Looking for an answer
- Thread starter Nima
- Start date
psyduck
Well-Known Member
I believe that for the same amount of total bet, spreading to multiple hands reduces the volatility (smaller standard deviation), but it will not turn a losing game (negative expectation) into a winning one. Either way, the winning/losing percentage is similar.
For the ploppy player, where the house has the advantage, the best chance of winning is to go all in on one hand.
For a card counter who has an advantage, the more rounds he plays, the better his chance of coming out a winner. (with proper money management, this figure is virtually 100%)
For a card counter who has an advantage, the more rounds he plays, the better his chance of coming out a winner. (with proper money management, this figure is virtually 100%)
alwayssplitaces
Well-Known Member
Going all in on one hand means you can't double or split
Playing 1 hand or 2 hands your chances of winning are the same. If you have a limited amount of money left you should never bet more than half of your stack so that you can double and especially split as needed. Nothing would be worse than getting 8-8 vs 7 in a high count and not having the money to split at least once.
jaygruden
Well-Known Member
Not sure if you are talking about playing one hand only vs playing multiple spots on the table.......or if you mean putting your entire bank in on one hand or spreading the bank over several hands throughout the shoe? Your use of the phrase "all in" suggests to me the latter.
If asking about playing 1 hand vs multiple - you lower variance by playing multiple so that would be better.
If asking about going "all in" on one hand vs spreading the bank out to play multiple hands through the shoe..............That depends on whether you are playing a at pos EV or at a neg EV. If counting, spread your bank through the positive portion of the shoe. If not counting then throwing all out on one hand gives you best chance bc you are playing at a neg expectation anyway.....which means you will ALWAYS lose in the long run. By playing one hand only then walking away, you are staying as far away from the "long run" as possible. You have about a 47-48% chance of winning that one hand.
Assuming you know near perfect BS, and are not counting cards:
If you have $ 10,000 and bet it all on one decision, you have about a 48% chance of doubling your money.
If you took the same amount and made 1,000 $10 bets, your chances of doubling your money would be far,far lower.
On the other hand, betting it all on one hand means you"ll go broke more than half the time, while spreading it over 1,000 hands reduces your chances of going broke to almost nothing.
So, is your goal to double your stake or to preserve your bankroll?
If you have $ 10,000 and bet it all on one decision, you have about a 48% chance of doubling your money.
If you took the same amount and made 1,000 $10 bets, your chances of doubling your money would be far,far lower.
On the other hand, betting it all on one hand means you"ll go broke more than half the time, while spreading it over 1,000 hands reduces your chances of going broke to almost nothing.
So, is your goal to double your stake or to preserve your bankroll?
blackriver
Well-Known Member
In the lowest definition of winning you should just martingale, this maximizes your chanceof winning that half of all gamblers think its a winning system in the long run and even marginally redirected writers accidently include variations of it as being of use