I came across an interesting situation in a recent tournament and want to get the members opinions on the right play for a second to last hand. The exact numbers are unimportant so I will not mention any. The only relevant rule is that BJ pays 3:2. Number of players advancing: 2 Number of players left: 5 Player #4 has a minimal lead over each of 3 other players. The 5th player is not a contender. Player #4 bets/plays after the 3 contenders in both the second from last and last hand. Second from last hand: Everyone bets the max (except player #5 who only has a few dollars). Dealer up card is 5. The 3 contenders each end up with a 19 or 20 – nobody Doubled Down. Player #4 has an 11 and is his turn to play. QUESTION: What should Player #4 do on this second from last hand? 1) Should he hit and go for just maintaining a small lead going into the final hand? 2) Should he double down which would give him a commanding max+ lead going into the final hand if he wins but would virtually knock him out of contention if he loses? Keep in mind that the 3 contenders are not experts but they are seasoned. The probability is that they will max bet the final hand (assuming they have the funds) and split/DD to get the most money on the table.
I like the double down in this situation. Even with good position on the final hand, I'd rather have the more than max bet lead. One thing to consider as well... If you happen to lose this hand even without doubling, you've got real trouble if your loss came from a dealer 17 or 18. With that possibility already in place, I really like the double instead to buy the considerable upside it provides.
Me...I'd DD for less. Something around the "difference" of the lead and 3rd place, if that was at all possible.
Practically no difference. My first thought was that double should be a better play, but once I gave myself some time to think about it I have come with a conclusion that it is rather a tie (okay, with the rules and playing skills I assumed, hitting may be half percent better play than doubling). We can approach the problem in a couple ways. First one would be to calculate all possibilities for doubling, even using simplification like: (all opponents have 20) doubling 11 vs. dealer’s 5 wins about 62% and pushes 7% of the times, so almost all of the wins will advance our player to the next round unless two of the three players full swing (or even double full swing) our hero, who has betting position and can play to maximize his/her chances. And than calculate similar chances for hitting, etc. etc.. But there is a more interesting way of looking at this case. It is easier but requires slightly unusual approach. Let’s check only those aspects that make the difference. Since our player can either double down or hit once the win/push/lose will be the same. If our player pushes then it makes no difference whether she/he doubled or hit. If he increased the lead to his opponents by maximum bet (win/push or push/loss) he is almost guaranteed to advance regardless if he won single or double bet. If he lost single or double max bet while his opponents won then he has practically zero chances to advance. That leaves us with only three situations to look at: all-win, all-lose, and our player loses and the opponents push. The first one happens 58.5% of the time and winning double bet produces slightly more than 6% better chances to advance after playing one more round. All-lose happens only when the dealer finishes with 21 and our hero has less than that; losing single bet keeps him as BR1 going to the last round and produces about 6% better final chances of advancing, which almost counter balances choice of doubling. The last aspect is the opponents push with the dealer hitting to twenty and our player losing (7%). Losing double max takes our player out of the game but losing single gives him total about 1% chance to gain to two of three players playing in front of him. Summing it all, hitting produces one half percent better play than doubling – yet another extremely close play. Nice case toolman. S. Yama
Interesting responses. In case anyone is wondering, yes, I was BR1. Before I reveal how this played out, let's change the dealer's up card to 10. For reference purposes, here is a reprint of the original scenario with the dealer's up card changed to 10:I came across an interesting situation in a recent tournament and want to get the members opinions on the right play for a second to last hand. The exact numbers are unimportant so I will not mention any. The only relevant rule is that BJ pays 3:2. Number of players advancing: 2 Number of players left: 5 Player #4 has a minimal lead over each of 3 other players. The 5th player is not a contender. Player #4 bets/plays after the 3 contenders in both the second from last and last hand. Second from last hand: Everyone bets the max (except player #5 who only has a few dollars). Dealer up card is 10. The 3 contenders each end up with a 19 or 20 – nobody Doubled Down. Player #4 has an 11 and is his turn to play. QUESTION: What should Player #4 do on this second from last hand? 1) Should he hit and go for just maintaining a small lead going into the final hand? 2) Should he double down which would give him a commanding max+ lead going into the final hand if he wins but would virtually knock him out of contention if he loses? Keep in mind that the 3 contenders are not experts but they are seasoned. The probability is that they will max bet the final hand (assuming they have the funds) and split/DD to get the most money on the table.So the new question is what to do if the dealer's up card is 10?
It seems to me that there is some key information missing.... The size of the players bankrolls in relation to the max bet?
My gut is wrong My gut still tells me to double down but after reading S Yama's numbers I'm sure the "just hitting" idea is even more favorable if the dealer shows 10. Billy C
The 4 contenders have just a small amount over a double max bet. This was implied (although not specifically stated) when I described the situation if Player #4 lost: "2) Should he double down which would give him a commanding max+ lead going into the final hand if he wins but would virtually knock him out of contention if he loses?". Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
With the 5 up, I'd probably ponder the situation for a minute, but the 10 up erases any notions of the DD. In either case, I'm hitting. Sure, if you DD (with either 5 or 10 up) and win, you're going to be a monster going into the last hand. But I'd rather not take the chance of losing the double and getting either half- or fully-swung by the entire table, becoming de-facto dead meat for the final hand.
Looks like responses have dried up on this thread so here is how the hand played out. I pondered whether to hit or DD and decided to hit. However, the instant I tapped the table for a hit - and before the dealer gave me a card - I knew I make the wrong decision. Sure enough, I drew a 10 for a total of 21. Dealer ended up busting so everyone won which kept me as BR1 going into the last hand with a very small lead. On the last hand everyone bet max as I expected they would. I was ecstatic when I drew a BJ. That feeling only lasted a second until I realized my opponents had 9, 10, and 11. They all DD and ended up with 20, 21, 21 and the dealer showing a 10 up. I had to DD my BJ and drew a stiff. Dealer ends up with a 17 or 18 (can't remember which) and I'm sent to the "observation gallery". Had I DD on that second from last hand, I would have advanced since my last hand would have been a no brainer. Oh well, on to the next tournament.
