if you move from 2 spots to 1 spot you will get a 3 rounds to 3 game which is better.
There are various configurations...you'll have to experiment to find out which. The best games are 4 rounds to 3, 3 rounds to 4, 5 rounds to 2, and 7 rounds to 1. 2 rounds to 7 is, percentagewise, a good game albeit slow.
The casinos generally still make more money offering the "good games" described above as they get more rounds per hour from the squares at the table...they make more money than they lose from counters due to the increased penetration.
bigplayer, thanks for the expansion of the concept; I'm dense.
Heh ... heh ...
Couldn`t resist.
