Hi Me again. On the final hand if you have slightly more than a max bet lead over BR2 should you bet the minimum or bet enough to cover DD/BJs? The way I look at it BR2 has got to win to beat you so betting the minimum covers the high, the low and a BR2 single bet win vs BR1 loss. However you are exposed at the top end to BJs and DD. If you bet enough to cover BJs and DD you are then exposed at the bottom end. Here is the scenario that I'm refering to: BR1 - 1600 BR2 - 1000 max bet 500 min 10 A BR1 bet of 10 can only be beaten by BR2 BJ on bets from 405 to 500 (4% chance I think) or a BR2 DD on bets from 310 to 500 (no idea of the odds of that happening are though) so I'm guessing fairly slim. A BR1 bet of 155 covers BR2 BJ but not a DD and exposes the low to a swing in favour of BR2 (i.e. 1445 vs 1500) which I think there is only a 12% chance of happening. I suppose you could bet 80 which protects the low in a swing situation and allows you to DD for a BR2 BJ if required. A BR2 bet of 205 covers BR2 BJ and DD but again exposes the low end to a swing (1395 vs 1500). A bet of 405 covers BR2 BJ and DD without the need to DD but again we have a problem at the low end. So now I have no idea what to do! It's either a cautious 80 hoping that BR2 doesn't have a good DD but having options for BJ cover or 405 covering everything except BR2 win:BR1 lose. I think I've got an 88% chance of winning with 405 but what are my chances when betting 80 (or any other "better" bet?) Yet again thanks for any advice. You are my guru's cheers Reachy Aaarrgh!!
Cover the DD Hmm, that scenario looks familiar... Anyway you have to consider the opponent will DD aggressively. The chance of his doing that successfully while you win your single bet is better than the chance of his winning a bet while you lose yours. However you also have to decide if your opponent will just play for second and not threaten your lead. Then you can just bet conservatively. No amount of math or book theory can tell you that your opponent will do that. But your records or memory of previous play against that opponent might!
405 then? Thanks Monkeysystem. So you would advocate the more aggressive big bet approach to the conservative small bet? Before the hand is dealt is it possibel to know what the probability of winning a DD is? (i.e. If you DD regardless of what cards you are dealt what is your probability of beating the dealer) Cheers Reachy
Using a double or split anything strategy, your opponent will win two bets around 30% of the time. As MonkeySys says, cover the double down with a large bet.
Betting big isn't really an "aggressive bet" here, it's covering your bases. If BR2 is a good player he'll more than likely use what Stanford Wong refers to as "Kurt's Revenge" and double down or split just about anything that he can. I'd definitly go with the bet of at least 405. Big enough to cover a double down.
Thanks again Is there a book that has the probabilties of the outcomes of certain situations like the "DD or split anything" strategy? If I understand correctly what has been said, in the minimum bet scenario I have about a 65% chance of winning because the only hand that'll beat me is a successfull DD by BR2 which occurs about 30% of the time plus 4% for the BJ probability. With the big bet scenario I have a 86% chance of winning because the only way for BR2 to win is if I lose and they win which according to Wong is about 12% plus 2% for push/win. Am I close? Cheers Reachy
