One or Two Hands?

[aslan]

Which is the tamer game in 6D, playing one hand of $25 or two hands of $25 each? Now it's obvious that I'm risking more money in the latter, but I usually seem to fare better with it, that is, I am able to hold my own better when wonging in and out is not an option. During negative counts, the two hands seem to cancel out more than both losing, and when the tens and aces are coming out no matter the count I tend to win both hands a lot.

To complicate things a bit, I tend to bet more ($50X2) when the count is going down and sometimes catch a nice run of tens and aces , while also creating a nice cover move. Sometimes in a rising count, especially where there is nice pen, I wait until the count gets to true count of +5, then begin betting max bets no matter whether the count rises or falls, thereby catching any runs of tens and aces at a time when they are more probable with $200X2 bets (If I were playing only one hand, my max bet would be $250X1).

I seem to have less risk of large losses and greater chance of overall wins playing the two hand version even though I am betting nearly twice as much. Is this illusory, or does playing two hands actually cut volatility that much? BTW, the betting patterns are derived from Wong's description of oppositional betting in BBinBJ and offer good cover when wonging in and out are not an option. Playing two hands is often boring due to the canceling-out effect of the two hands, but that's what I like about it, that is, the reduced risk of large losses, or so it seems anyway.

 

[Doofus]

Spreading to two hands times one unit - as I understand it - gives you only 150% of the action that betting the same unit on one circle does.

That said, it is uncanny how often I end up with the same hand on two different circles. Usually when the dealer has a ten up card I get two twelves! :laugh:

 

[rollem411]

During negative counts, the two hands seem to cancel out more than both losing, and when the tens and aces are coming out no matter the count I tend to win both hands a lot.

I would think it's a luck factor at the moment. If your playing negative counts, you are at a disadvantage which I think would only mean you are going to lose your money faster.

 

[blackjack avenger]

From 1 to 2 hands

The math:

1 hand $100 is = to 2 hands of $77 ($75) in variance (swings). However, for this to show itself you have to play quite a few hours.

 

[creeping panther]

ASLAN-2 hands

If you are playing a strong game you need to get as much action as possible and 2 hands will certainly get you there. I tend to play only dd with few if any other players and because of a certain practice there is a special benefit to my playing 2 hands. I believe it all depends on skill level if you only play 2 spots at neutral and positive counts or move to 1 spot at negative counts, I have done both.

In the long run, unless you are highly skilled, I think you will have the same results with 1 or 2 hands.

In my experience I have had my biggest wins with 2 hands, all the time, during any given session, employing my skillz sets.

Creeping Panther.

 

[EasyRhino]

To complicate things a bit, I tend to bet more ($50X2) when the count is going down and sometimes catch a nice run of tens and aces , while also creating a nice cover move. Sometimes in a rising count, especially where there is nice pen, I wait until the count gets to true count of +5, then begin betting max bets no matter whether the count rises or falls, thereby catching any runs of tens and aces at a time when they are more probable with $200X2 bets (If I were playing only one hand, my max bet would be $250X1).

This is terrible, in several different ways.

First, if you're anywhere near play-all, if I read that right you've got an effective spread of 1-5, which is woefully insufficient in shoe games.

Second, if by betting "when the count is going down" you mean you're placing a larger bet when the count is negative. this is a tremendous betting error, and means you're actually increasing the house edge of blackjack.

Placing max bets when the count becomes marginal (+1, +2) is very dangerous, and substantially increases risk of ruin.

I agree with your conclusion, though, that less risk is generally a good thing. In fact, in lieu of a max bet of $300, I will often do two hands of only $200 (vs 225 or so). Partly because it's easier to bet, and partly due to lower volatility.

 

[jack.jackson]

Good strategy

When count meets positive Index number 1. Bet 2 units

Win or lose,spread to TWO hands when counts meets positive Index number 2.Bet 4 units(20x20)

In first 1/2 of the pack(3/6) Win or Lose, when count meets positive Index number 3. Bet 8 units(40x40)

Note: Win or lose, remain @ (40x40) until counts falls BELOW positive Index number 3

In last 1/2 of the pack ONLY got (40x40) on a win.

I play the First 1/2, last 1/2 strategy, when Im feelin conservative(limited BR)but disregard this option when feelin agressive. Creator-Bryce Carlson

You may also wish to add a positive Index number 4 for the 1-16 spread if you wish with or without the first 1/2 last 1/2 as well.

Or you could use a 1-16 short change shceme as well.

As you can see theirs hundrends, if not thousands, of different ways to bet your money. Refer to your sim status at witch point your count reaches those positive Index numbers(TCs) and then decide what way your willing to bet your money, and at what risks are your willing to take.

 

[MartyAce]

I do not remember which author suggested this or the math behind it, but here was the theory:

If you MUST play through negative situations, the ideal situation would be to play two hands of your minimum bet. The theory behind this was so you would cycle through bad situations quicker. Then in a positive situation, you will switch back to one hand. The reasoning was that you would eat up less of the positive cards and would be able to take advantage of stronger hands.

Looking at it mathematically I would almost think that this reasoning would mean that you are now putting 2x minimum bets to the variable negative house advantage, however, these situations are more short lived since you are eating up cards quicker.

Maybe someone with a deeper understanding then me can go deeper into this idea.

 

[moo321]

I do not remember which author suggested this or the math behind it, but here was the theory:

If you MUST play through negative situations, the ideal situation would be to play two hands of your minimum bet. The theory behind this was so you would cycle through bad situations quicker. Then in a positive situation, you will switch back to one hand. The reasoning was that you would eat up less of the positive cards and would be able to take advantage of stronger hands.

Looking at it mathematically I would almost think that this reasoning would mean that you are now putting 2x minimum bets to the variable negative house advantage, however, these situations are more short lived since you are eating up cards quicker.

Maybe someone with a deeper understanding then me can go deeper into this idea.

This CAN be true. If you're playing heads up in a single deck game, its definitely true. If you're at a table with 3 other people in a shoe game, it's not true. Playing more hands in higher counts with others at the table makes sense as well, because you're eating up more positive cards.

 

[aslan]

This is terrible, in several different ways.

First, if you're anywhere near play-all, if I read that right you've got an effective spread of 1-5, which is woefully insufficient in shoe games.

Second, if by betting "when the count is going down" you mean you're placing a larger bet when the count is negative. this is a tremendous betting error, and means you're actually increasing the house edge of blackjack.

Placing max bets when the count becomes marginal (+1, +2) is very dangerous, and substantially increases risk of ruin.

I agree with your conclusion, though, that less risk is generally a good thing. In fact, in lieu of a max bet of $300, I will often do two hands of only $200 (vs 225 or so). Partly because it's easier to bet, and partly due to lower volatility.

Actually, instead of spreading 1 to 10, because of two hands, I am spreading 1 to 8 on each hand.

By placing a larger bet when the count is going down means that when the count begins to drop, regardless of whether the count is positive or negative, by raising the bet you will catch any runs of tens and aces, since for the count to go down, tens and aces must be dealt. It's an attempt to cash in on the down swings without going hogwild; that is, by using small increases in your bets. The fact of playing two hands also tends to mitigate the risk, because even if the count swings up, the two hands tend to cancel each other out.

Also, if the count has gone very positive, say +10 with only two decks remaining, there is great pressure so to speak for tens and aces to begin falling. The remaining decks must "fight" their way back to zero by dealing tens and aces. In this situation, there is less danger that a +10 is a false signal due to uneven mixing of high and low cards. I think it also strengthens the value of a +1 or +2, but you are probably right that it does not favor a max bet, but maybe something more than the recommended bet on average.

Does this make any better sense to you?

 

[jack.jackson]

I do not remember which author suggested this or the math behind it, but here was the theory:

If you MUST play through negative situations, the ideal situation would be to play two hands of your minimum bet. The theory behind this was so you would cycle through bad situations quicker. Then in a positive situation, you will switch back to one hand. The reasoning was that you would eat up less of the positive cards and would be able to take advantage of stronger hands.

Looking at it mathematically I would almost think that this reasoning would mean that you are now putting 2x minimum bets to the variable negative house advantage, however, these situations are more short lived since you are eating up cards quicker.

Maybe someone with a deeper understanding then me can go deeper into this idea.

Zen Grifter came up with Inverse bet spreading. See his Interview.

 

[EasyRhino]

Also, if the count has gone very positive, say +10 with only two decks remaining, there is great pressure so to speak for tens and aces to begin falling. The remaining decks must "fight" their way back to zero by dealing tens and aces. In this situation, there is less danger that a +10 is a false signal due to uneven mixing of high and low cards.

Reality check.

Let's assume you're true counting.

If two decks are remaining, and your TC is +10, that means there's 20 more high cards than low cards.

If five decks are remaining and the TC is +10, that means there's 50 more high cards than low cards.

The "pressure" for the high cards to come out is basically the same. That's why you bet according to the count, because it has some effect on future hands. Not according to the direction of change of the count, which is only an indicator of what happened on the previous hand.

 

[aslan]

Reality check.

Let's assume you're true counting.

If two decks are remaining, and your TC is +10, that means there's 20 more high cards than low cards.

If five decks are remaining and the TC is +10, that means there's 50 more high cards than low cards.

The "pressure" for the high cards to come out is basically the same. That's why you bet according to the count, because it has some effect on future hands. Not according to the direction of change of the count, which is only an indicator of what happened on the previous hand.

I don't believe I mentioned True Count. I was referring to running count.

But to put it in your terms, when the TC is +10, there is a great pressure for high cards to fall.

The idea of raising the bet slightly when the count falls is the same as a positive progression that tries to capitalize on good runs of cards. True, the count may not continue to fall, but oftentimes it does, and when this happens you are capitalizing on the run of high cards. Even when the count doesn't run one way or the other, with two hands you have a greater chance of breaking even, a cancelling out effect, which is why two hands is considered less volatile than one. At least that's the way I have surmised. I think the end result may be neutral overall, but it supplies good cover. And I think that's what oppositional betting is all about, good cover.