I have a new theory

[Ferretnparrot]

Alright i was lying in bed pondering, and i came up with this idea, that i think will manipulate the odds slightly more into your favor, im not sure if i can explain why, but it all made sense in my head, it has to do wiht the increases and decreased frequency of the dealer breaking and the fact that it effects all hands on the table regardless of their composition. I ran to the keyboard 45 seconds after realising this so i will admit that there may be some point im mississing here

the theory is that there is a threshold count of some kind that could act as a pivot point to trigger the playing of only one hand, or as many hands as possible dependant on weather the count is higher or lower thatn that number, i woudl liek to assume that that number is zero but i dont want to jump to conclusions.

Basicaly i beleive that playing in this manor will amplify the tiny effect fo the dealer breaking more often at high counts, and minimise the effect of the dealer making more pat hands at lower counts. Im proposing that this will have a tiny effect playing heads up in a play all situation.

Im confused as to the many other side effects of playing in this many and which outwieght which, im sure the increase volume of hands the delaer plays trhough on will have some kind of effect on whichever side of the positive or negetive side of the count you play fewer hands on but it seems unlikely that that effect has the exact same weight as the other effect. im pretty confident that there is some kind of effect to be measured here that is beneficial to the player by playing more or less hands at a higher or lower count.

I call shotgun on naming it if im the first to propose it (Which i doubt)

 

[EasyRhino]

So, huh? Is your basic suggestion that after a certain count, it's better to play many spots at once, because of the dealer busting phenomenon?

 

[Ferretnparrot]

lemme try and explain again, the dealer breaking more often whiel playing multiple hands in combination with the dealer making more pat hands while you are playing fewer hands will amplify the effect fo the dealer busting effect relevant to the count and have an effect on your edge by some amount.

or

the dealer breaking more oftan while you play fewer hands and the dealer making more pat hands while you play the most hands possible will have the opotsite amplification effect

I dont knwo which one is for the better, but im predicting a measurable effect. it woudl also only really be usefull in a play all scenario. after further though i beleive that by measuring and isolating this factor and combining it with the weight of some other factors you could combine them to generate some kind of IDEAL number of hands to count scale that spans the entire range of counts to maximise your edge.

I think its important that this number be found and isolated so that it could be compared to the weight of other benefits form playing multiple hands, to find an ideal combination of reasons and times to play multiple hands. My head hurts

 

[shadroch]

You're missing the point. You want to have more money out there when he busts,and less when he doesn't.Ponder that for awhile.

 

[Brock Windsor]

...generate some kind of IDEAL number of hands to count scale that spans the entire range of counts to maximise your edge.

I think its important that this number be found and isolated so that it could be compared to the weight of other benefits form playing multiple hands, to find an ideal combination of reasons and times to play multiple hands.

So you're looking for an ideal number of hands at each count? In positive counts you will have to consider the covariance of each hand so that you can keep playing at the same risk level but if you look at Snyders charts for 1,2, and 3 hands at various bankrolls that will give you an approximation. Spreading to more hands in negative counts I can only think of Grifters Gambit that shows it as a positive for the player and even then that is only practical at certain penentration levels on pitch games.
BW

 

[EasyRhino]

Well, sure, if you have a bunch of hands on the table, and the dealer busts, then it obviously benefits every hand. And if you knew that the next card was a ten, and could steer it to the dealer to increase his/her chance of busting, then you would have to strongly consider playing that if you had a bunch of hands on the table, rather than even taking a hit if you had a 10 on your hand. (I am incapable of evaluating such a play).

But if you're counting, you don't know what the next card is, so the increased dealer busting odds are only very slighly higher.

Whatever this impact of this effect is, I think it's captured by simulation. Along with the effect of multiple hands 'eating' more cards in high counts, as well as multiple hands increasing penetration slightly after the cut card.

And so the conventional wisdom of playing 1 bet, or 2x .7 bet, or 3x .5 bet, is still probably a pretty good way to go.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

I understand the effect of eating more cards at high counts is an effect, but i beleive it shoudl be viewed a s seperate effect, along wiht any other effect that comes along with playign multiple hands, i think that if all effects are isolated, it will be possibel to create an ideal schedual of when to play multiple hands

Im also curious as to the weight of the effect i suggested.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

I thought of a way to test for the presence of the effect.

Since positive and negetive counts occur with the same frequency, a player playing one hand at negetive counts, 3 hands at positive counts and two hands on all coutns that are EXACTLY zero would have an average of two hands. (representing playing by my proposed method.

Comparing this to a player that plays identical strategy except playing two hands at all counts, i beleive the players playing in the manor i am suggesting will lose less money. To isolate better isolate the effect I propose that blackjacks be made to pay 1:1 because playing more hands at high conts woudl also yeild a higher number of blackjacks and will alter the difference between the two.

So in a nutshell,

Game: traditional rules, except NO DOUBLING/SPLITTING of anykind allowed blackjacks pay 1:1 and insurance is not allowed

Players one plays 1 hand at all negetive counts, two hands at a count EXACTLY equal to zero with no rounding, only on a card by card basis, and plays three hands at all positive counts. The player will play with all remaining aplicable index numbers

Player two plays 2 hands all of the time regardless fo the count and also plays all remaining applicable index numbers.

Both players will play heads up play all and will average the same amount of hands per shoe, hopefuly one will lose slightly less money, the difference shoudl come solely form the effect im proposing.

I uhh, dont have software to do this though

 

[callipygian]

Since positive and negetive counts occur with the same frequency, a player playing one hand at negetive counts, 3 hands at positive counts and two hands on all coutns that are EXACTLY zero would have an average of two hands. (representing playing by my proposed method.

The rest of your post is a little difficult to understand, but this paragraph seems clear. As a matter of fact, assuming that all 6 hands are of equal value, you're doing exactly what a card counter should be doing - playing more money (3 units) at high counts, and less money (1 unit) at low counts.

It's very common to spread to multiple hands at high counts. Usually people do it in conjunction with raising their bet: so at counts of <+1, they'll play 1 unit, and at higher counts they'll play 2x2 units (= 4 units total) or 2x4 units (= 8 units total).

 

[zengrifter]

I can't decide whether this thread belongs in Counting or Voodoo -
just definetly not in Advanced. zg

 

[QFIT]

I can't decide whether this thread belongs in Counting or Voodoo -
just definetly not in Advanced. zg

Any discussions of dealer bust rates belong on voodoo IMO.

 

[Kasi]

Any discussions of dealer bust rates belong on voodoo IMO.

But, meaningless as it may be, wouldn't a dealer bust more often per upcard heads-up compared to dealing to full table?

Is there any chance, if so, something like that could change the average cards dealt per round for the single player alone vs full table?

And, even if both might be so, I'm not sure what any practical implication could be? Eating good-cards and when to spread or not? maybe?

Just fishing basically lol.

 

[QFIT]

But, meaningless as it may be, wouldn't a dealer bust more often per upcard heads-up compared to dealing to full table?

Is there any chance, if so, something like that could change the average cards dealt per round for the single player alone vs full table?

And, even if both might be so, I'm not sure what any practical implication could be? Eating good-cards and when to spread or not? maybe?

Just fishing basically lol.

Yes all true. Just not useful. There exist rare cases where you could change a play to get an extra round.

 

[InPlay]

But,

Is if

As if

Just fishing basically lol.

That sums it up !

 

[Kasi]

Yes all true. Just not useful. There exist rare cases where you could change a play to get an extra round.

Thanks very much QFIT - exactly the fish I was wondering about lol and glad to know it actually maybe could, even if only very rarely, actually possibly might lead to changing a play that likely would make basically no real difference anyway for a very very long long time