Playing Multi Hands

L

LA Man

New Member
Watched over the years players playing multi hands - 2 to 3 hands and usually turning out winners -
Haven't seen much written about it (other than a poor condition play multi hands min. wager burn up the cards) -

Anyone with details or articles - I would appreciate it -

LA Man
 
R

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
Playing multi hands will allow you to cut your risk down quite a bit. I should get my M$BJ book out to get the exact #'s.....

page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands

the above schedule is borrowed from BJAttack where simulated comparison is also provided - the schedule reffers to your +count bets only.

notwittanding the above, there is considerable value playing mulitple hands (1-2u each) when playing heads-up in quality 1-2D games IN NEGATIVE COUNTS.

I like to play like this in quality 1D games -

0 or -counts :
3hands of 1u

+1-2 :
1hand of 3u

+3 or higher: 6u (with parlay)

As you can see, the above scheme looks like a 1-2 spread (ie, 3u to 6u) BUT, it has the gain of a traditional 1-6u spread per 100 rounds(not hands). zg
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
Those numbers are wrong *LINK*

Someone once figured out what those numbers probably really meant. This is an error in Million Dollar BJ.

Add 50% to the required bankroll to play 2 hands
Add 100% to play 3 hands
 
R

Rob McGarvey

Well-Known Member
Interesting!

He was using the Kelly Criterion, so this would make RoR pretty much the same if you resize your bets more often than not. So you suggest that to keep the same RoR to increase your bank by stated amount? How would you answer LA Man's original question THop?
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
See Wong or Schlesinger *LINK*

Uston's numbers were something closely related, like maybe how much more you win per hand relative to your bankroll. Uston or whoever did the math for his book just put the wrong numbers in that chart.
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
Playing two hands *LINK*

Always try to play two hands in single deck and see if you get the same number of rounds. Don't jump back and forth, you're more likely to get an early shuffle and/or the dreaded cut card effect.

In a cut card game with a + count, adjust the # of hands to see as many cards as possible PAST the cut card. Do this even if it means overbetting a little bit, you're also increasing your edge by creating deeper penetration. In neutral counts, usually play 2 hands early in the shoe and cut back to 1 hand later.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
TH - STOP SPAMMING CC.com...

... with the inferior COMMERCIAL BJRnet discussion board - CC.com gets more quality posts in a week than COMMERCIAL BJRnet gets in a month! Go spam CCCafe aka 'spam-city'!

zg (fair is fair as I can no longer post-advocate CC.com at CCCafe)
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Ancient historical BAD INFO...

Rob McG writes -
"MDBJ, page 134 states that when betting 2 hands you can increase your bet size by 15%, 3 by 22% and for four hands 26%, BUT, not if it cuts the number of hands you will be dealt during a positive deck."
-----------------------

This is an example of the bad info circa '80 that was still in vogue then and why MDBJ is antiquated for all but the incredible Uston adventure element - THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong - 2hands may bet aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more, w/ no increased risk to BR. (my previous post to this thread, notwithstanding) zg

---------------------

whether to play 1-2-3 hands IN POSI-COUNTS is guided
by the number of other spots being played, thus -

0-1 'other' spots: play 1hands
2-3 'other' spots: play 2hands
3-4 'other' spots: play 3hands
 
T

T-Hopper

Well-Known Member
I meant it what I said

> THopper's #s on this are correct though he said it wrong -Post Response

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address: Private!
Subject:
2hands may bet
> aggregate 50% (actual44%) more and 3hands may bet 100% (actual90%) more

I said increase required BR by 50% and 100% respectively. I don't believe in adjusting unit sizes ala SCORE. You could easily end up with a number like $37.50 units, even using the formula above. I always recommend adjusting BR requirements for REAL-WORLD unit sizes.
 
C

CanKen

Well-Known Member
As noted in other posts below, both Wong and Schlesinger give good info on playing simultaneous hands.
For shoe games in particular though, the four-page article "Scoring the Shoe Strategies" by MathProf gives some very practical approaches depending on the conditions you face.
The article can be found at bjmath.com, by using the site's search engine with key words "shoe score" and clicking on same when the search results come up.
I'd like to hear what others think of this article.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
I agree with it...

I'd like to hear what others think of this article.
-------------

..though it doesn't mirror my personal playing style. zg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top