Sometimes you get the opportunity to size your lead during the hands leading up to the last hand, by betting slightly different than your opponent. There is a lot of value in trying to get a lead of 2/3 of a max bet. You might get the opportunity to increase your lead from 1/2 a max bet to 2/3 of a max bet. The difference between these two thresholds is only 1/6 of a max bet. If you play enough tournaments you'll find opportunities like this. A lead of 2/3 of a max bet is quite a bit better than a lead of 1/2 a max bet, because you can cover the double down. However, to realize the full potential of this advantage you have to make the optimal playing decision once the cards come out. This is especially true when you are first to act. Consider the following scenario: Last hand, one advance, bets 5-200, no surrender. You are first to act. =>You, bankroll 835, bet 135, cards 10-2, play ? Villan, bankroll 695, bet 200, cards A-5 Dealer, K Do you hit, stand, or double? All else being equal, what would your playing decision be if your hand were 10-7? All else being equal in the original scenario, what would your playing decision be if your bankroll were 800 and your bet 100? What would you bet if your bankroll were 800, Villan's 695, and you had Villan profiled as a random betting, aggressive player? In this case if you decided to cover the double against Villan and he bet the max behind you, would you play your cards the same way as in the original scenario?
looks like a free hit to me, but probably there is "a better bet" will be looking forward to seeing some more indepth plays here.
Not sure My instinct would be to hit, but with no surrender, possibly doubling might be better. It's likely you will only take one card anyway, 16 being the standing total, so maybe it makes sense to take away the double from your opponent (at the risk of being beaten by a push). I think I would stand. The risk of busting probably outweighs any benefit from taking away the double from BR2, doubling A-5 against a dealer T being such an unlikely winner. There's clearly no point in doubling. I would hit to 16. I might bet 200 instead of 100. Doubling (for 100) on 12 certainly then looks like a good option, in the hope that my impulsive opponent might double down in response, not realising that - it doesn't matter whether he wins one bet or two; he needs a swing. a likely result of doubling on A-5 will be a stiff, making a swing unlikely. If doubling for less is not allowed, an initial bet of 150 would still be enough to cover the double, and would avoid giving up the low when doubling.
Teasing me So, Monkeysystem, did you have a particular answer in mind? It looks like there aren't going to be any further responses for me to compare with my own, but I'd like to have some idea if I was on the right track.
