Playing two hands, Sonny, ZG, et al. help!!

[Knox]

I've been paying close attention to the threads on playing 1-3 hands and would like some advice.

First of all, let me say that I don't like the idea of playing 3 hands. I believe that 1-2 hands is normal but 3 would draw attention that I don't want.

I would welcome anyone's comments on the effect of playing 1 vs. 2 hands. Let's assume primarily DD play. Here is what my current strategy is:

Normal spread with one hand is 1-5, or $25-$125. I play KO but I will try to standardize the language here. For simplicity let's say +1 is the Key count where you increase your bet to 2 units, then you bet 3 units at +2 and so on up to 5 units at +4. I guess this is called a ramp of 4? Anyway, for DD I played as follows last time and it went pretty well:

Bad counts (0 or less): 1 x $25
Count of +1: 1 x $50, or 2 x $25 if allowed (sometimes you must double the min to play two hands)
Count of +2: 2 x $35-$50 (might just cap $25 bets with a couple reds)
Count of +3: 2 x $50-$75 (still not averse to throwing a few reds in)
Count of +4: 2 x $75 for sure

My goal is more to reduce risk than enhance profit. However, I still want to at least earn the EV as if I were spreading 1-5. My (current) understanding is that the above betting strategy should approximate a 1-6 spread but only subject me to the risk of a 1-4 spread. Seems like a good deal to me!

I am in tune with the concept of eating cards in bad counts by playing more hands, but I would prefer to deal with that by strategic wong-outs to coincide with bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, fake cell calls, etc.

Please let me know any suggested refinements to this two hand strategy. Again, my primarily goal is reducing risk while not sacrificing EV. Once my bankroll grows a bit more I will worry about the bigger EV but right now I don't want to be putting out bets as high as 2 x $100 or close to that.

 

[Kasi]

Here is what my current strategy is:

Normal spread with one hand is 1-5, or $25-$125. I play KO but I will try to standardize the language here. For simplicity let's say +1 is the Key count where you increase your bet to 2 units, then you bet 3 units at +2 and so on up to 5 units at +4. I guess this is called a ramp of 4? Anyway, for DD I played as follows last time and it went pretty well:

Bad counts (0 or less): 1 x $25
Count of +1: 1 x $50, or 2 x $25 if allowed (sometimes you must double the min to play two hands)
Count of +2: 2 x $35-$50 (might just cap $25 bets with a couple reds)
Count of +3: 2 x $50-$75 (still not averse to throwing a few reds in)
Count of +4: 2 x $75 for sure

My goal is more to reduce risk than enhance profit. However, I still want to at least earn the EV as if I were spreading 1-5. My (current) understanding is that the above betting strategy should approximate a 1-6 spread but only subject me to the risk of a 1-4 spread. Seems like a good deal to me!
Please let me know any suggested refinements to this two hand strategy. Again, my primarily goal is reducing risk while not sacrificing EV. Once my bankroll grows a bit more I will worry about the bigger EV but right now I don't want to be putting out bets as high as 2 x $100 or close to that.

Sounds like u r uncomfortable with the risk associated with ur current bet scheme - what do u consider that risk to be? Are u playing to a $10K roll?

It sounds like all your proposed spreading will reduce ur risk, at least in the short term.

But sometimes stuff like reducing your max bet (which u effectively are with a 2 x75 rather than 1 x 125), while reducing risk short-term, might actually be increasing it long-term if u r not getting the most possible out of it.

I always like to think in terms of betting my advantage compared to my total bankroll.

So, if my bankroll is $10K and I have a 1.5% advantage at TC +3 my perfect bet would be about $120 after multiplying by 80% or so for the variance.

And I guess sims would be the way to do this right.

But, overall, assuming ur original betting scheme was optimal in the first place, and not over-betting a roll, I think u will be lowering ROR and also profits. Basically it seems you will be putting the same amount of money in play with less standard deviation. You won't win as much but u won't lose as much.

But I'd like to hear what other people who know what they are talking about think.

 

[TENNBEAR]

I've been paying close attention to the threads on playing 1-3 hands and would like some advice.

First of all, let me say that I don't like the idea of playing 3 hands. I believe that 1-2 hands is normal but 3 would draw attention that I don't want.

I would welcome anyone's comments on the effect of playing 1 vs. 2 hands. Let's assume primarily DD play. Here is what my current strategy is:

Normal spread with one hand is 1-5, or $25-$125. I play KO but I will try to standardize the language here. For simplicity let's say +1 is the Key count where you increase your bet to 2 units, then you bet 3 units at +2 and so on up to 5 units at +4. I guess this is called a ramp of 4? Anyway, for DD I played as follows last time and it went pretty well:

Bad counts (0 or less): 1 x $25
Count of +1: 1 x $50, or 2 x $25 if allowed (sometimes you must double the min to play two hands)
Count of +2: 2 x $35-$50 (might just cap $25 bets with a couple reds)
Count of +3: 2 x $50-$75 (still not averse to throwing a few reds in)
Count of +4: 2 x $75 for sure

My goal is more to reduce risk than enhance profit. However, I still want to at least earn the EV as if I were spreading 1-5. My (current) understanding is that the above betting strategy should approximate a 1-6 spread but only subject me to the risk of a 1-4 spread. Seems like a good deal to me!

I am in tune with the concept of eating cards in bad counts by playing more hands, but I would prefer to deal with that by strategic wong-outs to coincide with bathroom breaks, smoke breaks, fake cell calls, etc.

Please let me know any suggested refinements to this two hand strategy. Again, my primarily goal is reducing risk while not sacrificing EV. Once my bankroll grows a bit more I will worry about the bigger EV but right now I don't want to be putting out bets as high as 2 x $100 or close to that.

I also play this DD green 1-5 spread, with KO. I would really like to see the expected EV on this, I think it should work.

 

[sagefr0g]

Sounds like u r uncomfortable with the risk associated with ur current bet scheme - what do u consider that risk to be? Are u playing to a $10K roll?

It sounds like all your proposed spreading will reduce ur risk, at least in the short term.

But sometimes stuff like reducing your max bet (which u effectively are with a 2 x75 rather than 1 x 125), while reducing risk short-term, might actually be increasing it long-term if u r not getting the most possible out of it.

I always like to think in terms of betting my advantage compared to my total bankroll.

So, if my bankroll is $10K and I have a 1.5% advantage at TC +3 my perfect bet would be about $120 after multiplying by 80% or so for the variance.

And I guess sims would be the way to do this right.

But, overall, assuming ur original betting scheme was optimal in the first place, and not over-betting a roll, I think u will be lowering ROR and also profits. Basically it seems you will be putting the same amount of money in play with less standard deviation. You won't win as much but u won't lose as much.

But I'd like to hear what other people who know what they are talking about think.

well Sonny put some thoughts forth along these lines previously that are interesting:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=34178&postcount=8

one thing about all this is that it's only meaningful when you actually get the juicy counts. a relatively rare thing (ie. tc>=+3) . so you want to be sure your really in that territory when you employ those bigger bets. it can be so tempting to jump the gun.

 

[Kasi]

well Sonny put some thoughts forth along these lines previously that are interesting:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=34178&postcount=8

one thing about all this is that it's only meaningful when you actually get the juicy counts. a relatively rare thing (ie. tc>=+3) . so you want to be sure your really in that territory when you employ those bigger bets. it can be so tempting to jump the gun.

Thanks for pointing that out, O Wise Frog lol.

As usual Sonny says things better than I do but I think we were saying the same thing more or less.

So, specifically, here's my theoretical question, and maybe Knox's, using Knox's betting scheme

$25 at <+1, $50 at +2...$125 at >=+5

vs

2 hands @ $12.50 <+1, 2 @ $25 at +2 .... 2 @ 62.50 at >=+5.

Assuming the first scheme is optimal and both are played to same bankroll in the same game, which does have greater long-term ROR?

Or short-term ROR?

Or how much EV are u losing?

Or whatever lol.

 

[sagefr0g]

Thanks for pointing that out, O Wise Frog lol.

As usual Sonny says things better than I do but I think we were saying the same thing more or less.

So, specifically, here's my theoretical question, and maybe Knox's, using Knox's betting scheme

$25 at <+1, $50 at +2...$125 at >=+5

vs

2 hands @ $12.50 <+1, 2 @ $25 at +2 .... 2 @ 62.50 at >=+5.

Assuming the first scheme is optimal and both are played to same bankroll in the same game, which does have greater long-term ROR?

Or short-term ROR?

Or how much EV are u losing?

Or whatever lol.

i dunno. if the second option was bet optimal (ie. properly in relation to the first option where the two hands bets added together are circa 150% of the one hand scenerio) the ROR would be a little greater circa 1.5% higher but the EV would be much better (around a 57% improvement).
so with that much differance in EV i'd say the second method you illustrate would have a greater ROR. the thing to do would be sim it.

 

[Sonny]

So, specifically, here's my theoretical question, and maybe Knox's, using Knox's betting scheme

$25 at <+1, $50 at +2...$125 at >=+5

vs

2 hands @ $12.50 <+1, 2 @ $25 at +2 .... 2 @ 62.50 at >=+5.

Assuming the first scheme is optimal and both are played to same bankroll in the same game, which does have greater long-term ROR?

The first method will have a greater ROR. By playing one hand at a time you are essentially putting all of your eggs in one basket. You’ll be better off if you can diversify your portfolio a bit.

Or short-term ROR?

The short-term risk (SD) will be higher on the first method. Playing multiple hands will smooth out the variance a bit.

Or how much EV are u losing?

You are not losing any EV. You still have the same amount of money on the table during the same % advantage so your EV is not affected. As long as you aren’t eating too many cards you are always better off playing multiple hands.

-Sonny-

 

[sagefr0g]

The first method will have a greater ROR. By playing one hand at a time you are essentially putting all of your eggs in one basket. You’ll be better off if you can diversify your portfolio a bit.
......
-Sonny-

i was thinking covariance would in essence be working against the player in regards to ROR in that case. sort of like two counter playing to the same bank at one table. where as if the player bet more overall on the two hands with respect to playing just one hand his ROR does increase a little but his EV is much greater. so the player betting the same amount on two hands that he would have bet on one hand suffers more variance against the same EV.

 

[Sonny]

i was thinking covariance would in essence be working against the player in regards to ROR in that case. sort of like two counter playing to the same bank at one table. where as if the player bet more overall on the two hands with respect to playing just one hand his ROR does increase a little but his EV is much greater.

Think of it as a two-tier approach. The first tier is the variance. When you spread to two hands you are smoothing out the variance a bit because now you have two chances to beat the dealer. How many times have you made a max bet in a huge TC only to see the guy next to you get a BJ while you get a 15? Well, now you get to be both guys! Sure, there will be times when you get two crappy hands and lose them both, but most of the time you will either win them both or have a win/loss that breaks even.

The covariance comes from the fact that both hands are linked to the same dealer hand. If the dealer pulls a blackjack then you’re probably screwed on both hands. And when the dealer busts you are probably twice as happy. You are playing two separate hands but the results of both are linked to the same dealer hand. Sometimes that’s a bad thing, sometimes it’s a good thing. Either way the hands are not completely independent.

So tier one was that playing two hands reduces the variance somewhat. If that’s all you’re concerned about then you’re done. But you might start asking yourself “Since the risk is lower, can’t I safely afford to bet more money?” The answer is yes. Spreading to two hands has caused your variance (and ROR) to drop. If you had an acceptable ROR in the first place then you can afford to “load it back up” by raising your bets. You can now bet more money, increase your EV and still maintain the same ROR that you had before you were playing two hands.

-Sonny-

 

[Kasi]

But you might start asking yourself “Since the risk is lower, can’t I safely afford to bet more money?” The answer is yes. Spreading to two hands has caused your variance (and ROR) to drop. If you had an acceptable ROR in the first place then you can afford to “load it back up” by raising your bets. You can now bet more money, increase your EV and still maintain the same ROR that you had before you were playing two hands.

-Sonny-

Thanks Sonny.

So, when Knox said "My (current) understanding is that the above betting strategy should approximate a 1-6 spread but only subject me to the risk of a 1-4 spread. Seems like a good deal to me!"

I guess ur saying that's basically true?

If ur EV is the same, since total money wagered is the same, but your ROR and variance is less with the second method, then why would anyone increase their bet to increase their EV? After all, ur making the same amount of money u were originally happy with but with less ROR.

So u mean any one-hand betting scheme can be improved by betting same total amount on 2 hands because you will make same amount of money with less risk?

Maybe it's an EV/hr thing?

Or maybe EV is based on percent of original bet assuming one-hand but actually would change if the assumption was u always played 2 hands?

 

[Knox]

I got the idea for this prior to my Memorial Day Vegas vacation thanks to Sonny. He indicated on a thread (can't find it now) back then that two hands enabled you to bet 50% more without increasing your risk. It seemed logical to me that you could also use the tactic to reduce risk and play with a smaller bankroll.

Here is a link I found on playing two hands, a guy running sims almost 10 years ago that reached the same conclusion:

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/twohands.htm (Archive copy)

To me it makes sense to stay conservative while building your bankroll. Once I get to at least 10-k of winnings, I'll employ the concept of betting 50% higher. It is critical to me to always be playing on winnings. In my line of work you don't want to be perceived to have a gambling problem. If you are a winning player nobody can logically make that case.

 

[Canceler]

Be real careful!

In my line of work you don't want to be perceived to have a gambling problem. If you are a winning player nobody can logically make that case.

As you've alluded to, it's perception that counts. It doesn't matter what the truth is, or what's logical. I think most people perceive that casinos can't be beaten. They may think you're just claiming to be ahead. You probably shouldn't be discussing gambling with anyone connected to your work.

 

[GeorgeD]

As you've alluded to, it's perception that counts. It doesn't matter what the truth is, or what's logical. I think most people perceive that casinos can't be beaten. They may think you're just claiming to be ahead. You probably shouldn't be discussing gambling with anyone connected to your work.

I agree with Canceler. Most people see any regular gambler as a likely "problem gambler". Especially true if you brag about wins. I've always figured anyone who tells me how much they won isn't telling me how much they lost on other sessions. OTOH if someone says "I go to the casino and lose a few bucks every week/month" they're seen as gambling for entertainment .... as long as they can afford the loses.

 

[Sonny]

So, when Knox said "My (current) understanding is that the above betting strategy should approximate a 1-6 spread but only subject me to the risk of a 1-4 spread. Seems like a good deal to me!"

I guess ur saying that's basically true?

Right. He is getting all the EV of a 1:6 spread but the variance is lower.

…then why would anyone increase their bet to increase their EV? After all, ur making the same amount of money u were originally happy with but with less ROR.

If you were happy with your ROR in the first place then you would probably want to raise your bets to earn more money for the same amount of risk. If your ROR is 1% and spreading to two hands brings it below that, why not raise your bets to get back to 1% again? You’re making more money for the same amount of risk.

So u mean any one-hand betting scheme can be improved by betting same total amount on 2 hands because you will make same amount of money with less risk?

In general, yes. The only exception I can think of is when spreading to two hands eats up too many cards and reduces the number of rounds you get. That applies mostly to pitch games though.

-Sonny-

 

[Knox]

The only exception I can think of is when spreading to two hands eats up too many cards and reduces the number of rounds you get. That applies mostly to pitch games though.

-Sonny-

Is a "pitch game" SD only or would that be DD also? Even in a SD game, I would think the "card eating" effect would be minimal if you were getting reasonable penetration (at least 50%) and playing head up (solo).

 

[sagefr0g]

.........
In general, yes. The only exception I can think of is when spreading to two hands eats up too many cards and reduces the number of rounds you get. That applies mostly to pitch games though.

-Sonny-

one other exception that Wong stated was in cases where a small number of high cards is likely to tip the scales so that the true count will change. example you have two spots bet and recieve a 10,10 on the first hand where the TC is dropped as a result.
i wonder about this though as the true count theorem seems to refute it

 

[avs21]

Is a "pitch game" SD only or would that be DD also? Even in a SD game, I would think the "card eating" effect would be minimal if you were getting reasonable penetration (at least 50%) and playing head up (solo).

SD and DD game= pitch games. Switching from 1 to two hands can cause you to sometimes get worse pen. I have been shuffled up on in the past when I switched two hands late in deck. If you decide to play two hands. Bet 2 hands .5 unit in negative counts to eat up the bad counts.

 

[Knox]

If you decide to play two hands. Bet 2 hands .5 unit in negative counts to eat up the bad counts.

My problem is that my min bet = table min of $25. Therefore I can't halve to $12.50 x 2, but I like the concept. That is something I may be able to employ once I have sufficient $ to play $50 min. However, another complication is places that make you play double the max bet.

Perhaps I will weave in some of the little $5 shops in my upcoming Vegas trip so I can spread from 2 x $10 to 2 X $75. With an aggressive spread like that I will definitely need to keep the sessions short. Fortunately, this gives me a choice of several more places to play, including some that I won't be overly upset if they were to boot me.

 

[Sonny]

My problem is that my min bet = table min of $25. Therefore I can't halve to $12.50 x 2, but I like the concept.

You can still spread to 2 hands during positive counts. That will reduce your variance a lot since the big bets are what causes much of the fluctuation.

-Sonny-

 

[Kasi]

Right. He is getting all the EV of a 1:6 spread but the variance is lower.



If you were happy with your ROR in the first place then you would probably want to raise your bets to earn more money for the same amount of risk. If your ROR is 1% and spreading to two hands brings it below that, why not raise your bets to get back to 1% again? You’re making more money for the same amount of risk.



In general, yes. The only exception I can think of is when spreading to two hands eats up too many cards and reduces the number of rounds you get. That applies mostly to pitch games though.

-Sonny-

Thanks Sonny for clearing up a few things for me