One hand or many hands?

[halcyon1234]

If you're playing bs and card counting, is there any advantage to playing one hand vs. playing more than one hand?

When I practice counting, I'm usually playing 4 hands, all the time. I find that unless the "dealer" hits a bit hand, I'll either win 2/lose 2, or win 3 / lose 1. However, I don't have any hard data on how I'm ACTUALLY doing, and haven't tried more or less hands. 4 hands has always just "felt" right. So I have to wonder if there's any mathematical advantage to playing with more than one hand? Or should I play 1 handed with a low count, and play more hands with larger amounts as the count goes up?

Or does it just not matter, and one hand is just as good as playing every spot on the table?

 

[EasyRhino]

Heh, I was asking this same question a few months ago.

If you bet the same total amount across multiple hands, it will have less variance than one hand (sometimes one hand will win and one will lose). In other words, 2x$10 is smoother than 1x$20.

The rule of thumb for counters is that 2x.75 bets will have the same variance as 1x1 bet.

So a really typical example for a counter normally using a $10-$100 spread would be to play $10 in negative counts, increase the bet in slightly positive counts, and then, at somepoint, bet 2x$75 instead of 1x$100. This should have the same variance as 1x$100, but let you put more money out on the table.

Plus, if you're not alone, spreading to two hands (only in positive counts) lets you "eat" more of the positive cards from other players. There was a pretty nerdy thread on it here:

link to blackjackforum thread

I've become a big fan of it. I still suppose heat could be a concern, but not at my betting level. I can "feel" the reduced variance at high counts (it seems like whenver I get a blackjack on one hand, I get an ugly stiff on the other).

 

[halcyon1234]

Thanks, that was just what I was looking for!