Here was the situation today: Last hand, one advance, no surrender, bets 5-200, no secret bets. Three players left in serious contention. => BR3 bankroll 800 bet 200 Me bankroll 835 bet ? BR1 bankroll 860 BR1 had been matching my bets and making correlating plays. BR3 sneaked back into it with a max bet BJ on the 2nd last hand. My instinctive bet was 200 and, as would be expected, BR1 bet 200 and subsequently won the game. Could I have made a better bet? How about 115 to make this tricky for BR1?
Missed this one Like your suggestion, 1st low no high but can double for 1st high. Some other ideas: If you don't bet max BR1 can bet 175 to have high over DD from BR3 with DD of their own. So how about 120 which would lock BR1 out of a surrender with a surrender of your own whilst a double would take the high (your 115 would do the same of course ). Or you could correlate with BR2 and hope for a swing with BR1 (which you need anyway) - so 185 would be a good bet. Or how about 145 for the low over the 175 bet by BR1? So many choices.... Cheers Reachy
As I see it, the fact that there are 3 contenders makes the answer pretty simple. Just bet the max as Monkeysystem did and hope the cards fall to your advantage. You cannot change BR2 from an underdog. Since there are 3 contenders, I don't see a "perfect bet" available for BR2 - each has it's pros and cons. BR1 is betting last and he can react to whatever happens before him. Let's not make this more complex than it needs to be. Or do we have knowledge gone amuck where we cannot recognize the simple answer?
Brainstorming Don't be so unimaginative toolman . I didn't say that I thought any of the bets I suggested where the "best" bet, merely alternative bets to those used or suggested as per Monkeysystems request. Actually I really like the 115/120 bet as it does have the potential to catch BR1 out in a couple of ways. Cheers Reachy PS. I've always wondered why you are Toolman1. Are there others? Toolman2, Toolman3, etc...?
Not that I'm trying to be unimaginative, it's that in this situation no imagination is need as I see it. In this forum we discuss various strategies so that when we sit down to play we may be able to draw our answers from the discussions we have had in the past. In this situation, if we think there is a better bet than the max then when we play we may fool ourselves into thinking another bet is better and unwisely take that course. No need to add complications when not necessary. It's a simple answer that was brought to light by Wong. No need to reinvent the wheel. As to the 115/120 bet, this leaves you open to be passed by BR3. Also, if BR1 wins a single bet (which you will not know since he plays after you) then you must double anyway. Like I said, bet the max and hope. As for the "1" after my handle, I thought that someday there may be an impostor that decided to call himself "toolman1". Since naturally, I am THE toolman I felt I need to distinguish myself as being the best toolman and therefore added the "1" to guarantee that. Now someone else who wants to be a toolman has to pick "2" or "3" or whatever. Since I retain the "1" that of course makes the impostor inferior.
handle I was thinking of changing to toolmanX or #1toolman or maybe stoolman1. Oh well. For now I'm staying tgun. (hopefully soon to be known as the Big Tulsa winner.) P.S. I'm being imaginative for reachy. Because I would have also bet 200 !
Finesse There's no style, no elegance, to a 200 bet! You're right, most everybody will say "if in doubt, push it out" but I want to see some creativity in my bet, it should be a work of art. I want people to say, "why did you make that bet Reachy", and I can say blah, blah, blah..., and they will stand back and appreciate it . 200 gives you nothing. Neither high nor low. You have to trust to blind luck and fingers crossed for the swing. (At this point I've noticed that surrender is not available in MS's original post :laugh: ) With a bet 0f 115 you are forcing BR1 to make a decision; take the 1st low but give up the high to BR3 or take the high on BR3 and give up the low to you. In fact a bet of 115 to 145 will have the same utility giving you the low on BR1's high over BR3 whilst covering a max bet from BR1 with a double. I would love to be able to use Wong's Table 4 to examine the probabilities more closely but unfortunately it doesn't give enough detail. Maybe London Colin, with his simulator, can provide that sort of information in the future... Any plans Colin? Cheers Reachy
High An intermediate bet of 140 gives BR1 a tiebreaker for both the high and the low. Any bet other than 115 for me lets BR1 correlate.
OR They will stand back, turn around, put their head down, and move their head from left to right and left again and say to their friend "did you hear what he said". and the friend says "Ya, I don't believe it either". Now the situation at hand. You can talk all day about "I get the high here but give up the low" etc. But everything you do as BR2 has consequences including a $200 bet. Did I mention that even if BR2 gets a BJ with a $145 bet, BR1 need not double to win? So let me ask you this: Do you really think that you can come up with definitive probabilities that by BR2 betting anything less than $200 will give him a better chance of winning? If you do attempt to work this out you have to account for variations in BR1's bet as well as everything that could occur while playing this hand out. Including how BR1 will react to a split or DD by BR2 or BR3. It's complicated. And you missed one other of Wong's laws. In addition to "when in doubt, put it out" (actually that's only when you don't know exactly what to do) the law you missed is "in a crowd, bet the max". To summarize: BR2 is in a bad position and betting the max and crossing his fingers is indeed his best hope. After the cards are dealt, he may find himself a little better off but most of the time he will need that max bet to take advantage of it.
Actually.... Given the same situation I'd still bet 200. But I wanted to generate discussion based on the tournament principle of making BR1 make a difficult choice. Ken S. wrote an article about this a while back. But the example he used had bankrolls that were much closer together. Here's the logic for betting 115. If BR1 follows with a bet of 200, I as BR2 have a situation similar to the Strong Variation of Curt's Revenge. I have the low and can double to cover the single bet. A BJ doesn't cover, and in the B&M casino in question you can't double down on a BJ. According to the approximations in CTS, there's a 31% chance both my opponents will lose. So if I have first low that gives me a 31% chance of winning the table plus whatever chance aggressive doubling gives me. If BR1 makes an error and bets 115, I'm really hurting because I've got 3rd high and second low. My chances of winning are probably down to the single digits. So if you make such a bet you'll want to look BR1 in the face and talk to him and "remind" him that when in doubt, push it out. Besides, not too many BR1's will be able to calculate the 140 bet under the pressure of a tournament and an opponent heckling them. If you figure a 50/50 chance of BR1 betting 115 or 140 instead of 200, then 200 is the better bet in this case.
don't mix grape with grain with pharma With a clear head I have to concur with you MonkeySystem. And I still like the 115 bet however. With everybody max betting I figure BR2 for just over 18% probability to win which is not as good as at least 31% for the 115 vs 200 vs 200. Cheers Reachy
Reachy, I can't say your math is right or wrong because you didn't provide any detail as to how you arrived at your numbers. Also, the numbers are incomplete because you didn't show BR1's and BR3's probabilities to verify that they all add up to 100%. Even if your math is correct, what you have here is just one scenario. You assumed that BR1 will bet 200 when in fact he may not as Monkeysystem pointed out. But then you could have also assumed that BR1 will split a pair of 10s and bust out on both hands if BR2 and BR3 stood on stiffs. The list of scenarios to tip things in your direction is seemingly endless. Your calculations assume BR1 will error in betting and that all three players will simply play straight basic strategy as Wong's tables are based. The reality is that BR1 may not bet $200 and, depending on how the cards fall, there is a good possibility that at least one and maybe all players will deviate from basic strategy to improve their chances . This is what I meant when I said you must account for all the possibilities as to how the hands will play out and that is a Herculean task.
Wongs Table 4 I wish Wongs table had more information to allow for more detailed analysis of this situation (is anybody working on this? Ken? Colin?) so I acknowledge its shortcomings. I came up with 14-19% (*these figures are a correction from previous post) when everyone bets max as follows: BR2 wins the table when he wins, BR1 loses or pushes, and BR3 any outcome (12%+2%=14%); BR2 wins when he pushes, BR1 loses and BR3 pushes or loses (up to 5%). Monkeysystem has already shown how you get the figure of at least 31% for the bet of 115. I am aware that there are other options to consider such as double downs and splits, BJ's and so on, as well as a bet other than 175 to 200 for BR1. But there is no getting away from the fact that on initial analysis 115 appears to be a better bet.... Cheers Reachy
Reachy, I don't get the same read from Monkeysystem's post as you do. He stated the 31% without details. But let's assume his number is calculated right. He based this on Wong's probabilities which are based on playing normal blackjack with no deviations from Basic Strategy. Also note from the same Monkeysystem post that he backs the idea that a $200 bet is the way to go in spite of what we said about the $115 bet. I think the key factor in the scenario that started this thread is that BR1 bets and plays last. No calculations on this thread have taken that into account. Playing last gives BR1 the flexibility to react to BR2 and BR3. By betting $200, BR2 not only has the power to counter some of that flexibility if the situation arises, it also provides the power to stop a back door win by BR3 should BR1 falter. BR3 is still a contender who must be considered and none of the calculations on this thread have taken that into account. Anyway, I'm going to play in Mississippi soon so I have to get other things in order before the trip so I'm kind of dropping this thread now as it has low priority for me at this point in time. Talk to you again at some time in the future. In the meantime, make the right choice and "put it out". PS: Where in the hell did you get that avatar? I think I'll have to start a campaign to bring back Flat Eric.
flip it OK, try this. You are BR1 acting last: what's your bet? Bet range 5-200, no surrender. Winner takes it all. BR3 - 800 bets 200 BR2 - 835 bets 115 BR1 - 860 bets ??? Good luck with your "proper" tourney, hope you win ! Remember, stand on 16 vs Dealer 10 if you must win the hand... Cheers Reachy
Thanks for the well wishes. The tournament is accumulation so many rules relating to elimination style do not apply. No chip counting should be needed . If the casino is true to form there will be a countdown with 2 or 3 hands to go. They just don't get it that a countdown is mostly worthless since they don't announce the chip leaders among all the tables, only the table you are playing. Been working on my strategy for the last few days. Should be finalized by tomorrow. No more "what if" situations for me on this thread. You may find yourself a bit lonely for the next 5 to 7 days. Two major tournament locations to chose from here in the States. Many on this site will be at one or the another. Maybe time for you to catch up on your running or maybe see if Flat Eric is dead in your cellar or if he has been torn apart by your cat.
How About 135? With a bet of 135 BR1 takes first low and acts after BR3. He has a similar situation to the Strong Variation of Curt's Revenge. He's got BR2 correlated. And he can double for the high if his chance of winning that is greater than BR3's chance of losing the single bet. The risk is of BR3 doubling and pulling a strong hand. If he bets 175 or more to cover BR3's double he only has second low and this game has no surrender. If he's dealt a weak hand - a common occurence in blackjack - he can't recover. A bet of 140 is pretty weak. He's tied for first high and tied for first low. Because BR1 is apt to make any of these choices, the bet of 115 is bad for BR2. If BR1 follows BR2's 115 with 135, BR2's chances of winning drop into the the single digits, just like the Fahrenheit daytime high temperature here in Wisconsin lately. On the other hand if BR1 follows with >=175, BR2's chance is a shade over 31%. Because of the uncertainty of BR1's bet, you can calculate BR2's chances as the average of the two alternatives. With a bet of 115 BR2's chance to win the table is approximately 20%. With a bet of 200 BR2 is in a forced double situation, as BR1 is almost certain to follow with 200. This is supposedly a 30% try, but BR1 can double after him, reducing BR2's 30% chance of success. However, BR1 can't do that if BR3 hasn't. Because of the possibility of BR3 freezing out BR1's double down correlation, it appears likely BR2's chance of winning is higher than 20% by betting 200. Any computer programmers out there care to tackle this math problem, and prove or disprove my analysis?
bring out your dead My avatar is Dr Schnabel, the plague doctor, and he represents my current state of health (poor Reachy). Therefore I can't run at the moment and intend to prostrate myself on the sofa all day watching "Power Tool Drag Racing"!!! Not ever having played a no-surrender tournament before some of the subtleties may be lost on me, however I do take your points and concur with your rationale. In the actual tourney do you think BR1 would have bet 135 if you bet 115? Would you be more likely to bet the 115 if surrender was available? Cheers Reachy
No Surrender is Simpler BR1 was a knowledgeable player. I wanted to talk to him more after the game to find out who he was but didn't get a chance. To be honest, I don't know what he would've done if I had bet 115. Also to be honest I hadn't really thought of that 115 angle at the table. I just shoved out the 200 to correlate BR3 and hope to get lucky against BR1. I've taught myself to ignore the temptation of small bets on the last hand except in certain circumstances. Tournaments with no surrender are the norm in the Midwest. In fact some of them simplify it even more with BJ's paying 2:1 and no insurance.
