it seems to me that when the count is in your favor, spreading out to play multiple hands would reduce variance. so is that usually the better play than just to fire one large bet? it would also reduce potential heat too i would think. i'm curious what the strategy you guys like for this

There is lots of literature out there that discusses this, but the bottom line is that there is no cut and dry answer. Sometimes it's correct to load up on one spot, and sometimes it's correct to spread it out. It depends on several factors including just how high the count is, how many other players are at the table, and the heat situation. If you've been playing just one spot and suddenly spread to 3, that could draw just as much attention as suddenly loading up on one. The key to both is to be gradual. Just like you wouldn't go from 25 to 200, you wouldn't also go from one spot to 4.

One common rule of thumb is that if you're playing on your own or with only 1 or 2 other people at the table, just load up more on your one spot. But with multiple players, it's better to spread to two spots (or 3 if available) since they're going to be eating up more cards, so you want the opportunity to get more of them.

It's been a long time since studying the specifics of this so I can't offer any more atm but the info is out there. I suggest checking out bj21.com

Jumping to two hands when the count is high you might as well put a sign on your forehead telling the pit boss youre a card counter. Its almost always a dead giveaway.

It depends on your bankroll too. Loading it up on one hand carries more covariance than spreading it on two.

It's easier to beat the house one time than two times.

It's been awhile since I read any blackjack books, but the consensus when I did was that you should play one hand if you are the only player at the table and play two hands with others at the table.

Playing multiple hands reduces variance. The two hands are not completely independent because the dealer outcome affects both hands. Both hands will win on a dealer bust (if neither busts first). Both will lose to a dealer blackjack, both are likely to lose to a dealer 21 or 20, etc.

Spread to two for your max bet.

blahblahblah card-eating variance exceptions to the rule which make no f***ing practical difference blahblahblah

your best move is to always do what gives the least heat if you want to win the most over time.
if variance is a factor to you you are betting too much.

If heat wasn't a factor then spreading is always better though, right? Less variance and you get more hands out of the remaining deck?

when I was an active counter in AC back in the day I was never allowed to play more than one hand. This was the Claridge 4 deck game up the stairs. It was also after a law was passed where they couldn't ban a player anymore for counting (thats when all the low stakes games went to 8 deck shoes overnight).

If you're playing single of double deck games, once you spread out to more hands the count might come down quicker anyway. So it's six and one half dozen of the other.

Yes, but you would get more hands in than by playing a single spot, because fewer cards are being used by the dealer.

Actually it's more variance, because you are playing against the same dealer hand.

A lot of places wont even allow you to plop down on several spots halfway into a singledeck. Or wait a minute, is that just players coming to the table?

Nvm.