Does it make sense to spread to two hands if playing heads up against dealer...?
- Thread starter 21forme
- Start date
Sonny
Well-Known Member
No. It is generally better to play one spot heads-up in order to maximize the number of rounds you get. You will make more money by playing one hand on two rounds than you would playing two hands on one round. If there are other players then you would want to play two hands.
-Sonny-
-Sonny-
According to Fred Renzey
Blackjack Bluebook II says yes but only if the count calls for it AND you believe it's the last round coming up. In fact he says if it's the last round coming up and the count is good go to 2 or even 3 hands. Also, if playing 2 or 3 hands your bet should be decreased.
Blackjack Bluebook II says yes but only if the count calls for it AND you believe it's the last round coming up. In fact he says if it's the last round coming up and the count is good go to 2 or even 3 hands. Also, if playing 2 or 3 hands your bet should be decreased.
Last edited:
Mimosine
Well-Known Member
the vast majority of authors say if you're heads up then one hand only.rogue1 said:
if there are a few other people at the table then whether you play 2 or 3 hands depends on the number of people with you.
though in this rare case that rogue1 mentions, i would go to 2 or 3 hands as well, because once the cut card comes out, you're never going to see those cards again.
person1125
Well-Known Member
Sounds right I believe ZG would say in a poor count to play 2 or 3 hands to 'burn up' the bad count and when the count turns favorable drop back to 1hand.shadroch said:
Cardcounter
Well-Known Member
Play multiple hands in a positive count.
Who cares if you get a few less rounds. You are playing heads up against the dealer first round you bet one hand and the count goes up to plus 3. Next round you spread to 3 hands now you have 3 hands that will be in a positive count instead of just one. Who cares if you get a few less rounds in you will get to play more hands in a positive count. You could still get as many as 3 rounds in. Sure if you just played heads up 1 hand at a time you could 5-6 rounds in. But if you do it my way you played at least 10 hands the other way only netted you 5-6 hands. Plus playing 3 hands is less volital than playing one hand with the sum of 3 hands on one hand.
Who cares if you get a few less rounds. You are playing heads up against the dealer first round you bet one hand and the count goes up to plus 3. Next round you spread to 3 hands now you have 3 hands that will be in a positive count instead of just one. Who cares if you get a few less rounds in you will get to play more hands in a positive count. You could still get as many as 3 rounds in. Sure if you just played heads up 1 hand at a time you could 5-6 rounds in. But if you do it my way you played at least 10 hands the other way only netted you 5-6 hands. Plus playing 3 hands is less volital than playing one hand with the sum of 3 hands on one hand.
From first base position with a positive count when the shoe gets very deep, you can stand up to stretch your legs, straighten your belt, reach into your pocket, etc. -- then look right into the shoe and usually determine the last round with a considerable degree of accuracy. If there are three spots open, you can take them -- regardless of the number of players.Mimosine said:
jimbiggs
Well-Known Member
I used to share your opinion. You're playing more hands in comparison with the dealer. If you get three rounds, playing three hands, that makes 9 hands. If you get six rounds and play one hand, then that makes six hands. More hands = more better. The problem with your thinking is that the number of hands doesn't matter in the way that you think it does. What does matter is how much money you get on the table at high counts. If you're betting $150 per hand, one hand per round, then after six rounds you have bet $900 at +3. If you split your bets to three hands of $75 or whatever, and you get three rounds, then you have bet $675 at +3. So by splitting to three hands, you will actually lower your win rate.Cardcounter said:
zengrifter
Banned
Yes, contrary to traditional wisdom. zgperson1125 said:
Yeah, but.......
For example, what if your normal minimum bet at neutral or negative counts was $25 and you're playing heads up? Say there are 126 cards left before the cut card pops out. Playing one hand the rest of the way for $25 each, you'd get in 22 hands, or $550 worth of action (2.7 cards for the player and 3.0 for the dealer) in this disadvantageous situation.
If you spread to 2 hands, still at $25 each, you'd get in 15 rounds, or 30 hands at $25 apiece, or $750 in action before the shuffle.
Only if you cut each of the 2 hands down to an $18 wager would you be betting less money on that shoe...........but then you'd be showing a wider spread!
That can be effective only if your multiple hand bets can be reduced to below the minimum that you'd normally bet on one hand at poor counts. Otherwise, you'd be betting more money per card used up.person1125 said:
For example, what if your normal minimum bet at neutral or negative counts was $25 and you're playing heads up? Say there are 126 cards left before the cut card pops out. Playing one hand the rest of the way for $25 each, you'd get in 22 hands, or $550 worth of action (2.7 cards for the player and 3.0 for the dealer) in this disadvantageous situation.
If you spread to 2 hands, still at $25 each, you'd get in 15 rounds, or 30 hands at $25 apiece, or $750 in action before the shuffle.
Only if you cut each of the 2 hands down to an $18 wager would you be betting less money on that shoe...........but then you'd be showing a wider spread!
zengrifter
Banned
Fred, are you up on the pros/cons of the consolidaion betting gambit (ie, Grifter's Gambit)? zgRenzey said:
Multiple Hands @ Neg. Counts
ZG -- I've been reviewing Malmuth's Consolidation Betting, Uston's Card Eating and Grifter's Gambit. Unless I've missed something, here's how they look to me. Please call my attention to anything I may have overlooked.
In negative counts, the most efficient way to bet (short of wonging out) without regard for cover is one hand of one unit. But there are other ways to bet at these times that are only modestly less efficient, but may be considerably less noticeable compared to your large bets in positive counts.
As an example, let's take a heads up betting spread in double deck from the Grifter's Gambit interview of $50-to-$350. It's a straightaway 1-to-7 spread, and will be seen as such by the pit. But if you come off the top, and in negative counts with 3 x $50 as your minimum bet, three things will change.
.....1) You'll be betting three basic units on that round rather than one.
.....2) As a result, you'll eat almost exactly twice as many cards in negative counts.
.....3) Your variance on that round will be just about equal to that of one hand at $88.
Focusing on #2, since 3 x $50 uses twice as many cards in negative counts, it's probably mathematically as efficient as one hand of $75 -- with regard to overall EV (you'll put in the same total action either way).
Focusing on #3, betting 3 x $50 is more efficient than 1 x $88 with regard to overall variance, because there would be twice as many 1 x $88 rounds as those at 3 x $50.
So what if we just struck an intuitive compromise, and said that 3 x $50 in negative counts performs about as well with regard to both EV and variance as 1 x $75. That would lead to two observations.
.....A) 1 x $75 in negative counts is not as efficient as 1 x $50 in negative counts.
.....B) 3 x $50 might possibly look more innocuous to the pit than 1 x $75 when other bets are 1 x $350 ?????????????
Is that about the size of it?
ZG -- I've been reviewing Malmuth's Consolidation Betting, Uston's Card Eating and Grifter's Gambit. Unless I've missed something, here's how they look to me. Please call my attention to anything I may have overlooked.
In negative counts, the most efficient way to bet (short of wonging out) without regard for cover is one hand of one unit. But there are other ways to bet at these times that are only modestly less efficient, but may be considerably less noticeable compared to your large bets in positive counts.
As an example, let's take a heads up betting spread in double deck from the Grifter's Gambit interview of $50-to-$350. It's a straightaway 1-to-7 spread, and will be seen as such by the pit. But if you come off the top, and in negative counts with 3 x $50 as your minimum bet, three things will change.
.....1) You'll be betting three basic units on that round rather than one.
.....2) As a result, you'll eat almost exactly twice as many cards in negative counts.
.....3) Your variance on that round will be just about equal to that of one hand at $88.
Focusing on #2, since 3 x $50 uses twice as many cards in negative counts, it's probably mathematically as efficient as one hand of $75 -- with regard to overall EV (you'll put in the same total action either way).
Focusing on #3, betting 3 x $50 is more efficient than 1 x $88 with regard to overall variance, because there would be twice as many 1 x $88 rounds as those at 3 x $50.
So what if we just struck an intuitive compromise, and said that 3 x $50 in negative counts performs about as well with regard to both EV and variance as 1 x $75. That would lead to two observations.
.....A) 1 x $75 in negative counts is not as efficient as 1 x $50 in negative counts.
.....B) 3 x $50 might possibly look more innocuous to the pit than 1 x $75 when other bets are 1 x $350 ?????????????
Is that about the size of it?
person1125
Well-Known Member
I guess I am just wondering about what you thinking about the win rate. Even in a disadvantagous situation you will win. So getting in more money ($750) from your example could net a little more if you win the same % of the hands correct? The only downside I see is if you were to lose every hand. Maybe I'm missing something. More input needed from you or ZG. Maybe ZG you can give your thoughts.Renzey said:
zengrifter
Banned
Yes, its first and foremost a method that camofluges the spread while increasing the variance. zgRenzey said: