at least for me...................

So I normally play 2 hands at a time when playing BJ, and occasionally one hand if my stack is dwindling or if I have been losing several hands in a row in an effort to try to change up the distribution of cards a little. Sometimes I would go to 3 hands in an effort to turn the tide.

A couple weeks ago when I was down big, and ended up making a huge comeback, my whole turnaround was based on the fact that I consistently played 3 hands, no matter if I was winning or losing - I stayed at 3 hands. As my stack started climbing back up, the one dealer I play with most of the time and has been dealing blackjack since the Sahara was a big deal, stated that most of the big comebacks she has seen when the big whales are down huge sums of money has been when the player has been playing 3 hands at a time. She regaled me with a few stories of how this guy was down 2.5m, some other guy 750k, etc, and switching to 3 handed helped them make a comeback. (Shifter - one of these guys we know). Her theory is that the house has to have a really strong hand (pat 20 or a natural BJ) to beat all 3 hands of the player. The player has a chance to win all 3, 2 out of 3 for a net 1 unit win, or of course could lose 2, or all 3, but that is not the point of this theory. If I am just playing one hand, it is really easy for the house to beat my one hand as I have to hit first, and I can bust easily, or the house just has a better hand than my one hand. The other thing I noticed after she mentioned this 3-handed theory is that the distribution of the cards was better. The dealer did not always have a 10 showing, I got more double down and split opportunities 3 handed (which would be natural as I have more hands), and I was more often playing against a dealer stiff card. I really enjoyed it and I am going to employ this new test this weekend in all my BJ sessions.

I realize this is not earth-shattering news, but this is one new strategy that I am going to try to see if the results stay positive, or at least stay positive for a longer period of each session.

Anyone else try something similar??

 

wow that's crazy.

I turned 25k into 250k at Cromwell playing 3 hands at table max no matter win or lose the previous.

that 3 hand thing might have some serious traction...

 

I'm telling you - just the distribution of cards made it seem like a much better alternative. I wasn't playing against a damn dealer 10 upcard every hand

 

Snake oil.. If you get a good run of cards obviously you are going to run it up fast playing 3, but if the dealer is showing a 10 you are still going to be hitting first and busting... Maybe if it's single or double deck it helps because by the time you get to # 3 you saw a bunch of cards but not for 6/8 deck

 

I will say in my experience playing over several hours, there was only once or twice that I had to hit all 3 hands against a 10 and busted them all. in most cases, I would have at least one pat hand and pull at least one small card and make a hand.

 

these are all double deck pitch games

 

Double deck I could see having a real advantage if you knew how to adjust based on what you've seen..

Ina shoe game here's a reasonable article

You must be a registered user with confirmed email address to view this content.
Register or Login

Assuming you bet the same total amount across3 hands that you would usually bet for 1, you have the same theo but lower variance. But realisticallymost are going to be more that they would play on one hand so it would be a bigger loser in the long run

 

Sounds interesting and promising.

 

Sounds degen

I like playing multiple hands. It lowers variance.

 

I've done it a few times but not enough to say it worked over a long period.

However I can see the reasoning behind it and would be interested in trying it for a prolonged session. I don't play DD often but when I think to the six deck shoe games and there are three players very rarely do all three get wiped out.