$2500 to start $25 min, no max, BJ 2to1, DAS no surrender 20 hands $20K 1st, $3K 2nd, $1500 3rd Last hand, I'm BR1 betting last BR3 $3K bets $3k BR2 $10K bets $10K BR1 $11.6K bets $9K Cards come 10 3 8 9 5 10 10 5 7 dealer 8 5 6 I had the high and low covered but with no max bet or surrender I'm vunerable to BR3 with a swing. Should I have held back $6,050, giving up the high to cover a BR1 win but with a chance to double or split against BR2? BR1 makes a dumb play but still wins.
Don't bust that hand. First I need to ask. You said the cards came out in that order? Then the dealer had a 5 up? Why did you hit your hand? If the 8 was up you still can't hit knowing that a bust on the last hand takes away any chance of you winning. That is just my that is my opinion. Now back to your question, I would have bet the $6,000 to cover BR3 (unless they get a BJ) and I can still DD to catch BR2 if I needed to. Being last to bet you had all the action in front of you and would know what you had to do. One other thing, why didn't BR2 hold back $25 so in case both BR3 and BR2 lost they could still win 2nd? Going all in behind BR3 made no since, they gave away the low for BR2.
Was there a better bet? I may have described the card order incorrectly. Dealer's upcard was an 8 we were all dealt stiffs, BR3 hit to 21, BR2 busted... Now for the last 3 weeks I've been taking medication for this problem which keeps me from focusing, concentrating, chip counting card counting, multitasking, plus whatever else goes on in the right side of the brain. So the Adderall kicks in and instantly I figure the dealer only has about a 24% chance of breaking and I have a 38% chance of taking a card without busting and I need a win or push so I hit and bust. After a bad beat you keep second guessing yourself. The question which there wasn't enough medication in the bottle to answer was do you give up the high to BR2 in order to cover a swing by BR3? IG
Keep low I prefer to keep the low myself. By only betting $6,000 you lock BR3 out except if they hit a blackjack and still makes BR2 have to win. Even if BR2 makes a hand you can still DD for the win if need be. The beauty is you have last bet and last to acted so you get to see all the action in front of you and know what you have to do. I am still amazed that BR2 went all in behind BR3 on the last hand. By just keeping one chip back he could keep low for BR2 if the dealer sweeps.
In poker we would have cut a deal : Br1 takes $12,000, Br2 takes $11,000 then both make minimum bets to lock Br3 out. Seems logical for a blackjack tourney too.
I prefer to bet $8425... I prefer to bet 8425, BR1 will be the winner unless both BR2 and BR3 got a BJ or with a swing
But! Pokernut if that was allowed I would agree with that split, but in most cases it is not. Why? For some reason the casinos think we're screwing them by doing this? How? I don't know but most hate players spliting the prize money. Please note I said most, not all of the casinos. ssho88, by betting $8,425 you are taking away the chance of the swing to BR3 and only have to worry about them hitting a BJ to beat you. But once again everybody plays differently, I still perfer the $6,000 bet for BR1.
I have no objection to deals cut before the finals begin. But in this case, I think it is unethical to make a deal during the game to lock out the third player.
Final Table Deal A final table deal like Pokernut mentioned would get you disqualified at my local casino. It's right in the rules: no teams will be formed during the tournament. Is that the case in most casinos?
Team play (chip dumping, etc.) is not allowed in poker either but deals are cut at the final table between the players in most all tourneys.
10% Agreement What I've usually seen is players soliciting others before the tourney ever starts for an agreement that if one gets onto the final table he'll give 10% of his prize to the other. I don't know what they agree to do if they both happen to get to the finals. They probably could either agree to split their combined prize money or just not do anything. I've heard of people making such 10% deals with as many as five other players. If you make 10% deals with that many other players you could wind up giving away almost all your prize money if you also agree with them to split your combined total if you're both at the final table. At my local casino I heard they've had cases in the past where players at the final table made arrangements to lock out a third player and then split the combined prize money. The casino cracked down hard on it, understandably. The tournament is supposed to be a promotion and the player being locked out must feel like he's getting screwed. It would have a chilling effect on future tourney participation for that player as well as some of the bystanders watching the action. Such final hand deals must have the same chilling effect on tourneys as insider trading has on the stock markets, which is why the casinos don't like it.
More info on final table Getting back to instagator's original question. The instagator did not quite give all the details. I was at the final table at Caesars Indiana. Now I cannot recall every detail of the final hand since I was BR4 and my only hope was a semi-miracle. I do not recall the betting order, exact chip counts of other players, or how the cards fell for the dealer. I played in 3 tournaments during the last 10 days and details get murky. Anyway, as BR4, I had between $2,000 and $2,500. As I remember, BR5 and BR6 were not that far behind me. When the dealer made the hand, 4 or 5 players (including yours truly) busted out at the same time since we all stood on stiffs. Now, since there were at least 3 or maybe as many as 5 players that could swing BR1 (since he only held back $2,600), it looks to me that his best bet was to hold back $6,050 and bet the rest as the instagator originally suggested. Comments please.
Toolman, congrats on making the final table. Our game was the last hand to make it out of the semis with only one advancing. The discussions on deal making were so good I didn't want to spoil the fun. I was so crushed after that last hand that I didn't stay to watch the final hand. Their format for this tournament seemed to equalize the "soft" local players with the seaoned tournament players. It was quite a contrast from the LVA "Dry Run".
I'm a little confused instagator: Like I said in my previous post, details are a bit murky in my mind. The question I have is: Relating to the final hand you described, was that at the final table or your semi-final table? The reason I ask is because my best recollection of the final table is not quite what you described. You also said "I was so crushed after that hand that I didn't stay to watch the final hand". This leads me to believe you were referring to your semi-final table in your original post. I'm not questioning your accuracy at all. Just trying to sort things out for myself. Their format definetely gives the weaker players a somewhat fighting chance. I play this tournament because, compared to other tournaments, I personally find it less difficult to get to the semi-finals because of their liberal re-buy rules. I don't know what you look like or even that you would be there so I couldn't say "hello". Maybe another time or place. Good luck on your future plays.
