This probably belongs in the Newbie Forum, but I'm putting it here. I've only been playing in tournaments for 4 months, but, after 30 years of playing "live" casino BJ, I refuse to label myself a Newbie. Anyway, in my short career, I've played in live tournaments with several variations of Starting Bankroll, Min bet, Max bet and number of hands. Plus, I've played some EBJ on-line. The problem I'm having is adjusting my money-management strategy between the various live formats. I normally bet small until I fall substantially behind and then make a move to get back into contention. But, properly timing my "catch-up" bets seems to be an area I need to improve. I'd like to hear some opinions on this. When is the best time to take a shot? One max bet behind? Or two? Or, do you simply wait until the last 10 hands? Or the last 5?
RiverMan, If it helps any, you're NOT alone on this matter. I have become so accustomed to the EBJ format of 25,000 starting BR, 500 min and 25,000 max that when I get to the final tables with 100,000 starting BR, 1000 min and 100,000 max it throws me off. To make matters more complicated I went back to Blackjack21.com where the starting BR = 2,000 with 100 min and 1,000 max. I was betting small and when the opportunity presented I did a 3 step progression only to realize that the max bet prevented me from doing that. TX gave a great example of what can happen betting min while others bet big and the cards just don't go your way! I respect the fact that he had a plan and stuck to it! Just think if the dealer had pulled 20 or 21's in that stretch what a different story it would have been! You wrote that you wait until you fall "substantially" behind. What is substantially behind? Why not set a "limit" or percentage that when hit/tripped you would start staging a comeback sooner? My personal thought on min betting until the last 5 hands is this: Against ploppies you stand a good chance for advancing as long as the dealer makes hands more than 50% of the time. However, when the dealer is spilling it the betting minimum strategy can be disasterous (see TX's post). While it may be productive to allow others to self-destruct (I'm notorious for it ) doing that against agressive experienced tourney players can and usually does backfire. Just my .03 on a good topic!
good question I liked this question. I would like to see more responses to this. In a 25 hand tournament I would make a minimum bet at least 15 hands, usually feeling no pressure. Can't tell you how many times I got beat by $5. I concluded I could not sit back and live with the minimum bets so I never made another minimum bet. Got beat by $5 anyway. Now I am thinking of trying to make my moves early, if successful the rest of the pack have to chase me, if not successful I have the whole game to play catchup. Most of the regional small games could be determined in 3 hands instead of 20 or 25 hands in any event. Go all in and double down on anything. I am careful enough to still be in play at the end of the game no matter what. In reality it is all in the cards, they are the same at the beginning of the shoe as they are at the end .
I sure understand that one, from my limited experience (online only so far). When I got to that final table of the UBT "Main Event" for the free trip and TV final table, the screen opened up with 100K bankrolls for everyone and 100K maximum bets. 4x the usual numbers except for 2x on the minimums. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I figured that everyone else was equally as surprised, and quickly conjured up an alternative strategy. Which, of course, did not work worth a crap for the first few hands!
What seems to be giving me the most trouble is the relationship between my starting/current bankroll to max bet size. In some tournaments I've played the max bet has been "unlimited". In others, max bet has been the size of the starting bankroll. And, in some, it has been 40% of the starting bankroll. I have yet to play a tournament where the max bet was 50% of the starting bankroll, but I know they are out there. Having the abiity to bet your entire bankroll allows for much more patience in the early/mid hands. Even if another player starts off fast and doubles up on you, one win, albiet a risky one, puts you right back in the game. If someone races to a lead of 3 times your bankroll, you are still only two wins out. In these games waiting fairly late to make a move, if it becomes necessary, has served me fairly well. But, in the games where the max bet is limited to 40% of the starting bankroll, falling behind by two max bets, even early in the round, seems to be the kiss of death at the majority of tables I have played. In this situation, there are usually 3 or 4 opponents betting big throughout the round and, while most will fall back to my bankroll level or bust completely out, almost without fail one will continue to catch good cards and build a huge lead. Recently, I've almost totally abandoned the "min bet" strategy to start the round under these circumstances and have been somewhat more successful at getting within reach of the the chip leaders by the last few hands, but I'm not at all happy with my current bet sizing strategy. It's too "reactive" and random. I feel there has to be a better method based on percentages of your bankroll, your deficit, the max bet limit and current bet levels of your opponents, but I don't have it worked out as yet. And, apparently, anyone who has isn't talking.
