Double Down or Stick to One?
A Dealer’s Take on Playing One or Two Hands in Blackjack
By Al O’Grady
One of the questions I get asked all the time is whether you should play one hand or two. Like everything else, there are pros and cons associated with this so I will give the political, wishy-washy, non-committal answer. It depends.
My first response is simply this: Why do you play blackjack? If you are a recreational player out with your buddies on a Saturday night, then I suggest you play only one hand. One common argument against playing two hands is that you can lose twice as much money twice as fast. While there is some merit to this, I feel it pertains mostly to the casual player.
However, if you consider yourself a serious player and you want to make money, then playing two hands should be part of your repertoire. A pessimist will say you can lose twice as much, but the optimist will say you can win twice as much. So, is the glass half full or half empty?
I have read plenty of “how to play” books about blackjack, and there is very little written about this topic, but let me give you some thoughts that cannot be dismissed even by the pessimists. Simply put, the way you make money in this game is with blackjacks (assuming you are getting 3:2 and not 6:5), double downs and splits. When you play two hands, you are getting twice as many chances to put yourself in a profitable situation.
Let’s run down the different results of playing two hands. You are either going to win both hands, lose both hands or win one and lose another. Let’s not kid ourselves, there are times when you will lose both hands. It will happen, but you are forcing the casino to beat you twice. Yes, the dealer will pull a 19, 20 or 21 and win both of your bets, but it is not quite as likely if the dealer draws to a 17 or 18. Instantly, you are a tougher player.
To win both of your hands, you don’t always have to get a powerful 19 or 20 on both. You could easily get two garbage hands like 14 or 15 and the dealer shows a 6. Basic strategy dictates you stick on both, and the dealer does the percentage thing and busts. He busted once and you get paid twice. Advantage player.
Lastly, let’s look at the win one, lose one scenario. At first glance you would think this is a zero-sum game, but I disagree. Let’s assume you bet two hands. You lose the first one, but your second hand is a blackjack. At a $25 table, betting twice the minimum, you lose $50 on the first hand but win $75 on the second (3:2 payout). Again, advantage player. Let’s assume you lose the first hand, but you double down on the second hand and win. You lose $50 on the first but win $100 on the second. Get the picture? Yes, you could lose the first hand and lose on the second hand that you doubled, and that will happen, but double downs are a positive expectation and should be viewed as such. Also, never forget the fact that at the end of the day, this is still gambling.
Here is another point to consider. Different casinos have different rules, but many casinos require you to bet twice the minimum on each hand if you are playing two hands. Let’s think about this for a second. Casinos are a business, and it will only do what is in its best financial interest. If playing two hands favoured the casino, why discourage it? Let them play two hands with the minimum on each hand. What if the opposite were true? If it was your casino and the player could gain an advantage by playing two hands, wouldn’t you charge more for that privilege? I would.
As a dealer it is a daily occurrence where people want to play two hands and when I tell them they must bet twice the minimum on each hand, they immediately change their mind and go back to one hand. To me, this is an indirect signal that casinos do not want players playing two hands since it benefits the player. Trust me, the casino industry has done the math. If a player is playing two hands, then the casinos want more action (i.e., larger bets) from the player.
However, there is an interesting anomaly. At the places I have dealt high-limit tables (i.e., minimum $100 per hand or higher), if a player wants to play two hands, they don’t have to bet twice the minimum. Is there an inconsistency here? I do not think so. The casinos simply want the action from high-limit players, and they do not want to scare them away. This is also an inducement to those that want to play two hands but do not want to bet twice the minimum. If you want it that badly, you will have to play at the higher level.
So, if playing two hands is better than one, why not play three hands instead of two? I think there is a law of diminishing returns here. I feel two hands are optimal. If you are playing three hands, most of the time you are going to win two and lose one or lose two and win one. You are either going to be up one or down one. If that’s the case, why not play just one hand? You get the same net result and risk a lot less.
People also ask me how I play. I am not a card counter because of the continuous shufflers so I play the streaks. I play one hand when I am losing and two hands when I am winning. I believe in maximizing your wins and minimizing your losses. Play with what you can afford to lose. Set a realistic goal, don’t chase your losses, and, most importantly, have the self-discipline to walk away when you hit your goal or your loss limit. Good luck at the tables and don’t forget to tip the dealer.
