should u play 2 hands when goin solo against dealer? (nt)
There are different opinions about number of hands played. Some say you should spread to 2 minimum bets to eat the cards when the count is negative. Some say you should spread to 2 when the count is in your favour.
I think you'll find a variety of opinions and tactics in the reponses that will follow.
and the counter is only playing one hand, doesn't the house have the same, perhaps even more of an edge than the counter?
Spreading to two hands is always a good thing to do because it allows you to play more hands in an hour, which means being able to get the $$$ faster.
the counter is only playing one hand, doesn't the house have the same, perhaps even more of an edge than the counter?
Most of the advantage in high counts comes from the increased chance of getting a blackjack. If you're playing one hand, you get paid 3:2 on each BJ, just as you do with two hands. Now, you COULD get BJ on both hands, if you spread to two. OTOH, the dealer could get BJ and wipe out two hands in one shot.
To work out which is best, you really need to consider how many good cards you use up in that plus count. Here's a replay of a formula I put up on Cover/Comps a couple months ago:
--------------------
Under my hypothesis, to maximize EV per hour, we want to maximize:
(Edge x total dollars bet)/(total number of hands including dealer and other players)
When playing alone, and "constrained" as per DD's POM, we get: (edge x 2B)/3 for two hands, and (edge x 2B)/2 for one hand. So if edge is negative, two hands is better. If not constrained, we get (edge x 2B)/3 for two hands, and (edge x B)/2 for one hand, so if edge is negative, one hand is better.
Under the formula, whenever we're constrained, we should play two hands into a negative edge. If we drop the constraint, we should always play one hand into a negative edge. Might be useful to point out here, that it never hurts DI to increase spread by DEcreasing your minimum. So the "constraint" we're discussing is purely a constraint for cover. Covariance and ROR should not change either conclusion. So the formula gives valid results, IMHO, for this situation of choosing between one hand or two in negative EV shoe.
Also interesting to note the formula gives good results for the classic +EV situation. The optimal amount to play for two hands is considered to be about 0.73 on each hand. So the object is to maximize (edge x 1.46B)/3 and (edge x B)/2. Since edge and B are positive, you can cancel them out of the inequality and compare 1.46/3 to 1/2. So when playing alone, it is marginally better to play one hand. When you have "company," the denominators increase (eg. 1.46/4 vs 1/3) and it's preferable to play two hands. If considering playing 3 or more hands, the 1.46 figure decreases and the formula prefers fewer hands.
One of the assumptions in the formula is that each hand takes a proportionate bite out of the remaining (positive or negative) shoe. When you know you're playing the last round, this assumption is wrong, and the formula isn't valid. Rule of 6, or rule of 5 also violates the assumption (moving cut card), so the formula isn't good for those rules.
Sims would put a finer point on it, by eliminating the constant cards per hour assumption, but I think the formula is useful.
ETF
You are correct. It is better to play two hands at all times when heads-up with the dealer to increase EV.
It's actually better to play 2 hands only in plus counts,not all counts. EV is much better than play all.
Because 2 hands at all times is superior to 2 hands at positive counts and 1 hand otherwise, due to the effects on TC distribution. Also, 2 hands at all times can be superior to other schemes in certain single deck situations, due to effects on penetration amongst other things. Additionally, it can be beneficial to spread to multiple hands in neg counts and cut back to one in posi counts in favorable pitch games, a la the now infamous zengrifter's own "Grifter's Gambit". As revereman said...it all depends.
ANS
But of course I would never hang around and waste my time and money betting 2 hands at a -18 rc.
The only possible way 2 hands in negative counts can be better than 1 hand in negative counts is if the minimum bet is split in half.
If the minimum bet is the same for each hand(as in two hands of $10 as opposed to one hand of $10) then you're losing money twice as fast. The ev will be much higher if betting 1 hand on negative and 2 hands on positive. Risk of ruin will also decrease.
Most of the advantage in high counts comes from the increased chance of getting a blackjack.
No it isn't. I have a chart in T-H Basic Blackjack breaking down the edge at various counts, and even without strategy variations this is only one of the factors. You also make more money from standing vs. small cards, doubling, and splitting at higher counts. Strategy variation makes this even more true and also adds insurance to the mix.
I prefer to play 2 hands early and 1 hand later. Playing 2 hands early gets the cards out faster and increases the chance of seeing a higher + count, while playing 1 hand later conserves cards in case the count goes + and possibly leads to an extra round being dealt. I've never defined this precisely enough to simulate but I guess it could be done.
With a very large spread, the difference between 1 and 2 units bet is less than the value of finishing the shoe faster, if you are looking at EV per hand dealt.
"No Even without strategy variations this is only one of the factors. You also make more money from standing vs. small cards, doubling, and splitting at higher counts. Strategy variation makes this even more true and also adds insurance to the mix."
ETF stated that "most of the advantage in high counts comes from the increased chance of getting a blackjack". He didn't say "only" advantage. You are stating that the higher occurence of naturals is "only one of the factors". Depending on how you have quantified the factors that contribute to higher player advantage in higher counts, you and ETF could (or should) be saying the same thing.
For instance, what is a bigger contributor to player advantage than the higher occurence of naturals?
T-H Basic (p.45) has the playing strategy gains in various levels of the count but that's for single deck. And it's for the RCs of the "T-H Basic Point Count".
At almost every level of the count, the player's gain from Standing (on stiffs) is more than the gain from Naturals paying 3:2. Do you have the same findings for multideck?
Running Gain from Gain from Gain from Gain from Insurance
Count Naturals Standing Doubling Splitting Gain
< -5 +1.6 +1.4 +0.9 +0.2 +0.0
-5 +2.0 +2.8 +1.4 +0.3 +0.0
-4 +2.3 +3.6 +1.6 +0.3 +0.0
-3 +2.3 +3.8 +1.7 +0.4 +0.0
-2 +2.4 +4.3 +1.8 +0.4 +0.0
-1 +2.6 +4.7 +1.9 +0.4 +0.1
0 +2.8 +5.1 +2.0 +0.5 +0.2
+1 +2.9 +5.5 +2.0 +0.5 +0.4
+2 +3.1 +5.8 +2.1 +0.6 +0.4
+3 +3.4 +6.0 +2.0 +0.7 +0.6
> +3 +4.0 +6.1 +1.9 +0.7 +1.3
Adv +2.32 +3.70 +1.61 +0.37 +0.08
But I have extended the table to cover strategy variations at the Advanced and Intermediate levels in the same 4 rounds to 2 game. In multiple decks the dealer will bust less often with a small card up, so the value of standing will be slightly lower. Of course you get less blackjacks in a shoe game as well.
If you look at Beat the Dealer by Ed Thorp, you'll notice he gave overall figures almost exactly the same as my totals. I found this months after I created the chart.
I formed that opinion after some studies (on Spanish 21, I think?) that found counting practically useless if you take away the blackjack bonus. I even calculated the average gain from the BJ bonus per hi-lo TC, but I think I must have multiplied the frequencies by 1.5 instead of 0.5. And of course, without the BJ bonus, you have a horrendous disadvantage to overcome off the top. D'oh!
If I didn't mention it before, your TH-BB is a beautiful contribution to the blackjack community.
ETF
