Optium Number of Players

[ThunderWalk]

Always looking for an edge, I'm toying with the idea that there may be an optimum number of players that might give third base an advantage. Counting aside, might an even or odd number of "unrelated" players benefit the players against the house?

I have a friend who likes to play alone against the dealer, but I experience the greatest losses in that situation. It seems that if there are two or three other players, the hands are mixed better, and the losses are spread out over time.

Do you have any experience to relate?

 

[bluewhale]

if you are a BS player, the others on the table don't affect you at all. you will lose to the house edge no matter how many other players are on the table/how they play.

 

[ColorMeUp]

I have a friend who likes to play alone against the dealer, but I experience the greatest losses in that situation. It seems that if there are two or three other players, the hands are mixed better, and the losses are spread out over time.

This is key. When you play alone, you play fast and get a lot of hands in. When there are more people, each hand takes longer to play, thus you play less hands per hour. When you have variation in the positive direction (ie, you're winning) you'll win big. When you have negative variation, you'll lose big. Over time the house edge will still be the same whether you play heads up or not.

When counting, it's beneficial to play heads up with the dealer because when the count is high you get all the cards (and you can spread to multiple spots if you wish). If you're playing with other people and the count is high, they'll take some of those cards.

 

[EasyRhino]

To reiterate colormeup, if you're not playing with an advantage, the optimum number of players is very full, and very slow, so you lose money as slowly as possible and get the most comps.

If you have an advantage, and are playing singe deck... I've heard somewhere that full tables can actually be good? Something about dealing out more cards from the deck. Don't know the details, so let's chalk it up to rumor.

In my personal experiene, in shoe-country, I kind of like heads-up (because it's fast fast fast), and I'll play it even if it prevents me from wonging. However, fuller tables are no problem. It is nice if there is an open spot next to you, so you can play two hands and eat more good cards in a high count. So, in other words, my ranking is:

#1 - heads up
#2 - Between 2 and <full - 1>
#3 - full.

 

[Preston]

You cannot be playing BS if you are heads up and expect to win. You will be playing through some neg counts and will need to work through those if you want to keep it heads up.

Learn to play in a neg count or walk away to a separate table, but being heads up works out really well when you get a good count going you can play as many hands as you want without having to deal with plopplies sucking up the good cards.

 

[sagefr0g]

i believe it's better to just play one spot rather than spreading to two or three spots when you are playing heads up with the dealer. i just read something about this but can't recall where or what the reasoning was. i believe it has to do with co-variance bunging your chances up and the fact that you don't have anyone to compete with for the good cards.

 

[Preston]

I usually will go from one hand of $5 or $10 to two hands of $25 to cover a 1-10 spread, sometimes more depending on how high the count is.

 

[ScottH]

if you are a BS player, the others on the table don't affect you at all. you will lose to the house edge no matter how many other players are on the table/how they play.

Actually for the BS player, the more players the better. It slows the game down which slows the loss rate down as well. As for a card counter the opposite is true, you would prefer to play by yourself to get more hands in per hour.

 

[bluewhale]

Actually for the BS player, the more players the better. It slows the game down which slows the loss rate down as well. As for a card counter the opposite is true, you would prefer to play by yourself to get more hands in per hour.

scott, you're just gonna confuse him. his question was "might an even or odd number of "unrelated" players benefit the players against the house?" also he said "there may be an optimum number of players that might give third base an advantage"

this is a yes and no question, the answer is no. no combination of players and their positions will ever give you the edge. in fact they have no difference on the house's edge against you, and neither do the decisions they make.

what you're giving him advice on his how better to lose his money, optimally he shld not play blackjack at all and go buy some candy instead.

 

[Knox]

i believe it's better to just play one spot rather than spreading to two or three spots when you are playing heads up with the dealer. i just read something about this but can't recall where or what the reasoning was. i believe it has to do with co-variance bunging your chances up and the fact that you don't have anyone to compete with for the good cards.

Seems like two hands would be better to me. When the count is positive, you increase you odds of catching a blackjack (mainly) or other good hand, such as a pair of 10s.

 

[supercoolmancool]

Two hands is worse if you are playing heads up. It's only better playing with 2-3 others and 70% of one bet and then spread to 3 hands with more than 3 other players and 50% of one bet.

 

[sagefr0g]

Seems like two hands would be better to me. When the count is positive, you increase you odds of catching a blackjack (mainly) or other good hand, such as a pair of 10s.

i found the referance i was refering to. Wong in Professional Blackjack.
page 210 - 211. his summary states "In general if you play alone with the dealer you are better off playing one hand and if there are other players you are better off playing two hands at a time when you have an edge"

the reasoning has to do with the estimation of your advantage when you are one on one with the dealer. before betting you can estimate your advantage more precisely for one hand than you can for two since when you are playing two hands more cards come out an that constitutes a possible effect on the second hand.

 

[ScottH]

Two hands is worse if you are playing heads up. It's only better playing with 2-3 others and 70% of one bet and then spread to 3 hands with more than 3 other players and 50% of one bet.

You should answer your phone! A play has been released in case you didnt know...

 

[supercoolmancool]

I was busy taking my abstract math final.

 

[ScottH]

I was busy taking my abstract math final.

What's more important, abstract math, or a +EV situation? Get your priorities straight! :laugh:

That would be funny if you asked to leave for a second to go make the bet and then come right back.

 

[Cass]

Seems like two hands would be better to me. When the count is positive, you increase you odds of catching a blackjack (mainly) or other good hand, such as a pair of 10s.

Sage is right playing heads up with one hand is the best. You get more hands per shoe so you are playing less hands per hour of the top of the shoe. (especially important in single and dd games.) The high counts will last longer and your bets will be more accurate with regard to the count.
Lets say you are playing 5 hands at a time in positive counts. Count is +2. The first card is dealt to each hand and ends up being a face card the count would be neutral by the time the third card hit the felt and your fourth and fifth hand would be receiving cards with a negative count.

 

[ColorMeUp]

I was busy taking my abstract math final.

That's funny. I have my abstract algebra final on monday......

 

[supercoolmancool]

Also Zengrifter advised the Grifter gambit once. I don't know if he still does but it is where you play 2 hands in heads up minus counts to reach positive counts faster. Of course switching to one hand during postive counts.