Multideck games
- Thread starter Jay Lee
- Start date
BlackJackHack
Well-Known Member
# of hands/players
Do you think it is better to play one on one with the dealer or with a few people? And if you play one on one is 2 hands better than one for a counter?
Preface: if you don't already know the answers to these questions, you shouldn't even THINK of playing with $100 chips, which, as suggested by your other posts, you have been doing with reckless abandon. Also, the following assumes that you are a competent card counter.
# of players:
In terms of producing the most +EV, it is always best to play head up, regardless of # of decks, since you'll get more hands per hour. This is particularly true in SD/DD.
That being said, it is nice to play with one or two other players in shoe games, so you can leave for the bathroom, or answer your (vibrating) cell phone, when the count tanks, so the ploppy can take all the crappy cards while you're in the can or talking on the phone. If you're playing solo, the crappy cards are still going to be there when you get back.
2 hands vs. 1 hand:
Going to 2 hands chews up approximately 1.5x as many cards as playing 1 hand, so you would need to bet 2 x 0.75 units to get the same "action" in +EV situations as betting 1 x 1 unit. Thus, your EV will be approximately the same with 1 x 1 or 2 x 0.75.
EV aside, in my view, there are cover advantages to playing two hands in positive counts since it makes your spread appear smaller. In my opinion, two stacks of 5 chips seems smaller than one oversized stack of 7 or 8 chips.
In -EV counts (assuming you are still playing) it is better to play 2 x 0.5 units rather than 1x1 unit, since it reduces your overall action, but this may hurt your cover.
Do you think it is better to play one on one with the dealer or with a few people? And if you play one on one is 2 hands better than one for a counter?
Preface: if you don't already know the answers to these questions, you shouldn't even THINK of playing with $100 chips, which, as suggested by your other posts, you have been doing with reckless abandon. Also, the following assumes that you are a competent card counter.
# of players:
In terms of producing the most +EV, it is always best to play head up, regardless of # of decks, since you'll get more hands per hour. This is particularly true in SD/DD.
That being said, it is nice to play with one or two other players in shoe games, so you can leave for the bathroom, or answer your (vibrating) cell phone, when the count tanks, so the ploppy can take all the crappy cards while you're in the can or talking on the phone. If you're playing solo, the crappy cards are still going to be there when you get back.
2 hands vs. 1 hand:
Going to 2 hands chews up approximately 1.5x as many cards as playing 1 hand, so you would need to bet 2 x 0.75 units to get the same "action" in +EV situations as betting 1 x 1 unit. Thus, your EV will be approximately the same with 1 x 1 or 2 x 0.75.
EV aside, in my view, there are cover advantages to playing two hands in positive counts since it makes your spread appear smaller. In my opinion, two stacks of 5 chips seems smaller than one oversized stack of 7 or 8 chips.
In -EV counts (assuming you are still playing) it is better to play 2 x 0.5 units rather than 1x1 unit, since it reduces your overall action, but this may hurt your cover.
Felix Rue-de-Guerre
Well-Known Member
What I think..
>>Do you think it is better to play one on one with the dealer or with a few people?
This does not seem like an issue of conjecture to me. So, no AP "thinks" it's better to play one on one. They know when it is appropriate.
A good AP will want to play heads up at a decent single decker all day long.
It will destroy you in most shoe games. Who will eat the cards while you are peeing? The best thing to do is play a shoe with 2 other people. Actually, the best thing to do is not to play most shoes at all, in my opinion!
>>If you play one on one, is 2 hands better than one for a counter?
Usually not. But it depends how you do it. 2 hands raises variance. So you need more money to play this way strait up.
SD usually disallows this, so going to 2 hands in a shoe game at a higher counts is a resourceful tactic.
Starting with 2 hands, then drawing back, at a pitch game that allows this will get you backed off after about 10 seconds. So, even though it is profitable..... Don't, unless you are feeling the situation properly.
-Felix
>>Do you think it is better to play one on one with the dealer or with a few people?
This does not seem like an issue of conjecture to me. So, no AP "thinks" it's better to play one on one. They know when it is appropriate.
A good AP will want to play heads up at a decent single decker all day long.
It will destroy you in most shoe games. Who will eat the cards while you are peeing? The best thing to do is play a shoe with 2 other people. Actually, the best thing to do is not to play most shoes at all, in my opinion!
>>If you play one on one, is 2 hands better than one for a counter?
Usually not. But it depends how you do it. 2 hands raises variance. So you need more money to play this way strait up.
SD usually disallows this, so going to 2 hands in a shoe game at a higher counts is a resourceful tactic.
Starting with 2 hands, then drawing back, at a pitch game that allows this will get you backed off after about 10 seconds. So, even though it is profitable..... Don't, unless you are feeling the situation properly.
-Felix
Felix Rue-de-Guerre
Well-Known Member
Whoa!!!!!! Didn't notice
your header.
No!!!!, never play any shoe game heads up. Period!... 1 or 2 or 50 hands.
You have to Wong shoes unless you can endure something like a 1 to 100 spread. You should never "play all" at any shoe game, ever.
-Felix
your header.
No!!!!, never play any shoe game heads up. Period!... 1 or 2 or 50 hands.
You have to Wong shoes unless you can endure something like a 1 to 100 spread. You should never "play all" at any shoe game, ever.
-Felix