single hands vs. multiple hands at once

[Dman]

During a strong count opportunity is an advantage player at the $50 level per hand better of playing a single hand of $50 or two hands of $25 at the same time? From my position at 3rd base, if the count is good it seems like I would have a better chance of getting 2 good hands while assisting in shifting the count to the dealer to give him a non pat hand..... Thoughts???
Dave

 

[Hinoon]

Dman,

Two points here...

It is my understanding that in a high count such as you describe, it is a much stonger move to spread to multiple hands rather than playing one large hand. This reduces your variance, and thus takes better advantage of the positive count. I'm not a math guy but I'm sure someone here can give a real-world example to illustrate this.

As for the notion of being third base and shifting the count to the dealer...read the Mayor's essays on blackjack mythology, particularly this one on the notion of "third base" :

http://www.cardcounter.com/Mythology/Myth_Third_base.htm (Archive copy)

Cheers,
--HiNoon

 

[Sonny]

Re: multiple hands

Technically, since you are playing two hands at once, you can spread to two hands of $35 each and still keep the same Risk of Ruin. The benefit of two hands is that you can safely get more money on the table than with only one hand. In general, you can safely spread to 2 hands of 73% of your original bet, or 3 hands of 57%.

On the flip side, the optimal number of hands that you play should be based on the number of players at the table. Here's what Schlesinger's BJA says:

Playing alone, stick to one hand of $50.
Playing with 1-2 other players, spread to 2x$36.
Playing with 4 other players, spread to 3x28.

And, of course, don't EVER play with more than 4 other players. Some people don't even play with 3 others.

As far as giving the dealer a worse hand, that won't be a consideration. The cards come out randomly, so you will get the low cards just as often as he does.

-Sonny-