Congratulations to Hollywood Dave! Some truly fantastic plays. A couple of quick observations before Toonces does his normal awesome job. In retrospect, Michael should have come out betting it all a few hands earlier and he could have caught up. I think Bobbie would have had a much better shot by doubling on the last hand.
It was a really cool episode. Had me guessing all the way, wondering if maybe it was going to end before they even got to Hand 30. Information is going up at my guide right now. If anyone wants to add something, feel free because I only took down so many notes. Or if you notice anything wrong that needs to be corrected. I wanted to have something up before the show started, but I only got editorship of the guide today and ran out of time. P.S.: I really need help with the crew information because of those stupid GSN splitscreen/voiceovers. Whoever at GSN thought that would be a good idea needs to be fired.
Congrats Hollywood! It was a nicely handled round. A few plays here and there could be tweaked, but that's always true. Actually, I would have liked to see Munchkin's $10K double-down work, because I think the fireworks would really have started then.
Episode 6 Summary Well, it’s time for the 5 players who wanted the extra TV face time of a wild card match to take a shot at the finals. No prizes…It’s first or nothing, so it ought to be easier to analyze. Michael Konik – He focused his preliminary round on hounding and marking Anthony Curtis, than surrendered into the eventual low on the final hand. “Hollywood†Dave Stann – Dave had a shot at first, but chose to take a lock at second. He’s happy that there’s only one goal this time. Bobby J – Yet another actor…advanced with a huge BJ in the final hand Previn Mankodi – Played pretty smart in his round, fighting off Stanford. Richard Munchkin – Makes a big deal about Dave and Mike not trying for the win. Hand 1: Michael starts with a 500 bet, similar to last week. Dave goes right to his negative progression with a 300 bet. Dealer has an ace and hits to 19, beating both big bets. Richard takes an early 200 lead. Hand 2: Michael is up to 1000 bet and Dave bets 600, both doubling after their losses. Over Max’s talk, I think that it’s Dave saying that the “double after loss†strategy can’t lose. Is that right? Michael hits to 20 against an Ace, and Dave had 20, so they both win putting Michael in the lead. Melena suggests playing Video BJ at a Bally’s Game-Maker machine. In extolling it’s virtues, she says that the payouts are the same as regular BJ. With rare exception, that’s not true (BJ pays even money), and I’m disappointed that everyone (including Max) let that stand. Hand 4: Dave and Michael both won big bets on hand 3, so Michael leads with 11700 and Dave has 10600. Michael bets his 1100 lead and Dave continues his 300-600-1250-2500-5000 progression, and you know how I feel about both. Bobby’s getting fidgety, so he bets 2000 (which won’t take the lead if all win, FWIW), while Previn and Richard stay unperturbed, betting 100. The dealer gets a 20, but Bobby and Michael do too, so they are saved, while Dave surrenders. Hand 6: Michael (11800) and Bobby (11500) are fighting for the lead, with Dave 850 behind. Dave starts his new progression at 650. Matt and Max giving Richard unwarranted grief for his minimum bet strategy, but the way the rest of them are betting, there’s no need for him to step out…yet. The dealer busts as Michael, Bobby and Dave separate from the pack. Hand 7: Michael and Bobby are up to 1000 bets. Even though Dave’s plan was all 1/31 progressions and hasn’t lost one yet, he’s already up to about a 1/7 progression. The dealer busts again, and it’s the aggressive player’s lucky day. Hand 11: Michael 14100, Bobby 14000, Dave 13400, Previn 10950, Richard 10450. Michael bets 600 and Bobby flanks him with 700, trying to get a tie. Dave gives up his fixed levels, and bets 1500 to take a shot at the lead. Max goes gaga for these big bets. Dave gets a split and double, putting 4500 out there. Of course, the dealer busts again, and Hollywood now has 17900 after 11 hands, the best early result I remember in this tournament. Hand 12: Down 3200, Michael bets 2500. Bobby seems to want to make a max bet, but he puts out 2400 at first, and they don’t allow him to add to it. Dave bets 1900 to go with the flow, and Richard and Previn stick to their guns, waiting for a dealer BJ. With a dealer 6, Bobby and Dave make huge double downs,. The dealer hits to 18, tying Dave, but Michael and especially Bobby get knocked down. Hand 13: Dave, with 17900 is already over 1 max bet in the lead. Dave wisens up and realizes that large bets can only hurt him at this point. Bobby max bets (5000 of 9900), and Max points out that for 100 less, he could still split. Everyone else stays low and looks for Bobby to lose. Bobby gets a 10 against a 5, and he’s all-in for 9900. The dealer draws to 16, then busts, as Bobby takes the lead. Hand 17: These announcers are driving me nuts as they are saying that the “smart†players are “jumping on this run†and winning a lot of chips, while they rip on Previn and Richard. In my opinion, it’s finally getting to the time when Previn and Richard have to make a move, but if the rest of them keep betting crazy, there’s probably still time. Dave is back in the lead with 20525. Michael bets 700 and Previn bets 2500, both unusual middling bets in my book. I especially think if Previn is going to bet 2500, he might as well bet max. Richard is still betting 100. Bobby in 2nd, 1300 out of 1st bets only 300, and Dave smartly matches. Michael, splits, resplits and doubles his 9 against a five, and he suddenly has 2800 out. Michael jokes about his 700 bet being a negative progression, and the announcers take him seriously. The dealer hits to 18, causing Michael and Dave to push, but Previn loses 2500. Hand 18: Previn bets 2500 again, Dave bets 300 and Richard makes the right play, betting 5000 here. Michael doesn’t want to correlate, so he lets Richard take this shot. Richard gets a A6 against a 6 and Previn gets a 20. Richard has an obvious double down, while Previn has a questionable split of his tens. I was rooting for him to split at the time, but considering that he will still be way behind Richard and Dave with a winning split, I think he needs to stand and take the best chance at the win. The dealer hits to 16, then turns over a 5 to nearly wipe out Previn and Richard. Hand 19: Previn bets 1850, instead of betting it all like he should, while Richard does bet it all. Dave bets 1000, while Bobby bets 1500. Previn busts and Richard busts out, but Dave wins a double down to take a 3100 lead on Bobby and a 10500 lead on Michael. Hand 20: Dave puts out a middling bet of 1300, while Michael max bets, now that Previn and Richard are no longer a concern. Bobby bets the minimum, and gets excited when the dealer near turns over BJ. Dave surrenders 16 v. 10, but Michael has a hunch and stands on 16 vs. 10 instead of surrendering. Previn also stands on 16, while the announcers say that Michael has a read on a small hole card. Actually, Tiki has a face card, and Previn busts out and Michael drops to 6400. Hand 21: Michael bets 1400 of 6400, down 3 max bets, and I don’t like it. He does get a double down hand, so he gets most of his money out. Dave splits tens with a 300 bet, and unless the count is real high, this makes no sense other than psychologically messing with Michael. The dealer hits to 21, but as eagle eye Max points out, the dealer would have hit to 21 anyway. Michael is down to 3600. Hand 22: Bobby, down 3000, is only betting 1000, not enough to make a move. Incredibly, Michael just gives up and bets 100. His ONLY hope is a couple big wins at this point, and for once, justice is served as Michael gets a BJ for 150. Dave hits to 21, and the dealer hits to 20, so Dave builds his lead. Hand 25: Dave 20375, Bobby 16100, Michael 3800. Bobby bets enough to take the lead, while Dave max bets to keep pace. Max gives Dave a hard time, and while I wouldn’t have bet 5000, I think about 3000 would be good. Michael seems to be hoping that the field will come back to him, but I think it’s a bad idea, and once AGAIN he gets BJ (though there were intervening hands). Against a 9, Dave busts, while Bobby ties, and Dave gives up the lead to Bobby. Hand 26: Dave bets 2500 and now Bobby gets an atta-boy for matching, when it was the same situation that Dave was in last hand. Michael continues to bet low and win, as the dealer busts. Hand 27: *Michael 4250 Bobby 19850 Dave 17875 Now, Michael max bets finally, and it’s really too late. Bobby bet 900, and Dave predictably goes over the top for 3000 to take a shot at a 125 lead. Dealer gets a 3 and Michael hits his 12 and busts. Dave busts as well, and the dealer hit to 21. Hand 28: *Bobby 18950 Dave 14875 (unseen to viewers) Bobby bet 2500 (a perfect bet when he has to go first), and Dave properly chose the high road for a max bet. The dealer beat them both. Hand 29: Bobby 16450 *Dave 9875 Dave max bets as he has to with two hands to go. Bobby would really like to have a 2500 going into the last hand, so I like a 1000 bet by him. Instead he bets 150, and Max agrees that it’s not enough. Max says 1500, which would also be good, but really cuts the lead close. Bobby gets a 12, but Dave gets a 20 against the dealer 6, and as the dealer busts, Dave is right back in this game. Hand 30: *Bobby 16600 Dave 14875 Max argues that according to Wong, Bobby should make a max bet, but of course, in a 2-player game, that is not the case. Bobby properly bets 1700, and Dave properly goes over the top with 3500. *Bobby 16600 1700 2 3 Dealer: 6 Dave 14875 3500 A 9 The big decision here is what Bobby does. If Bobby doubles, it would force Dave to double his A9 and risk losing the hand. If Bobby does not double, he only wins if the dealer hits to 20 or 21. There is no question that a double is the correct play, but through Dave’s talking, Bobby makes a huge mistake in not doubling. Dave stands on his 20, and the dealer busts to give Hollywood Dave Stann the win.
Good point about Max waffling on this commentary. While $5000 was definitely overdoing it for Dave on Hand 25, Max would have him betting much too low. I'd have split those tens in a heartbeat in Dave's seat. Am I too focused on the lead for the last hand? You have to admit splitting tens against a six here is pretty strong. In Bobby's seat, there's no doubt I'd push out a $2000 bet. And, the key question becomes, how does Dave respond? Dave?
WSOB #6 - Did counting cost Michael? The only reason I could think of for Michael to back off towards the end is if he was counting. They’re no way for him to make up the difference with his $100-$150 bets, Bobby and Dave weren't betting enough to go backwards even with losses for him to make up the difference. It all most looked like he had given up after losing his $5,000 bet late. Of course hindsight is a great way to win at blackjack ever time, but I believe if he had just bet his $3,800 on hand #25 he would have hit a BJ, ($5,700 (BJ) = $5,700) next hand (#26) he could have bet a half $2,850 and would have got a DD ($5,700 + $2,850 + DD $2,850 = $11,400) Bingo! He's right back in the ball game with four hands to go. Yes it is easy to say woulda, coulda, shoulda when were not playing, but he was really out of options other then to go for it at that time, if he wanted to win. This was a perfect example of how count in tournament play can kill you. I believe in Has Solo's saying from Star Wars "Don't Tell Me the Odds, Don't Ever Tell Me the Odds". When you gotta go for it you gotta go and I don't want to know how bad the count is, I would rather lose all my (No Cash Value Chips) trying to win then lose knowing I could have won had I just bet the chips. Now for the final hand, believing that Dave couldn't stand to go for the low I would have still have bet $3,200 (of my $16,600) and let Dave think about it. If he did go low and only bet $100 (of his $14,875) then I could trap him with a surrender and cut him by $25 even if he wins his bet or force him into a DD or Split. Or I force him into a full $5,000 bet in which he would cut me by $75 if he wins, but I would still have the option of DD if needed. I believe this would have been the best play for Bobby. What about ya'll? All feedback welcome.
Thoughts Thanks all for the congrats! Even though I already knew the outcome, I was still on the edge of my seat watching tonight. Overall I was very happy with my play, especially actually seeing my little psychological game have an effect on Konik and Bobby at key points... But I will say that the max bet on hand 25 was definately a max blunder... although believe it or not i DID have a point in doing that: it was around this time in the tourney that i realized i was nearly an entire max bet above BR2, and my strategy shifted to completely seal the bargain. i rationalized that strong odds were we'd both WIN (giving me a stronger lead, since i bet more than him) or we'd both LOSE (and i'd still be more than in the lead). the 12-14% chance that Bobby would win while I lost (which was what happened) seemed a small price to pay for being in a much more dominating position come the last 2 hands, a complete max bet above Bobby. In hindsight I should have bet no more than 4200, which still would have left me 75 bucks in the lead if i lost while he pushed, and closer to (but not quite) a full max-bet lead on Bobby if we both won our bets. But in keeping to my original thesis here at the World Series -- that in order to gain an advantage over other advantage players, i must look for key points & manageable risks to deviate from established advantage play in order to win -- i took my shot. if it woulda worked, Max would have hailed me a genius, but of course we all know what happened instead! honestly i don't see this play as any more risky than splitting 10's in a situation that calls for getting more money on the felt or doubling a total one shouldn't in order to negotiate the intricacies of this type of tournament play. another key point in this game was that it perfectly illustrated my point in an earlier thread concerning innovating more aggressive play against this type of competition. And look at the results -- Previn and Munchkin, both more or less playing basic Wong tourney strategy, never stand a chance against Bobby and I. Now I know Ken & others will argue that ultimately the risks are higher (and therefore success less likely) when playing this way against tried-and-true methods, but ultimately i still think that there is a psychological benefit to taking an early lead & forcing others to play 'catch up' in the predictable 1/3-2/3 progression that is textbook wong -- because if that one shot doesn't work out, it leaves you crippled & fighting just to stay alive. i would never play this way against ploppies, but in an arena like this one, i think the additional risk is absolutely essential, because i KNOW that my competition is coming for me & knows EXACTLY how to catch up in the most precise & efficient way possible! Ah, interesting point -- the surrender trap, something I was ready for. But to be honest, the surrender trap doesn't work on me -- because I always think past the initial impulse to just generically bet 'high' (5000) or bet 'low' (100). There is usually a more optimal bet, and if Bobby would have bet 3200, I would have realized that a bet of 1400 would have been just as effective as 100, while still granting me the 'low' if we both lost -- obviously the more favorable situation -- but still giving me the leeway to catch a hand and win if he surrendered, or get more money out for a possible split/double/etc if he caught a great hand and stood (though I would have to get 3 times this bet out to beat his winning hand, unless of course he catches a blackjack & then i'm pretty much fuct). Instead of talking my usual smack to him on the last hand, I was actually telling him the 'right' plays to make -- ie the 1700 bet, and then again what he should do on his 5. Of course doubling was the best option, but by giving him the 'correct' play on the bet (1700) I honestly think I gained his trust enough to get him to believe my advice to hit (rather than double) the 5. Personally, Bobby and I got along real well, and I know he's played for a certain notorious card counting team -- but doesn't have much tourney experience. So by psychologically reinforcing what I knew to be his 'instinct' to hit the 5 (based on his forte in TABLE play rather than TOURNEY play) at the final moment, I think I prevented him from realizing that the "right" basic strategy play was wrong in this situation. Or maybe its all in my head, and i just got lucky. You decide. -hollywood dave.
First of all, unless I'm missing something, Hollywood didn't have that option, since he bet 5000 instead of 4900. But ignoring that, I'm not so sure that splitting is right. With 1 hand to go in a two player game and being down less than half of a max bet, your chances of advancing are pretty good. If the split results in a push, Dave is 6500 behind and is in a very precarious situation with about a 10% chance of advancing. If the split results in a double loss, it's game over. If the split results in a double win, Hollywood's chance of advancing goes into the 70-80% range. I would guess that by staying on 20, Hollywood's overall chance to win is around 35-45%.
Question's for Hollywood & Ken? Do you believe Michael had thrown in the towel on hand #25 by only betting $100 and $150 on back-to-back hands? He seemed like a whipped puppy after his $5,000 loss, in of course you and Bobby were simpatedic to him...LOL. (Hollywood) Do you feel you had him rattled at that point? In Michaels spot (hand #25 and on) what would your bets have been? I say all in for $3,800!
$2000 is a better bet than $1700 if Dave will fall in the trap, but if he doesn't and just bet optimally to max, then $2000 and $1700 are essentially the same. Supposing Dave will always react optimally, I would suggest Bobby bet $3300. Namely, if Bobby win, Dave have to double to win or get a bj; if Bobby get a bad hand, can still surrender to force Dave to win. Considering the following 3 cases. 1) Bobby 3300; Dave goes low to 100, hoping Bobby to lose. 2) Bobby 3300; Dave goes 'middle' to 3000: will surrender if Bobby bust, will double if Bobby gets a strong hand. 3) Bobby 3300; Dave goes high to 5000: keep the option to double even if Bobby doubles. I don't have the solid numbers to justify this, but I would guess that if Bobby bet 3300, then Dave's optimal bet would be 100. After the cards are delt, let p1 be the probability that Bobby push or win, and p2 the probability that Dave wins. So if p1+p2 > 1, then Bobby should not surrender; if p1+p2 < 1, Bobby should surrender. By doing this optimally, I would guess (still no numbers to justify it) that it is better than 4) Bobby 1700; Dave goes high (which he did).
I agree that these bets were surprising. On hand 25 though, I would have made the same decision as Michael with the tiny bet. He was in last position, and I think the bets ahead of him were $4300 and $5000. With those nearly max bets out there, I'd be willing to waste one more hand hoping to close the gap some. That leaves 5 hands to make up the rest of the ground.
I like it. I like the $3300 bet here if I think there's little chance of Dave taking the bait. It opens up lots of powerful options, as you point out.
Hmm, you're absolutely right on both counts. My gut reaction while watching was to split, but now I really wonder what I would have done in that situation with more time to consider the consequences. (I'm assuming there was split money available.) The downside risk is huge compared to the upside reward here. I hope I would have realized that at the table. To answer my own question, yes, I'm too focused on the lead for the final hand.
$3,300 over $3,200 on the last hand? Ken I see where you liked the $3,300 bet on Bobby's final hand. By doing this you give up the low by $25 on a surrender (Bobby-$14,950 to Dave-$14,975), and for high you’re still beat by $75 (Bobby-$19,900 to Dave-$19,975). I think Bobby messed up on hand #29 only bet $150; just a little bit bigger bet could have put Dave in real bad shape going into the last hand. But back to hand #30, I still believe $3,200 was the best play for Bobby. He wound still leave himself open for high, but with a DD option and he wound have covered himself for low with surrender. You know as well as I do that in the heat of the moment we can make a mistake and with a $100,000 on the line that is a lot of presser. On the final hand with only $1,700 bet and Dave having a 19 or 20 (I forget) vs. the dealers 6 and $3,500 bet I would have DD if I were Bobby. Even if Bobby won the hand he losses the match and to play for the dealer to draw to 21 is really bad odds. If he had DD he had a much better chance of the dealer busting for him to win. Of course it didn't matter which way he played it the dealer flipped an Ace for 17 and beat him anyway.
Actually, if Bobby doubles, most likely Dave would double as well on his A9. If his double-down card was a 2-6, Dave would have lost.
I think I see what you're talking about on the surrender/low/$25, but I believe it's a non-issue. Yes, if Dave wins any bet (I assume you're considering a $100 win), Bobby's surrender of a $3300 bet gives Dave the win. But, there's a substantial reward on the high. I think your math on the high was out of whack. Bobby already has a $1725 lead. Winning a $3300 bet puts him with a $5025 lead, beating any single-bet win by Dave. FYI, the reason the numbers are all so close is that Bobby's lead is just over the magical 1/3 max bet point in surrender tournaments. Any lead of more than $5000/3 = $1666 yields the opportunity to cover a max bet win by beating nearly double your lead, yet still surrender for first low. (Bet size granularity sometimes matters when the numbers are close, but you get the idea.)
You are right, if Bobby doubles, Dave should double as well. Here I did some rough calculation: Bobby; Dave; Bobby wins if; probability 1) stand; stand; Dealer 20,21; 20% 2) double; stand; Dealer 21 or bust; 52% 3) double; double; Dealer beats Dave; 32% So Bobby cost himself from 32% win to 20% by not double. BTW, Bobby doesn't need to know these numbers to come up with the doubling down decision, he can just do some simple reasoning to see what he gains and loses by doubling down. Comparing to not doubling down, if he doubles: (1) what he gives up: a dealer-dave tie, which is relatively small, about 10%, will be even smaller if dave doubles. (2) what he gains: he covers dave's sigle bet win while bobby also wins, which is much bigger than what bobby gives up.
Great analysis. Interesting to note that once Bobby made the decision not to double, his hand became irrelevant. He could have stood on his 5, but hitting out is probably best anyway (which is what he did). In situations where it seems like your hand is irrelevant, it is still good to be cautious and make moves that improve your hand if those moves cannot hurt you. Your conclusion is that Bobby cost himself 12% or 32% by not doubling. I wonder how much Dave cost himself by not betting more? A bet of 4300 would have covered a Bobby blackjack. Even if Bobby gets a blackjack though, Dave might have an opportunity to double. My guess is that Dave lowered his probability of winning by around 3%. Any insight? Lamar
Good point Lamar. This may be a stupid question, but, if Dave needs to win once Bobbie makes bet of $1700 cover low, what makes $3500 a better bet than a max bet? Why not just go max as long as you have enough for a split?
