Discussion in 'Table Games' started by Tree DA, Oct 15, 2012.
Advantages, disadvantages? Other thoughts?
1. If dealer is having bad streak, you could potentially make a lot more money than betting one bet.
2. Possibly one winning hand can offset the losing hand.
3. You "could" alter the order of cards coming out by pulling back one hand to change things up if dealer is hot.
4. I like doing this if I am the only one playing against the dealer.
5. You get a higher average bet per hand.
1. You are putting more money at risk; thus increasing your odds of losing your bankroll faster.
2. Your losing hand will off-set your winning hand, bringing a net of $0.
Pro: Less variance vs. doubling your bet
Con: Less variance vs. doubling your bet
lol yeah that's pretty much what i was thinking i just couldn't articulate it. Well done, sir. I've done it a few times and my thinking was...if I win, i win double and if I win one and lose one i'm even. Obviously that ignores the possibility of losing both which is stooopid. I guess there's no inherent disadvantage or advantage. If you are a $100 bettor maybe the lower variance to risking $50 on two spots instead to $100 on one could be appealing. Or not.
i pretty much always play 2 spots. when you're running good and the dealer is busting every hand, it can help you win more. when you're running bad, it can help keep you in the game. if i'm consistently losing both hands i'll switch to 1 hand for a while to change things up.
One thing not mentioned is betting two hands of $25 vs. betting one hand of $50. The two hand play will have a lower variance as you'll sometimes win one and lose one, creating more overall pushes. Whether you WANT to lower the variance is another question.
Of course, especially in Vegas they're often picky and force you to bet double the table minimum for the privilege of playing two hands.
The only things I would add would be that a BJ table can get somewhat crowded, and taking 2 spots (particularly at the end will get you some personal space.
Its also probably a good idea if counting when you get a good count (this is ignoring whether or not its a red flag to security), as in that case you want a lot of money out there, and want to reduce the variance as well (since the net expectation is in your favour).
The only extra con I'd mention is related to the pro above. If tables are really busy, then playing extra spots while others have to wait for one is kind of a dick move. Especially if you are doing it at the lowest limit table.
That's generally the case; however, the Orleans, Gold Coast, and Suncoast permit two hands at the table minimum! Just wondering – what other casinos permit that?
never had a problem playing 2 hands in the HL room at the table minimum. in fact i have played 2 hands below the table min when playing on a $500 table with VegasBJ. they let me play at $100 min, 2 hands, no problem.
In my experience, even at the places that have a rule about doubling the bet to play multiple spots, you can get permission from the pit boss to play 2 spots at min if the tables at your denomination aren't busy.
And most places will try to make you bump your bet if you are going to be taking a spot away from someone else who wants to play.
I played the table min in the HL room at MC for the min, and the dealer told me I had to play double. But the pit boss told her that the rule didn't apply in the HL room. Which makes a lot of sense, since I was alone at the table.
So I do believe the rule is out there -- just not sure on the enforcement as I'm always more than double the table min anyway unless I'm in HL. But I always play two spots.
I've never been told to double my bet when playing two hands at the higher limit tables at Bellagio (the tables at the corner outside the host office and in club prive).
I like to split my bet into two when on a losing streak to try to "mix up the cards."
To the OP, shouldn't you, as an actuary, be able to tell us the precise mathematical advantages/disadvantages of two hands vs. one?
Well sure, but I'm drunk. But my short answer is that it's a negative expectation game so the lower variance has some minimal advantage to the player as long as the sum of the two bets is equal to the total of the one bet you would otherwise be placing. OTOH I usually get the shit kicked out of me on those machines where you play like 8 hands at once.
And with a name like FAS87 I could ask the same of you!
ETA - I don't think that's grammatically correct....so let me try this...I could ask the same of you given your name of FAS87. Or maybe....with a name like fas87 you could easily be asked the same question [by me].
Guilty....good catch on my username. I figured the "drunk" portion of your username was responsible for your question!
If you're betting $50 on two spots or $100 on one spot, your expected value is exactly the same, as is your theo, which is why it's computed the same way for comps. But it's the same comps that make two spots possibly advantageous if you're on a limited bankroll. By lowering the variance of the game, you're lowering your risk of ruin, which makes it less likely that you'll bust before you play the number of hands you want to play.
So if you want to play for a certain period of time, either for comp purposes or for entertainment value, spreading yourself over two spots has value.
Just so I'm clear...you and I are agreeing, right?
I'm pretty sure. Mathematically there's not much debate, right?
I was just emphasizing the reasons one might choose to go with the lower variance.
I don't know what the math does or doesn't say about playing two hands vs. one - but anymore I almost always play two hands, and it does seem that overall risk of ruin in a bad streak seems to be reduced - even when my luck is cold, two hands always seems to help keep me alive longer compared to one hand - and when things are hot, two hands seems to just amplify the win - so I doubt I'll ever go back to playing one hand again - but like I said, that's just based on personal experience/opinion and not necessarily based on the math, even if the math would say that actually is what should be expected or not.
One thing I'll add that I don't think anyone's mentioned - I do find that when playing two hands, it will make me change strategy sometimes - like if I've got a 12-16 on the first hand and an 11 on the second hand, depending on how the cards have been coming out [a/k/a the "soft count"], I will sometimes not hit that first hand because I'm planning on doubling on the second hand and don't want to risk burning the 10 and then busting out the first hand & simultaneously killing what would've been a 21 on the double [although again, I know the math says you have an equal chance whether you stick to basic strategy or not - but regardless, I have to admit that two hands does persuade me to make non basic strategy moves sometimes depending on my gut feeling about how the session is going, the "soft count", and taking into consideration how one hand might affect the other, etc.]
I think you know this is a bad strategy. Granted when the count is high, the chances of getting a 10 on the next card is HIGHER than normal, but it isn't like the chances are 75% or something. Even with a very high count, the odds probably almost never get up to 50% for the next card, (you start out at 4:13, after all). That being said, with a high count you should stand on 16v10, of course, but not hitting 12v10 is just giving up money. Play each hand the right way.
And if you did 'burn' the 10 on the stiff hand, would you not double down the 11? I hope not.
I agree with this. Play each hand the correct way.
Separate names with a comma.