Spreading to 7 hands on last round:

[jack.jackson]

Lets say your playing heads up or damn near, and you know you got one hand left. Do you think it would be a good idea to spread to 7 hands in a high positive count.

 

[Sonny]

It's a good idea on paper. You can get more money on the table so your EV will increase. You will have to decide for yourself if it is a good strategy for a particular casino situation. There may be times when it is a good idea, but I think it would draw too much attention in most cases. Spreading to 2 or 3 hands might be a good compromise but it really depends on the situation.

-Sonny-

 

[ihate17]

Hello Mr Eye

Hello Mr Eye, this is the pit calling. Just had a player spread to 7 fairly large sized bets on the last hand of a shoe only to go back to one small bet after the shuffle. Run that shoe back and count it down, must have been a reason for him doing this.

You can do this. Play unrated and leave at the shuffle.

ihate17

 

[callipygian]

Some casinos have rules that force you into higher minimum bets when you play multiple hands. If you play 7 hands, you might have to play 7x the minimum on each hand (49x the minimum total).

The other thing you need to consider is that spreading multiple hands may also inflate your variance faster than it boosts your EV, because you're playing all 7 hands against the same dealer hand. You're getting the same EV as playing 7 different hands against 7 different dealer hands, but with higher variance -a dealer BJ would be disasterous if you had 49 bets on the table.

I have no math to back this up, but I suspect there's a case to be made for limiting hand spreads to 2 or 3.

 

[Sonny]

You can adjust the size of your bets to account for the covariance of playing multiple hands against the same dealer hand. For example, betting 75% of your regular bet on each of two hands will preserve the same overall risk while increasing the EV by 50%. However, when you are forced to bet a larger minimum as you stated then you would be overbetting your bankroll and taking on more risk.

Here’s some old discussions about bet sizing for multiple hands:

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?p=16488
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=3069

The topic is covered in more detail in Schlesinger’s book.

-Sonny-

 

[rukus]

Some casinos have rules that force you into higher minimum bets when you play multiple hands. If you play 7 hands, you might have to play 7x the minimum on each hand (49x the minimum total).

don't know about you, but if a pit ever said that to me, id smile and oblige. that sounds to me like a great excuse to spread away to your hearts content:joker: . i mean if the pit tells me i need to bet more on each hand (and i've got the BR to support it), why not?

 

[golfnut101]

7 hands

I seen a guy take all seven spots for over half an hour. $25-500 table. He would jump all over the place, with no relation to count. I watched him hit on a hard 17. He was obviously trying to 'set-up' next hand or something. Wouldnt double on obvious, then split or double really bad hands. He walked away with a little over 46k I was told by a pb the next day. ALso was told that he gave almost all back at the other store in town over next few days. It was fun to watch for a little while.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Come On Lucky Seven!

I can think of 2 likely scenarios.

1. You may not be allowed to spread to 7 hands. The dealer may ask the pit if you can. Then the pit may watch the next hand or more.

or

2. The pit will call it out and the pit will come over and probably watch the next hand or more.

Notice in either scenario you have the pits attention.

I can't quite remember but you need to adjust your bets down quite a bit for seven hands, it's about a third of what you would bet on one hand

 

[jack.jackson]

tx 4 the replys

What'about something a little less extreme. Say for multi-deck w/2-3 other players at the table. And spreading to 3-5 hands on the last round, for a little boost?

I think breaking your maxbet down to the number of hands your playing with, should do the trick nicely.

 

[Kasi]

Lets say your playing heads up or damn near, and you know you got one hand left. Do you think it would be a good idea to spread to 7 hands in a high positive count.

I do.

Like blackjack avenger said, you only be betting about 1/3 of what your one-hand bet was and, I assume it's probably your max bet since the count is good.

So, it's not like you'd be making big bets per spot. It might even make you look very stupid and non-counter-like as your $100 bet just went to $25 across the table.

 

[zengrifter]

Lets say your playing heads up or damn near, and you know you got one hand left. Do you think it would be a good idea to spread to 7 hands in a high positive count.

Optimal sized 3 hands is quite sufficient. zg

 

[Kasi]

Optimal sized 3 hands is quite sufficient. zg

I was trying to edit my last post to add that I'd only spread to 7 hands when I knew that I'd only play one more hand because I knew that the cut card was coming out and preventing me from playing more than 1 hand otherwise.

Like you say, doing it when there are lots of cards left is a whole new ball game when you don't have to worry about the "card-eating" effect and number of players etc, especially assuming you are at a max bet in the first place.

I can't think of any reason not to spread as much as possible to get more money out there while keeping risk and EV proportional to an optimal one-hand bet when you know the cut-card is coming.

 

[jack.jackson]

I was trying to edit my last post to add that I'd only spread to 7 hands when I knew that I'd only play one more hand because I knew that the cut card was coming out and preventing me from playing more than 1 hand otherwise.

Like you say, doing it when there are lots of cards left is a whole new ball game when you don't have to worry about the "card-eating" effect and number of players etc, especially assuming you are at a max bet in the first place.

I can't think of any reason not to spread as much as possible to get more money out there while keeping risk and EV proportional to an optimal one-hand bet when you know the cut-card is coming.

Wouldnt it add penetration as well ?Yes, No?

 

[Kasi]

Wouldnt it add penetration as well ?Yes, No?

I guess it would.

So would spreading to 2 hands or more compared to playing 1 hand.

You couldn't bet more based on that because it will be re-shuffled. I guess you would still make the same index departures at the same count.

It's not like you have to worry about how many cards will be eaten up if you spread to 2 or 3 hands when playing alone or with 2 or 3 or 4 other players with a max bet out when no cut card is coming. Like if I om;y play one hand maybe I'll get another max bet opportunity compared to if I play 3 hands now maybe I won't as often.

What are you thinking about that the added pen would make a difference?

 

[rukus]

Wouldnt it add penetration as well ?Yes, No?

no more than just sitting at 3rd base would give you slightly more effective pen (since you cannot bet again based on this new penetration). as we have discussed a bunch, sitting at 3rd produces only a *very* slight, if not insignificant, additional EV.