playing two hands instead of one

[sagefr0g]

i must have a fundamental lack of understanding of the idea behind playing two hands as opposed to playing one hand. i know it's a good way to get more money on the table with less variance. seems that co-variance has a way of 'protecting' making a larger than normal overall bet for two hands than if you were to make such a bet on one hand. i think it is that you can make your overall bet about at 150% the size of what you would properly bet for one hand if you are playing two hands in an advantage situation and still maintain the same risk. so you get the bonus of laying out more money at the same risk.
where i have confusion about going to two hands is especially in the following situation:
if $5 is my unit...
i'm betting $5 as my min bet....
the count gets to where i want to bet $10 .
so should i bet $10 on one spot or should i bet $5 on one spot and $5 on the other?

 

[Kasi]

if $5 is my unit...
i'm betting $5 as my min bet....
the count gets to where i want to bet $10 .
so should i bet $10 on one spot or should i bet $5 on one spot and $5 on the other?

I don't fully understand it either.

But I'd say bet the $10 on one hand.

Or at least $7.50 on each of 2 hands so u r betting 50% more.

Betting $5 on each of 2 hands would not keep your risk the same, I don't think.

Also I think u only really want to do it when u have an overall advantage on the bet in the first place.

At some point just getting more money out is not the answer which is why, basically, don't go to 4 hands even if u can.

 

[zengrifter]

Part of the answer is that it depends on how many other spots are in play. Heads up you shouldn't go to two hands, for example. With 3 other spots in play, go to two hands as soon as the count is favorable... AND when you do go to 2-hands, add that extra 50% to the total bet.

The trade-off on 1 vs 2-hands is the card depletion, which partially offsets the extra money on table gain. zg

 

[sagefr0g]

I don't fully understand it either.

But I'd say bet the $10 on one hand.

Or at least $7.50 on each of 2 hands so u r betting 50% more.

Betting $5 on each of 2 hands would not keep your risk the same, I don't think.

Also I think u only really want to do it when u have an overall advantage on the bet in the first place.

At some point just getting more money out is not the answer which is why, basically, don't go to 4 hands even if u can.

yea that is what i was thinking as i made the post. ie. going to $7.50 on the two hands. so i guess going $5 on the two hands would be a lower expectation than one hand at $10 ? but if i did go $5 on the two hands then my risk might be lower than one hand of $10 ?

 

[EasyRhino]

Technically, I don't think it's "covariance" that allows you to spread to two hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance (it made my brain bleed)

Covariance between two blackjack hands is moderately positive. The outcome of the second hand is kind of like the outcome of the first hand (things like dealer busts or BJ's link the results together). But they're not 100% covariant, because then there would be no point. The thing that's helpful is actually the degree of non-correlation between the two hands (sometimes you get different results, after all).

Anyways, your sample situation would tell you to either bet 1x$10, or 2x$7. Despite the degree of non-correlation, the total swings are going to be larger when you're playing those two hands.

However, uou're also playing those two hands at an advantage, so your risk of ruin should stay the same as if you were playing a single hand at $10.

To be honest, I think the decision over whether to spread depends on other factors, mainly if there are other players at the table (if so, you can to eat more cards in the positive count), if you're heads-up (playing one hand is usually simpler and faster), and if switching around gives you some perceived cover benefit.

 

[Kasi]

If $10 was the optimal bet, then u'd be underbetting at $5 for 2 hands with less risk like u say.

That's what I think I think

I kind of liked it in Michigan when each seat had 2 betting circles so u could play both or just one whenever u wanted.

Surprised more places (like AC) don't have that since it seems like a win-win for player and house.

 

[zengrifter]

yea that is what i was thinking as i made the post. ie. going to $7.50 on the two hands. so i guess going $5 on the two hands would be a lower expectation than one hand at $10 ? but if i did go $5 on the two hands then my risk might be lower than one hand of $10 ?

Lower risk, but with the card depletion factored in its the equivalent of going fro 5 to 7 on 1-hand. zg

 

[sagefr0g]

Part of the answer is that it depends on how many other spots are in play. Heads up you shouldn't go to two hands, for example. With 3 other spots in play, go to two hands as soon as the count is favorable... AND when you do go to 2-hands, add that extra 50% to the total bet.

The trade-off on 1 vs 2-hands is the card depletion, which partially offsets the extra money on table gain. zg

right i remmember about not going to more hands on heads up play. i guess you don't need to deplete cards when heads up as you are going to get them anyway and the count may go up so you may be playing future hands at a better count with more cards left to play (in essence better penetration?)
but at a table with other players by going to two hands you in essence chip away at the penetration they are 'stealing' from you?

 

[zengrifter]

right i remmember about not going to more hands on heads up play. i guess you don't need to deplete cards when heads up as you are going to get them anyway and the count may go up so you may be playing future hands at a better count with more cards left to play (in essence better penetration?)

Sometimes playing heads-up I will stick to 1-hand on my topBets untill the last round and then (in a high-bet count) slam 3-hands out. This works well also if I'm heads-up and playing 3-hands on the neg-counts (GGambit), but then ONLY on the last round 3-hands large, if the count warrants it.

but at a table with other players by going to two hands you in essence chip away at the penetration they are 'stealing' from you?

I liken it to 'hogs in a trough' - and during the neg-counts you let the others eat it up, then shove in with 2 or even 3-hands when its time for you to eat. zg

 

[sagefr0g]

Sometimes playing heads-up I will stick to 1-hand on my topBets untill the last round and then (in a high-bet count) slam 3-hands out. This works well also if I'm heads-up and playing 3-hands on the neg-counts (GGambit), but then ONLY on the last round 3-hands large, if the count warrants it.

wow! that is too cool! i think i finally understand the GGambit. but i seem to remmember the GG is best for SD & DD? would this work for 6D? seems like it would.

I liken it to 'hogs in a trough' - and during the neg-counts you let the others eat it up, then shove in with 2 or even 3-hands when its time for you to eat. zg

:laugh:

 

[Kasi]

Anyways, your sample situation would tell you to either bet 1x$10, or 2x$7. Despite the degree of non-correlation, the total swings are going to be larger when you're playing those two hands.

Just to add, as u say, the swings will be larger with 2 at $7 compared to 1 at $10. But after all, u r betting more money.

But betting 2 at $5 would have less swings than 1 at $10 since the standard deviation is about $2 less for the same total wager.

 

[dacium]

Spreading to multiple hands is a must if there are more than 1 or 2 boxes in use. Where I play there are 7 boxes and typically at least 4 or 5 in us. If I don't spread 20 cards or more can come in one hand and kill the count, it increases variance massively because I have to hit the same count more often to even out.

 

[zengrifter]

wow! that is too cool! i think i finally understand the GGambit. but i seem to remmember the GG is best for SD & DD? would this work for 6D? seems like it would.

"Grifter Gambit" for 6D Shoes