Heads up play

[blackchipjim]

I was actually able to get a low limit table heads up with the dealer finally. I was able to play for quite some time before someone thought I needed company. The results were great and I found it to quite profitable. I always was a little leary about sitting down by myself because of cover concerns and such. I did alternate between one and two hands for the sake of entertainment on low counts and steadily two hands sometimes three on high counts. The dealer was quite pleasant and enjoyed my games not to mention the tokes. I had the pit boss another lady come over and joke with me about not having any friends to play with but I assured her I don't play well with others. I geuss I'm comfortable enough to play heads up from now on I just have to get a bigger bankroll to do it. blackchipjim

 

[sagefr0g]

I was actually able to get a low limit table heads up with the dealer finally. I was able to play for quite some time before someone thought I needed company. The results were great and I found it to quite profitable. I always was a little leary about sitting down by myself because of cover concerns and such. I did alternate between one and two hands for the sake of entertainment on low counts and steadily two hands sometimes three on high counts. The dealer was quite pleasant and enjoyed my games not to mention the tokes. I had the pit boss another lady come over and joke with me about not having any friends to play with but I assured her I don't play well with others. I geuss I'm comfortable enough to play heads up from now on I just have to get a bigger bankroll to do it. blackchipjim

i believe your better off sticking with just one hand when playing one on one.
cool that you did well though!

 

[rogue1]

According to BJBB II

If the count is elevated and there is at least one other player at the table it may be wise to play multiple hands. If the count is elevated and it appears the shoe is real close to being finished whether or not there are other players, it may be wise to play two or even three hands to get all the high cards you can while the count is elevated.

 

[Canceler]

i believe your better off sticking with just one hand when playing one on one.

So they say, and I believe it. And that's what I try to do. But, man, I feel MUCH more comfortable playing 2 X $75, rather than 1 X $150.

Where's that "chicken" smiley when you need it?

 

[zengrifter]

i believe your better off sticking with just one hand when playing one on one.

That is absolutely correct UNLESS you can get away with going to two hands on the last round. zg

 

[EasyRhino]

But, man, I feel MUCH more comfortable playing 2 X $75, rather than 1 X $150.?

Well, there's truly less risk involved if you're bettign 2x50%.

The real question is, how would you feel about betting $150 vs 2x$100, as those would have more similar risks of ruin.

 

[Canceler]

Brain-dead again (or still?)

The real question is, how would you feel about betting $150 vs 2x$100, as those would have more similar risks of ruin.

Since I can't seem to think of an intelligent response to this question, I'm going to assume it's rhetorical!

 

[sagefr0g]

Since I can't seem to think of an intelligent response to this question, I'm going to assume it's rhetorical!

actually Canceler it's a question aimed at how you feel about it more so than about academic matters but your feeling might well be linked to the academic underpinnings.

 

[Canceler]

Well, since you put it that way...

actually Canceler it's a question aimed at how you feel about it more so than about academic matters but your feeling might well be linked to the academic underpinnings.

Disregarding academics, mathematics & theory, my feeling is that my max bet of $150 represents a 1 to 15 spread, and I'd rather play it as two hands of $75, due to variance issues. 2 X $100 is a little further than I want to go.

 

[sagefr0g]

Disregarding academics, mathematics & theory, my feeling is that my max bet of $150 represents a 1 to 15 spread, and I'd rather play it as two hands of $75, due to variance issues. 2 X $100 is a little further than I want to go.

lol, well i don't think you totally disregarded academics, mathematics & theory but what you would rather do in this instance was the point and it would be my guess it's a pretty good indicater of your tolerance for risk

i have a similar issue where when i'm playing and i think the advantage is very slight and i just want to bet three nickles instead of two at one spot in multi-player game. where i believe it would be better in that case to play two spots of two nickles each but not wanting to put out the extra nickel i sometimes will go ahead and play the one spot of three nickles.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

i believe your better off sticking with just one hand when playing one on one.
cool that you did well though!

as long as your not putting more money out on the table, multiple hands is always better, it reduces variance.. the only time you wouldnt play multiple hands is if the count was less than 1 or the table minimum is too high and you didnt want to bet that much

Well, there's truly less risk involved if you're bettign 2x50%.

The real question is, how would you feel about betting $150 vs 2x$100, as those would have more similar risks of ruin.

$200 into 2 hands the same as $150 into 1 hand? i dunno about that, that sounds like 2 hands reduces the variance by a lot, which from what others have said on here, it doesnt sound like it reduces it that much.. i dunno tho, but id rather bet the 1 hand @ $150

 

[Sonny]

as long as your not putting more money out on the table, multiple hands is always better, it reduces variance..

But it might also reduce the number of rounds you get. Would you rather play 6 rounds with 2 hands or 10 rounds with 1? Sometimes playing multiple hands ends up hurting you if you’re eating too many cards. That is why you’re usually better off playing 1 hand heads up and multiple hands with other players at the table. Schlesinger’s book has a section on this.

the only time you wouldnt play multiple hands is if the count was less than 1 or the table minimum is too high and you didnt want to bet that much

There are times when you would want to spread to multiple hands in negative counts (like card eating or using the Grifter’s Gambit). They are rare, but they do exits.

$200 into 2 hands the same as $150 into 1 hand? i dunno about that,

Check out this link:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=16488

Sonny--

 

[Kasi]

Since I can't seem to think of an intelligent response to this question, I'm going to assume it's rhetorical!

I think he's just trying to say that if $150 was the "right" bet in the first place, and one you were comfortable making, then betting 100 on 2 hands would keep your RoR about the same.

Like you say, if you want to be more conservative, why not.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

But it might also reduce the number of rounds you get. Would you rather play 6 rounds with 2 hands or 10 rounds with 1? Sometimes playing multiple hands ends up hurting you if you’re eating too many cards. That is why you’re usually better off playing 1 hand heads up and multiple hands with other players at the table. Schlesinger’s book has a section on this.

if your heads up with the dealer, why would it matter? you could play 7 hands or 1 hand, in terms of card eating, it wont matter at all.. oh wait, i forgot, what if you put out $20 and lets say your betting 7 hands, then the count goes way up when the cards come out.. if you had been playing 1 hand, you could have raised your bet each of those 6 hands.. but what does rounds have to do with it? 7 bets in 1 round or 1 bet in 7 rounds, its the same thing if you ignore what i said 2 sentences ago

 

[Sonny]

if your heads up with the dealer, why would it matter? you could play 7 hands or 1 hand, in terms of card eating, it wont matter at all..

Read my last post again. Assume you are in a game with 54 cards left before the shuffle. If you play 1 hand then there will be enough cards to play 10 rounds. If you bet $10 per hand then you are getting $10*10 = $100 on the table. If you play 2 hands then there may only be enough cards for 6 rounds. If you are betting $5 per hand (and 2 hands per round) then you will only be getting $5*2*6 = $60 on the table. If the count is negative during this segment then you have increased your EV by getting rid of the –EV hands faster and with less money, but if the count is positive then you have hurt yourself by betting less money when you have the advantage. That is why you have to be careful when spreading to multiple hands. That is the theory behind card eating.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Read my last post again. Assume you are in a game with 54 cards left before the shuffle. If you play 1 hand then there will be enough cards to play 10 rounds. If you bet $10 per hand then you are getting $10*10 = $100 on the table. If you play 2 hands then there may only be enough cards for 6 rounds. If you are betting $5 per hand (and 2 hands per round) then you will only be getting $5*2*6 = $60 on the table. If the count is negative during this segment then you have increased your EV by getting rid of the –EV hands faster and with less money, but if the count is positive then you have hurt yourself by betting less money when you have the advantage. That is why you have to be careful when spreading to multiple hands. That is the theory behind card eating.

-Sonny-

i know im going to appear stupid here, but i still dont get it.. i totally understand the idea behind card eating with other players at the table, and the idea that the more hands played (at the table) the more volatile your betting will be, cuz if you just had 1 hand heads up, you could gradually change your bet, taking advantage of every small count increase..

here is what i dont get tho.. you say that if you play heads up, you will have 10 rounds, and if you play 2 hands heads up, you will only have 5 rounds; yes i understand that, but its not like some other player is playing that other hand, you still get all the hands! 10x1=10, 2x5=10, either way you play 10 hands (give or take).. also, wouldnt it be better to play more hands because when the cut card comes out if your playing 1 hand, you may get 1-2 cards past it, but if you play 2 hands, you may now get 4-5 cards past the cut card, thus being able to count more.. other than more accurate and less volatile betting changes, i dont see how it would matter if your heads up with the dealer, except for the ratio of the cards the dealer gets to the cards you get

 

[Canceler]

i know im going to appear stupid here

The way to avoid that is to read carefully, think just a little, and apply some simple math.

you say that if you play heads up, you will have 10 rounds, and if you play 2 hands heads up, you will only have 5 rounds; yes i understand that, but its not like some other player is playing that other hand, you still get all the hands! 10x1=10, 2x5=10, either way you play 10 hands (give or take)

Right, 10 hands either way. Except, one way you bet 10 hands of $10 each, and the other way you bet 10 hands of $5 each. Which would be the better thing to do during a high count?

 

[Sonny]

here is what i dont get tho.. you say that if you play heads up, you will have 10 rounds, and if you play 2 hands heads up, you will only have 5 rounds; yes i understand that, but its not like some other player is playing that other hand, you still get all the hands! 10x1=10, 2x5=10, either way you play 10 hands (give or take).

That’s not what I said at all. Reread my last two posts again. I said that if you play 1 hand you will get 10 rounds and therefore $100 in action. If you play 2 hands then you may only get $60 into action. You are using the same number of cards and the same amount bet per round, but you are getting fewer rounds so your overall action is lower. That can either help or hurt you depending on the count. If you’re going to spread to multiple hands you’d better be sure you aren’t hurting yourself by doing it.

make sure to add "im pretty sure" or "im not 100% on this" before any bold statements i make

If you’re not 100% sure of something, don’t make bold statements. Ask questions instead.

-Sonny-

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

The way to avoid that is to read carefully, think just a little, and apply some simple math.


Right, 10 hands either way. Except, one way you bet 10 hands of $10 each, and the other way you bet 10 hands of $5 each. Which would be the better thing to do during a high count?

ok, why are you changing the bet from $10 to $5? why not keep it the same? im really confused here, and im sure in about 1-2 posts i will say oooooh duh, but for now, we must travel the path! btw, do you think i skim over your guys posts and then quickly post something without even thinking? if you had any idea how many times i read over your posts and my own after typing them, you would not have said that

That’s not what I said at all. Reread my last two posts again. I said that if you play 1 hand you will get 10 rounds and therefore $100 in action. If you play 2 hands then you may only get $60 into action. You are using the same number of cards and the same amount bet per round, but you are getting fewer rounds so your overall action is lower. That can either help or hurt you depending on the count. If you’re going to spread to multiple hands you’d better be sure you aren’t hurting yourself by doing it.
-Sonny-

why would you only get $60 in action? why change the bet?

lets say 200 cards are to be dealt, and you and the dealer each average 2.5 cards a hand.. you play 1 hand, so its 5 cards per round, which will take 40 rounds to complete the shoe, and if you play 2 hands, it will take 27 rounds to complete the shoe, and if you bet $10 per hand, you are betting $400 if you play 1 hand, and $270x2=$540 if you play 2 hands, so you get more money into play with 2 hands, and if you cut that bet in half.. oh wait, oooooh, now i get it, we are talking about if you bet the exact same per round, just changed the amount of hands, so it would be $400 vs $270.. my bad.. i have trouble thinking sometimes, otherwise i would be doing tons of unnecessary math to figure out unnecessary things.. see, alls you had to do was give an example like i did and i would have understood, and of course you will say you did, but it wasnt like mine! i am smarter than u! yes! :cry:.. now i understand why people raise their bets with 2 hands, such as instead of 1 hand of $50, they would do 2 hands of like $70 or something like that

 

[Sonny]

btw, do you think i skim over your guys posts and then quickly post something without even thinking?

Well, when you say things like “oh wait, oooooh, now i get it” halfway through your post it kinda gives that impression. It almost seems like you would have figured it out if you thought about it a little more before responding.

-Sonny-