In a not so recent tournament, I was one of two players that could win the final hand. I don't remember the chip count and it isn't important to the question, but I was br1 and had last bet. My opponent bets and I make a bet that covers high and low. Cards are dealt and he is dealt a 17 and I have a 16. He chooses not to hit the 17 and I also stand on the 16. (DEALER HAS A 10) Should he have hit this hand and if he does and doesn't bust , should I hit my hand? Dealer has a 7 hole card and I LOSE.
16 vs 17 You made the right play - the difference in winning percentage between 17 and 16 is 0 - the only diff is that 17 can push while 16 loses - and that's what you ran into - and that was a low probability - I wouldn't hit the seventeen in that instance - if he busts - which is very likely - then you automatically win - his best play I think was standing - and that was also yours - if he had hit - then if I were you - I would have still stood - unless he had hit to 20 or 21 - Ken probably has numbers for this situation - which would be better than my ad hoc answers
The next issue of All-In magazine includes an article where I cover this exact scenario, for every possible hand that BR1 and BR2 might have. In this specific case, BR2 should have hit the hard 17. Hitting gives him a 16% chance of winning compared to the 12% chance he has if he stands. No matter whether BR2 stands or makes a better hand of 18,19,20 or 21, BR1 should stand with the 16. The way this particular hand played out, with hands of 17 and 16, BR1 had an 88% chance of success.
well I was a little off - guess that's why Ken is a better player than I am I would have stood if I had the 17 - and lost the extra 4% and if BR1 would have probably hit if BR2 had hit to 20 or 21 and lost more - I have now learned better - thanks Ken
With his response, Ken was assuming BR2 was all-in or lacking a sufficient bankroll. The optimal play would be for BR2 to double down his 17 to take the high back, and force BR1 to make a difficult decision.
