Here's an interesting last hand, in which I think I made a couple of errors, both of which contrived to actually help win it for me in the end. Min:100, Max: 1000, Surrender, No DD or Ins. for less. BR1 (Me). 4385.50 bet 1000 BR2........ 3687.50 bet 1000 Mistake #1? With 666 < lead < 1000, I think I should have covered the push. A bet in the range 652..697 is enough to still have the high if we both DD. But I got into a timer-induced fluster, and defaulted to betting the max. The cards - Dealer: A BR1: 3,3 BR2: 9,9 Mistake #2? I declined insurance. BR2 then took insurance and I began kicking myself. Thanks to my lead being > 500, I could have insured my max bet without giving up the low, which would have taken this option away from BR2. So, not knowing what BR2 was going to do, I think I should have insured. But, having seen me decline insurance, was BR2 right to insure? I think probably yes, but I'm not sure. It obviously offers a 30% chance of winning right there, but it also offers a 70% chance of being over a max bet down, meaning that even winning two max bets won't be enough for BR2, if I also win my hand. Fortunately for me, the dealer did not have a BJ. I hit my 3,3 and got a 6. I stood on 12, reasoning that only a dealer 17 could save BR2. BR2 split the 9s. Was this the right thing to do? I suppose it might be, as it might have been possible to DD on one of the split hands, as well as possibly improving the total on one or both of the split hands, meaning dealer totals other than 17 might be good for BR2. BR2 received a T on each hand and stood on both, so now a dealer 17 or 18 is good for BR2. The dealer then bust and I won by 5385.50 to 5187.50. Any thoughts on how either BR1 or BR2 ought to have played this?
THE BET: In my opinion, BR1 should have followed the general rule when in the lead, playing heads up and betting first: Hold back the amount of BR2's bankroll plus one chip and bet the rest. This always gives BR1 the low and a table win if BR2 pushes (assuming no DD by BR1). I would not be concerned with covering a DD by BR2 – you sometime cannot have everything. In this situation the RULE would have yielded a bet of 697 which, coincidently, also gives two bonuses: 1) an opportunity to cover a DD by BR2 if needed and 2) gives BR1 the high. On the other hand, since surrender is allowed, making a 1,000 bet is not that bad since you can surrender and take back the low regardless of BR2’s bet. Given the time restraints, I don’t think it’s a real bad bet. INSURANCE: With a 1,000 bet: Yes, BR1 should have taken insurance. When BR1 declined, I think BR2 did the right thing by taking insurance. Without BR2 taking insurance he runs a 30% chance of losing the table due to a possible dealer BJ. With insurance BR2 has a 30% chance of winning the table due to a possible dealer BJ. Yes, losing the insurance bet puts BR2 in a very difficult position but I think it's worth the risk considering BR2 is already in a difficult position. With a 697 bet: No insurance. BR1 is an automatic winner if the dealer has a BJ even if BR2 erroneously takes insurance. PLAYING THE HAND: I think BR1 and BR2 played their hands the best they could. THE REALLY BIG MISTAKE: As I see it, the really big mistake was not BR1’s 1,000 bet. It was BR1’s not taking insurance.
