When is it profitable/suggested to start playing 2 hands?

[Titan]

As the title says, I know that successful players with big bankrolls always tend to play with two hands instead of one. Should you always play two hands with a big bankroll? is that more profitable than only one hand?

Also in a game. Is there a true count where if you reach it you should start plying two hands?

 

[Dopple]

Dons book BJA3 details this very well and numerous posts have covered it but I will try to help. When playing with other people at the table it is sometimes better to play multiple hands in high counts to seize more of the favorable hands for yourself. Ask more questions if you like I will try to help others as I have been helped, it only fair.

 

[MrFatCat]

1. At what TC (or Red 7 RC, for completeness) do you switch to multiple hands?
2. Overall, two hands somewhat decreases variance, although they're correlated since the dealer busts or makes against them both at the same time -- if your ramp has you spreading 1-16 at an 8 deck shoe, say, if you switch to multiple hands in a high count situation, what proportion of the bet you'd make in the situation do you bet on each hand? 75% seemed to be the "correct" answer from other things I've read on this subject.
3. Where on that 1-16 unit ramp do you move to multiple hands? Do you go to two hands at any non-base unit bet, then to three at max bets?
4. Do you only do this at a table with other players, or do you also do this heads-up against a dealer to maximize good counts?
5. Any other thoughts? Do you ever spread to as many hands as possible if you know the cut card is coming out on the next hand and the count is good? Does adding hands bring any more/less heat vs. just increasing your spread?

 

[gronbog]

2. Overall, two hands somewhat decreases variance, although they're correlated since the dealer busts or makes against them both at the same time -- if your ramp has you spreading 1-16 at an 8 deck shoe, say, if you switch to multiple hands in a high count situation, what proportion of the bet you'd make in the situation do you bet on each hand? 75% seemed to be the "correct" answer from other things I've read on this subject.

Wrong. Spreading to multiple hands increases variance for the very reasons you cite. That's the reason for the ~75% bet on each of two hands. It balances the increases in EV and variance so as to maintain the same risk of ruin as a full bet one one spot.

4. Do you only do this at a table with other players, or do you also do this heads-up against a dealer to maximize good counts?

As already suggested, See Don Schlesinger's Blackjack Attack 3rd edition. This topic is covered extensively. In a nutshell, when betting optimally, only spread to two spots with others at the table and don't spread beyond two spots.

5. Any other thoughts? Do you ever spread to as many hands as possible if you know the cut card is coming out on the next hand and the count is good? Does adding hands bring any more/less heat vs. just increasing your spread?

Spreading to multiple spots is one way to effectively increase the penetration of the game when you know that the cut card is coming, so it can be a good idea. Yes, spreading to multiple spots on favourable counts may draw extra attention.

 

[Stevel96a1]

Fred Renzy says heads up just stick with 1 hand
with others at the table spread to 2 when count is favorable.

imo if you dont have 20-40k your destiny is to fail as was mine and countless others on this site over a decade ago

 

[MrFatCat]

Yeah I'm doing this strictly as a hobby -- a friend explained to me the variance relative to poker this way about 15 years ago and it's generally dissuaded me from playing much blackjack:

"Imagine you have a $25,000 bankroll -- how much could you earn playing hold 'em with that? Maybe $40-60 an hour at limit, with around a 1% ROR? At blackjack, you can play quarters off that, maybe, be at risk of backoffs, have to play camouflage, and at the end of the day, you're shooting to make $25/hour, with probably around 2-3% ROR."

 

[Stevel96a1]

i dont play Hold em, i do play positive video poker games, ive been on a powerful win streak recently, i was never ever able to walk away a winner of 1,000$ or 2,000$ or higher with a 500$ buck bankroll. i came to the conclusion to win big have to bet big, i posted my results on a different thread and id be a net loser of 3500ish$ if i played max bet and maybe worse if i didnt back count, with the tables being 10$ or 15$ i could lose 5800$ or more before i start seeing the glory or you can be like Yoshi or Romes and or Ben and kick off a 1k/2k bankroll and never look back

i cant imagine being pro player without being mobile almost like a soldier in war without body army

 

[Meistro]

always play two

 

[MrFatCat]

always play two

How come?

 

[Stevel96a1]

heads up just stick with 1 hand , spreading two you are eatting up good cards faster thats all

but with other plays go to 2 hands.

its all written in blackjack bluebook 2 Fred Renzy

 

[Nynefingers]

The idea behind not spreading to 2 hands heads up is that, while you get 1.5x the money out (betting 2 hands of .75x your single hand max), you also use up 1.5x the cards, netting you about the same money out of that shoe. Therefore, the story goes, why bother? Personally, I’m perfectly happy to get the same amount of money out of the game with fewer hands. The quicker I can finish that shoe, the quicker I can move on to the next one. I always spread to 2 spots in positive counts, heads up or not, unless there is a compelling reason not to. It’s almost always a good move. The marginal returns for spreading up 3 hands are minimal, and imo not worthwhile. There are times to play 3 hands, but a run of the mill count game is not it.

 

[Stevel96a1]

so same end result but now you raise flags for the casino pit to eye you closer? you gain same amount but now you give the pit boss more attention to spreading to 2 hands? it doesn't make sense to me

 

[Nynefingers]

so same end result but now you raise flags for the casino pit to eye you closer? you gain same amount but now you give the pit boss more attention to spreading to 2 hands? it doesn't make sense to me

If you think there will be a difference in casino response, that would sway the decision on how to play it. Some people may stick to one spot for that reason. If spreading to 2 spots gets you heat, though, your time is probably limited anyway. In some cases, spreading to 2 spots will get you less attention by keeping your max bet below certain thresholds, like betting 2x450 instead of 1x600. Arguments can be made either direction, but whichever you choose, you aren’t going to be making a mathematical mistake. I’d just rather finish the shoe quicker and get to the next one. Time is money.

 

[Stevel96a1]

no no im certain 80% of counters would claim spreading to 2 hands is a red flag right off the bat.
it was debated on many different post through the years on this site and many others 2 hands vs 1
and everyone believed 1 had loses the other saves the 1st hand but reality is if your having a bad night its gonna make any difference
as far as simulations go 2 hands is better cause the cut card draws deeper into the deck in a positive shoe so it would make sense to play 2 hands for extra EV

but over all in a positive shoe it makes no difference just increase your risk factor 75% to 2hands is just that your ev is your ev if you want more bet more on a single hand heads up

 

[DSchles]

Steve

May I suggest that if you don't really know what you're talking about, you should refrain from posting erroneous information.

Don

 

[Stevel96a1]

may i suggest your a fraud?

again how is playing 2 hands better than 1 hand heads up? please explain because you are going against Fred Renzy writings, not mine

 

[DSchles]

"may i suggest your a fraud?"

Well, I guess that explains it. (Learning how to spell "you're" might be helpful in the future.)

Don

 

[Stevel96a1]

LOL spell police!!

ZK probably played more BJ21 than you

 

[TMJdoc]

Steve,

I hope you realize that you are calling the author of Blackjack Attack a fraud.

I was in a California tribal casino the other day and I had to look twice because the floorperson was looking at a chart from BJA 3rd Edition. She was holding it sideways if you know what I mean. It was kind of funny to me because I immediately recognized the familiar distinct cover of the book. Unfortunately, some of them aren't as dumb as we would like to think.

 

[Stevel96a1]

i know TMJ, he even said on gambling with an edge he didnt play blackjack all that much or won much money, kinda reminds me of Kreese from karate kid a fake grandmaster that everyone thinks is mr know it all but reality shows different