WSoBJ Episode 3

Well, this time, I decided to try the interactive game while watching. turns out you can bet $2000 per hand and compete agains other interactive players. I played until I ended up with $-79 after they made me bet the minimum with less than $100 left. Oh well, on to the show.

The Players:
Bradley Peterson: Las Vegas Advisor contributor along with Anthony Curtis. He has a look like Howard Stern. He gives us a hint as to his play later, saying that if one always goes by the math, life is so boring.

Micky Rosa: Another one of the MIT Blackjack team. He looks no more like a Micky Rosa then Stanford Wong looks like a Stanford Wong.

Bobby J: Yet another actor/pro BJ player. Who are these Hollywood producers hiring BJ pros in their movies?

Cathy "Cat" Hulbert: She's being billed as the World's best female gambler, and I can think of several female poker players that would likely disagree.

Ashwin Patel: I already know that I'm not going to like this Ash-hole. His bio says he has already barred for life from one casino, and I already had a hunch that it was not for counting cards. He also disrespects his opponents in his interview, so I'm hoping he gets an early comeuppance.

Hand 1: Cat starts with a 1500 bet and Ashwin bets 500. I can't believe Ashwin let a girl bet more than him. The dealer busts, giving Cat the early 1500 lead.

Hand 2: Cat goes big again (1200) and Ashwin bets 1000. The others continue to bet the minimum. Cat gets 20 and Ashwin gets BJ. After Hand 2, Cat has 12700 and Ashwin has 12000.

Ooh! It's time for Melena to tell me that I can buy a nice card from the casino that would tell me to hit 12 vs. a 3. In my interactive game, I won 100 points for guessing that correctly. It may have been the only bet I won.

Hand 4: Ashwin has taken the lead and bets 2000. Cat bets the minimum. Micky chooses this hand to bet 3000. It's not an awful bet, especially since it looks like Cat has slowed down and Ashwin doesn't concern him. But he will likely not take the lead with this big bet assuming Ashwin also wins. Cat picks the wrong hand to bet the minimum as she gets BJ. Ashwin busts, and Micky ignores Ash-hole's request to get another monkey (hadn't heard that one before) and ties the dealer with 20. Cat now has a 2000-3000 lead on the field.

Hand 8: Cat is still in the lead as Bradley, Micky and Bobby are all hovering at 10,000. Ashwin bets 4000, another major overbet for him. Ashwin properly stands on 12, but the dealer hits to 20.

Hand 9: Ashwin now bets 2000. We now find out that Ash-hole was actually barred from a casino for peeing on a roulette wheel. So, that's what the splashguards are there for! Ashwin gets a 2-2 vs. a 10. Matt asks if Ashwin should split that, but Max says "No, but he shouldn't be taking a leak on a roulette wheel, so there's no telling what's going to happen here. Ashwin busts and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Hand 10: Ashwin bets 4000 of his 5000. I could criticize his decision to bet 4000 instead of 5000, but really, what's the point. Max doesn't criticize it either, calling it a pretty good bet. Ashwin gets a 20 vs a 10. Micky strangely surrenders 13 vs. a 10. Earlier, Brad surrendered a 14 vs a 10, su I'm curious if the deck was really negative or they are just being conservative. The dealer has 20.

Hand 13: Not much has changed. Ashwin bets half of his stack. Dealer has 21.

Hand 14: Ashwin now bets 1000 of 2000. Everyone else bets conservative, and Matt calls it contrarian instead, missing the point. I think he just likes saying "contrarian". The dealer has a 10 showing and looks underneath. Bradley asks "Uh oh, is it an 8, is it a 4?". The dealer says, "I don't know, it might be a 4". This sets off some very interesting plays. Bradley stands on his 14, believing her. Micky takes faith to a higher level splitting and resplitting his tens (I think the prober play if you know that the dealer has 14. Matt is seriously angry that Micky is splitting his tens and Matt seems to be reliving playing BJ and someone at his table messed up the table splitting tens, actually implying to the audience that if you do this at the table, you ought to expect a fellow player to beat you to a pulp. Max, however, adds that when you leave, the casino will take you home in a limo. Frankly, for 100 bets, the decision is not that crucial. Matt asks if it's possible to mess up the table and Max rightly points out that if it worked that way, casinos would hire bad players to sit at the tables. Matt is still unbelievably frustrated as Micky ends up with 18, 13, and 13. Bobby doesn't trust the dealer and busts on his 12. It turns out the the dealer has a 2 underneath, but the dealer hits to 21.

Hand 15: Ashwin is all-in with 1000. Everyone bets the minimum. Ashwin busts out on 15 vs. a 10. As he leaves everyone happily waves good-bye, and there's no love lost there. The Ash-hole actually claims that he's the only one playing to win, and I have a hunch that I know how most of his gambling nights end up. The dealer finally busts, but too late for Ashwin.

Hand 18: Cat has a 2500 lead. Cat tells us that her strategy is to either be out early or have a huge lead. I think that she is very nervous about messing up the last hand bet. As a result, she is risking her 2500 lead with a 2000 bet. Cat ties with the dealer.

Hand 19: After Cat bets the minimum, Bradley bets 2000, not enough to take the lead. I don't know the point of that when another 600 would give you the lead. Micky goes over top of Bradley, but not enough to pass Cat either. Bobby bet the minimum. Brad and Micky hit to 18, and the dealer has 17, catching Brad and Micky up.

Hand 21: Bobby is now 4000 down in 4th, but only bets 2100. Cat makes a big bet and Bradley goes over the top. Bobby doubles for much less on 9 vs 6, and gets a lot of grief from Max and I. Bradley doesn't double at all, and it just seems way to early to start make weird calls like that with 10 hands to go. Bobby ties, but Bradley wins costing him 1800.

Melena does a stand-up on the Mohecan Sun while there is a car on display behind her. Bas on last week's The Apprentice, I sure hope they are giving away the car and not just a rental.

Hand 23: Brad has a big lead, and bobby and Cat are over 1 max bet behind. Cat bets 2500 and Bobby bets only 1700. I bet he was wishing he bet more, when he saw his BJ. Cat surrenders 16 vs. 10 and Bradley stands on 15 vs. ten. I rechecked to see if the dealer gave any indication that her hole card was low and I didn't see anything. Turns out Brad's hunch was right, as the dealer busts with a 3 under the queen.

Hand 24: Micky bets enough to pass Bradley, but bobby bets the minimum and cat bets only 3000. Bradley doesn't double on 10 vs 2, and it turns out lucky this time as the dealer gets to 19 to beat him. Both big bets win and Micky is now in the lead.

Final 5 hands (Hand 26): Bobby is still 1 max bet down but only bets 4250, saving a max bet for the end. I think the money is more important now than later. Cat bets max. Brad and Mickey bet big also with Micky betting just enough to preserve the high and low. Bobby hits ANOTHER BJ. Brad doubles 11 vs 9 and Micky doubles A6 vs a 9? Considering that the double down win would not keep him in the lead, I think it's a bad bet. However it worked for Brad and Micky, as they both win.

Hand 27: Brad overbets his lead. Micky goes over Bradly instead of going under Brad. Given Brad and Micky's bet, Bobby only bets 100. I dont think it's as bad as Max makes it out to be as Bobby has position on them coming up and if he bets max, it's only 1200 different from Micky. The dealer gets an ace. Micky ensures only 300, perserving himself 500 behind Brad. If he wants to ensure, I would insure another 1300 or so to take the lead on Brad. The dealer does have BJ. BObby's 100 bet looks good, but Cat's in trouble.

Hand 28: Brad again overbets in my opinion max betting. Just 1 hand ago, Max criticized in but now that Bobby is within a max bet he is all for it. Micky bets just uner Brad, and Bobby bets the minimum, holding back the most at the table (even considering surrender). Cat max bets and doubles down an A9 vs 8 to catch up. Micky Doubles for just enough to take the lead on 11 v. 8. The dealer hits to 19, but both doubles work to save them.

With 2 hands to go, the position is:

Bradley 22,600
Micky 22,700
Bobby 15,525
Cat 15,800

 

Insight from the Tournament table #3

Greetings All,

First, let me say that I didn't see the show last night so I'm not sure what was put in or edited out.

OK, some insight. I do believe that my last bet was not my best choice. I certainly was aware that I could have locked Bobby out. Here is what was going on inside my head as to why I did what I did as well as some other insight.

Regarding the "strange" plays against a dealer 10 up card, I picked up a tell that I was correct on 7 out of 7 plays where I either stood short with a stiff, against what turned out to be a stiff, or surrendered a stiff, against what turned out to be a pat hand. I had one other hand where I first noticed the tell but didn't make a move on it until after I verified the result. Mickey wasn't sure what I was doing but he knows me well and he knew I had something extra. All of the plays he made that looked strange were ones where he was simply following my lead. (More on that later in this letter as that is a major part of what I refer to in paragraph#2 above). At the time, I think he thought that I was getting the hole card. I wasn't. I guess most people thought that as in the rounds that were filmed after mine, the dealer got down way low to peek.

Now Mickey is as smart and as good as they come in this business. The rules of the tournament were that if there was a tie at the end there would be a single elimination hand or hands, if necessary, to break the tie. As one can read in the recounting of the show under the Tounces post, Mickey was just trying to mimic me and stay even knowing that he would not only be the last to act on the final hand, but also, if there was a playoff between he and I because of a tie, that he would be last to act on the playoff hand as the button, that was on Bobby on hand #30 would go past Cat, as she would be out, and on to me at first base. So the most prominent reason for all of my "overbetting" was that I felt that I need to be in the comfortable lead before the 30th hand, or, if I wasn't, that I should be in such a position as to prevent a 31st hand where I would be an underdog to begin with.

I was hoping to either get Mickey to make some kind of mistake, which he didn't, or win the table outright, which I didn't. Yes, $4000 would have been better bet than $5000. That would have left more room for a possible Mickey error. I wanted to win the table. I was sure that having to do so while having to act first twice against a strong competitor was not the way to do that. Yes, second had value. An extra $2,500 to start and a one in five chance of getting to the finals if I won the next table, where no additional prize money was offered.

On Toonces less than complimentary words on Cat, he doesn't know her well or the people that I know in this industry. She is very accomplished and savvy. Although I am almost certain that this wasn't on the show, as it would be way too boring for the American public, both Mickey and I, and apparently Cat, knew where there were a couple big slugs of cards and even though the shuffle was, I believe, a three pass, they stayed together in a general area. At the shuffle, Cat had the lead and had the cut card. She knows that we have to catch up and do so, preferably, sooner rather than later, so she cuts the slug of small cards to the top. PURPOSELY. She is no dummy.

This isn't everything but this information may help those of you who weren't at the table get a better understanding of part of what was going on.

Cheers

 

Bradley, thank you for sharing us your insight and about the strategy on playing stiff. To be picky, I still can not understand the 30th hand that you stayed 16 vs dealer's A after you declared that you were not reading dealer's hole card. Since Micky's play was irrelevant, and you had to win this hand after losing the insurrance, why not just follow the basic to hit a card? Was that because of shuffle tracking involved?

 

I admit that I had not heard of Cat before tonight. Nor have I met most of the world's top BJ players. I live in the midwest and mostly focus on video poker and BJ tournaments these days, though I switched from counting cards at blackjack, much like Jean Scott. I am also one of the infamous Greektown video poker players that took the casino for hundreds of thosands of dollars before they overreacted a year later and started barring everybody in sight (though I had left town by then).

That being said, I have little doubt that Cat is an excellent card counter and seemingly also an excellent shuffle-tracker. However, it is clear from this tournament that the best BJ players do not necessarily make the best BJ tournament players.

 

I'm not sure of the math but...

When you say stick to the basic do you mean basic strategy or tournament basic strategy? Yes, I needed to win the hand.

First, let me address your hole card question. No, I did not, nor at any point in the tournament did I see it. If I had, I wouldn't have taken insurance.

OK. now for the math that I am not sure about. In this particular situation, my opponent playing behind me has a hard 20. But if we forget about that, the blackjack basic strategy states I should hit (Actually surrender but that would be automatic death for me although it may have locked up second place but such a move certainly would preclude me from winning which, as I stated, I wanted to do). Part of the math on this move is that when the you tie the dealer, you push. With the 20 behind me, if I draw to and tie the dealer at totals of 17, 18 or 19, I still lose to my opponents 20. Additionally, if I tie the dealer at 20, as does then Mickey (or is it Micky?) I still lose due to the lost insurance bet and, if I draw to 21 and the dealer draws to 21, guess what? I still lose as he loses 600 on the hand for his bet and insurance and I lose 2500 for my insurance play. So with the push factor removed, the odds are different from a straight basic strategy play. That being said, I wasn't sure what the odds were so I made a "gametime" decision.

 

That being said, I have little doubt that Cat is an excellent card counter and seemingly also an excellent shuffle-tracker. However, it is clear from this tournament that the best BJ players do not necessarily make the best BJ tournament players.[/QUOTE]



Which make Ashwan and I unique as both of us are neither.

 

Thank you for pointing out the "push factor" in this hand. I was talking about basic strategy. Since Micky's play was a non-factor to your play and I forgot the "push factor", I misthought that the tournament basic strategy was equivalent to basic strategy (without playing surrander) for this situation.

 

Episode 3 continued...

sorry for the delay...here's the continuation:




Hand 29: Micky goes 100 with his 100 lead. Bobby and Cat bet it all, while Brad has to think. Seeing that Brad will lose the lead with any loss, he goes big which isn't a bad move, especially when he pulls a 20. Micky hits a 10 vs. a 3. It's a better move than doubling, but as Ken Smith pointed out, a surrender is even better. The extra 100 is meaningless to him, but if he loses while Brad ties, he is tied for the lead. And if he surrenders, the possibilities are +5050, +50, or -4950. Bobby gets 19 and stands, and Cat has to double A3 vs. a 3. The dealer hits to 20, crippling Bobby and Cat.

Hand 30:
Bradley $22,600
Micky $22,600
*Bobby $10,525
Cat $ 5,800

Bobby and Cat bet max. Brad thinks about it, and announces that he's gonna give Bobby a shot by betting big. I repost my thoughts from the "Mr Congeniality" thread:

Brad now says he made a bad bet but I'm not so sure. Micky bets 400 as expected to lock 2nd and 1st low.

Bradley $22,600 $5000 J 6 Dealer: A
Micky $22,600 $400 10 J
*Bobby $10,525 $5000 K A
Cat $ 5,800 $5000 4 8

Bobby and Cat can't take insurance (Cat doesn't even have enough to ensure). Brad has a tough choice. If he does not take insurance, Mickey will, and the dealer has BJ Brad finishes in 2nd. But if Brad takes insurance and there is no BJ, Bobby does not have to double down to win. At this point, I think not taking insurance is the better bet here, but Brad takes it. Micky follows suit, and it's clearly the right move as the extra 200 doesn't hurt him. The dealer does not have BJ.

Bobby could double to finish with $20525, but $18025 is enough to pass Brad's remaining stack, even if Brad surrenders. So, no need to double, and Bobby correctly takes the $7500. Cat draws to 20. Bradley can't surrender, but he goes against basic strategy to stay (afterwords, Brad posted that he had a read on the dealer that turned out to be accurate). Sure enough, the dealer has a 3 underneath the ace, but hits to 18, giving Micky the win and leading to Brad's unlikely nightmare scenario.

 

Dugu, I'm not sure if I was correct here or not. If Brad takes insurance, he has a 4/13 chance of tying for 1st and a 9/13 chance of losing the insurance bet. If he loses the insurance bet, he needs to win on 16 v. A to come in first or tie on 16 v. A to come in second. But keep in mind that if he ties for 1st, he has a less than 50-50 chance of winning the playoff, as he will be out of position.

If Brad does not take insurance (assuming Micky does), he has a 4/13 chance of finishing in 2nd. On the 9/13 chance that the dealer has BJ, Bobby must now double down on 11. Brad would then be in 1st if he wins (or if Micky and Brad tie, since Micky bought insurance), 2nd if he loses, but so does Bobby, and now only comes in 3rd if Brad Loses AND Bobby wins his double down.

So, my guess was that not taking insurance is correct, but I guess it would depend on the math.

 

toonces, I still think Bradley's taking insurance is the right move, and here is my arguement. To simplify the math, we first ingore the difference that Bradley finishes 2nd or 3nd, and just see by taking insurance or not, which way gives Bradley a higher chance of finishing 1st. We suppose Micky will always take insurance, which is the right move. Let p (0<p<1/2) be the probability that Bradley beats Micky if they go into playoff. If the dealer gets a bj, then taking insurance contributes an extra 4/13*p chance to finish 1st (after a potential playoff) than not taking insurance; if the dealer doesn't have bj, then the only difference to Bradley by taking insurance or not is: he ties the dealer, and the dealer ties or beats Micky's 20 (suppose this happens with probability q, and I would guess q is so small that q is far less than 5%), anyway this contribute to a difference of -9/13*q.

So taking insurance is better than not taking insurance by 4/13*p-9/13*q, which is significantly positive, and also compensate any Bradley's potential dropping to 3rd. So it's right for Bradley to ignore whether Bobby's going to double or not.

 

the Pros

A couple quick comments...

You haven't heard of Cat Hulbert? That means you haven't read Gambling Wizards, a book I would highly recommend.

http://www.greatstuff4gamblers.com/productdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1287

Second, the thing that most impressed me with this tournament was the difference between the skills of the pro players, and well, the rest of us. Here you had people reading dealer tells, shuffle tracking, estimating cuts, and who knows what else. Sadly, the viewing public will watch this and never know what awesome play they were seeing. I only know this because I had the privilege of sitting in the green room while these episodes were taped. I got to listen to the pros analyzing the games in real time.

Third, the person who impressed me the most with his "tournament" play was Ken Smith. I know this is his site, and I'm not here to kiss his ass. His play was awesome, and you will see it in week 5.

Now go buy that book!

 

quote of the night

Best line of the night to Max for,

"Cat coughed up a furball on that hand."

 

Couple of final words

Well, it's hard to add something to this "perfect storm", but I'll try to consider the confrontation in the very last hand between Bradley and Mickey.

It seems that toonces makes a very interesting point about Bradley's bet.

I would probably underestimate this bet without that point. About $4,100 bet it still seems that Mickey could match it without an extra risk, so that wasn't Bradley's point.

Now let's consider the playing strategy. After losing insurance bet, Bradley was actually $2,300 behind Mickey, so to be first Bradley must win his bet, because even push-lose situation would put him $1,900 behind Mickey.

That means his right play should be according the "MUST WIN STRATEGY"
which was developed by Ken Smith and double checked by me. Here it comes: With an A up and S17 the right play is hit 'til hard 18!!! And guess what was the next card? (dealer's third card - 4).

Another interesting point:

If, let's say Mickey would match Bradley's bet, then probably the best bet for Bradley would be DOUBLE FOR LESS, forcing Mickey to split tens and give away the low...

Thank you all for interesting week.

 

Tirle_bj,
I believe Mohegan is hitting soft 17, so correct play is to stand on 16.
However, readers should know that differences are really minimal and important to just a few bj tournaments theory junkies (like tirle and me).
In our particular case standing on sixteen (any stiff) vs. dealer Ace (no bj) wins only when:
Stand/dealer breaks ....... 20.15%
Hitting to seventeen wins. 19.84%
Hitting to eighteen wins ...19.69%
In situations like this knowing deck composition can make a “huge” difference. At True Count of minus 5:
Stand/dealer breaks .... 18.79%
Hitting to seventeen .... 20.23%
Hitting to eighteen ...... 19.45%

S. Yama

 

Mohegan actually stands on soft 17 in this Series (don't know their policy for cash games)

 

Wow!
So many great bj tournament situation …and so little time to respond.

So far, Bradley gets my vote for the best play, for more than one reason. Having said that, I have to state that I have no personal favorites, and wish all players well. In this post it is convenient to illustrate some interesting situation by emphasizing “Brad’s†play.

Let’s jump to the last hand -to the insurance dilemma, we will come back to the bet size issue later. For reasons clearly presented in dugu’s post, taking insurance is the correct play and assuming Brad’s optimal play, it increases his EV by about $1,500 to a few thou, depending on how well Micky would play in the playoffs.
(When I first wrote about the final and second place EV I was not aware of $2,500 bonus. If four semifinalists who don’t qualify to the final get $2,5K and finalists receive $240K the EV for second place is simply $10K and for the final it is $40K)

Worth noting is that if Brad takes full insurance and the dealer doesn’t have a ten-value card underneath, Brad’s bankroll drops to 20,100. Bob, having 10,525 and bj on 5K bet, may be tempted to double down his blackjack to get ahead of Brad pushing. Winning doubled bj vs. dealer’s Ace happens only 48.5% of the times, so if Brad wins his hand, regardless of losing insurance bet, he gets first place. But if Bob loses or pushes doubled bj - Brad is guaranteed second place even if he loses both insurance and his main bet.
Taking insurance not only affords Brad playoff if the dealer has a blackjack and Micky insures, but it gives him first place if Micky doesn’t take insurance –dealer has bj, and it increases chances for second place if Brad’s play induces Bob to double his blackjack.

Whether Brad (J, 6) stands, hits to seventeen, hit to eighteen or even doubles down practically makes no difference.
It would be an interesting case if Brad didn’t take insurance. Though, standing on 16 makes him a winner 20.15% of the times, and hitting to 17 wins “only†19.84%, - hitting to 17 or even hitting to18 is a better play. As toonces noticed in his post, three quarter of a percent, both, dealer and Brad, end up having twenty-one (and Micky losing)- thus increasing the EV.

A few comments on possible bet sizes.

Value of a specific bet is often determined by the size of bets made by other players. So, it is my and my opponents’ bets together that need to be look at.
Also, depending on skills of our opponents, we have to put different significance for achieving specific goals. In our case, depending on what we know/feel/suspect about skills of opponents playing in the tie-off.
For example, I would make bet ‘A’ if it gives me straight advancement 20% of the times and 50% chance of playoff where I am 50% favorite, but in the same situation against a different player I may choose to make bet ‘B’, that gives me straight advancement only 10% of the times and 55% chance for playoff but in playoff I would be a 70% favorite.

If talking was allowed, it was Brad’s very good move to announce that he's going to give Bobby a shot by betting big. Factually, it was pointing out not to Bobby, but to Micky- the last bettor, that he may take a low. From Brad’s position, ideally a minimum bet or any bet that is smaller than half of Brad’s.

There are nine main possibilities for Brad’s bet:
1. A minimum bet and Micky matches.
2. A minimum bet and Micky makes bigger bet.
3. A medium bet where opponent, on his own or “promptedâ€, makes a bigger bet.
4. A medium bet and opponent matches.
5. A medium bet where opponent makes a smaller bet but more than three-quarter of Brad’s.
6. A medium bet where opponent, on his own or “promptedâ€, makes a smaller bet, less than half of Brad’s.
7. A maximum bet and opponent matches.
8. A maximum bet where opponent makes a smaller bet but more than three-quarter of Brad’s.
9. A maximum bet where opponent, on his own or “promptedâ€, makes a smaller bet, less than half of Brad’s.

If for some reason there is a chance (even as small as 10%) that my opponent (in Micky’s place) is going to bet 5,000 in response to my bet of at least 3,800 – this bet would be my first choice.
Against most “average or better†players, and if I had enough time and all cocktail-waitresses were not around, I would make bet of 1000. Here is the tough process:
I want to protect second place. Bobby (BR3 10,525) can get to 20,525 if he wins doubled bet. (Bobby can get to 21,050 but he needs to split three times or split and double while I must lose my doubled bet – virtually zero chance.) I have 22,600. I can afford to lose less than 2,075. If strategy to overcome Micky calls to double or split, I can afford to lose my doubled 1K bet and still be guaranteed second place. My bet of 1,000 also gives Micky a chance to make a mistatke by taking bad low of less than 500 or to making a bad bet of more than 1K.
The best response from Micky would be to bet less than me but more than three-quarter of my bet. This way “Micky†always surrenders my losing a hand or my surrender, and in case of my good chance of winning he may double, his blackjack covers my single win and his doubled bet covers my blackjack.

The most interesting aspect of play would be if both players bet minimum and possibly continue the combat in the tie-off.
A whole fat chapter can be written about it.
Perhaps later,

Goodnight,
S. Yama

 

A up S17

Dear S Yama,

I'm not gonna consider the counting etc. since it doesn't give exact distribution of cards remaining in the deck. Plus, there are plenty of different counting systems at different levels and different side card counts. Moreover, when we calculate probabilities, we allways consider n/13 regardless of the count, so if we'll decide to take count into consideration then it's not gonna be possible any more. Anyway, for INFINITIVE DECK (equal distribution) here are the numbers for the actual case (S17)

Bradley Stand on hard 16 Pwin=16.76%

Bradley Hit to 17 (only one card) Pwin=20.96%

Bradley Hit to 18 (one or two times) Pwin=21.19%

As we can see (in your terms) it is actually:

1) Just 4.43% more than stand
2) 26.4% better than stand

No questions, Bradley, so far, is the best player and seems to be a nice person as well.

Lots of pleasure to all (particularly CA cabs for some, including myself) at the weekend.