Ok, here is the situation. Last Round, only 1 advances, 2nd and 3rd get Paid. I have lead by $10 and everyone bets the max. I am first to act and have a hard 15, dealer show an ACE. The person in 2nd place gets a BlackJAck. I felt I had two options, 1) Take Insurnace and hope the Dealer also has BJ, or 2) Double down on my 15. What is the best move and what are the %'s? Thank you in advance for any comments.
Between a rock and a hard place Needless to say, you are in a very bad, but not hopeless, situation. What you have here is really 2 questions: 1) Take insurance? 2) What to do if the dealer does not have BJ? On insurance: If BR2 has any smarts he will insure for at least $10 if you insure. This assures him of victory if the dealer has a BJ (BR2 wins $20 and pushes the dealer with his BJ while you end up with a net push) and forces you to double down if the dealer does not have a BJ. On the other hand, BR2 need not insure if you don't insure. Again, this assures BR2 of victory if the dealer has a BJ (you loose while BR2 pushes) and again forces you to double down if the dealer does not have a BJ. So on the question of insurance, I say to take the insurance and hope BR2 does not. You then win if the dealer has a blackjack since you both have a net push. On doubling down: If you took insurance, BR2 is now more than a max bet ahead of you and doubling down is therefore your only choice. You can still beat him because his largest lead will be a double max bet less $10 (the $10 is your lead going into this hand). Being forced to double down because you lost a 1/2 max bet on your insurance its not a tragity. With a hard 15, you would probably only take 1 card even if you did not double down. In your situation, probabilities of winning a single or double bet with a hard 15 against a dealer Ace should be very close (don't know the exact percentages). If you don't mind saying, how did the hand play out?
How much time were you allowed to think about it? Time to think can be a factor in a decision like this. You have a lot to think about because you're guessing what BR2 might do. A lot of people would just guess what to do, or default to basic strategy, if time pressure becomes a problem. After all, we're only human (or monkeys.) :joker:
Thanks for the responses so for, I am new so this is valuable. I guess I didn't give you enough information to begin with. This happened to be ob Global Player so I had 30 seconds to decide plus for Insurance you dont have a choice of how much. You either take it for half or dont take it. It sounds like I lose by taking Insurance if BR2 follows suit and takes insurance himself. What happened was, I doubled down and busted making it easy for BR2 since that made him the automatic winner.
Global Player's insurance is tricky. You have to take full insurance and full DD. Also, you have to take insurance, then make your playing decision immediately, before play proceeds to the next player. If the dealer turns a BJ your playing decision is negated. If you play after someone who has taken insurance you have to remember that. Once your opponent saw you take insurance and lose the DD he would need to match your insurance bet. If he doesn't and the dealer turns a BJ, you win because the dealer won't take your DD bet, just the original bet. If he matches your insurance bet he's the automatic winner. If you hadn't taken insurance it would've been a no brainer for him to just stand. If you hadn't taken insurance and then made a hand with your DD he would have to DD his BJ and hope to swing you. He would improve his chances in that case if he takes insurance then DD's his BJ. I think taking insurance was the better play because it gives the opponent a way to make a mistake, especially with the tricky nature of Global Player's insurance rules. This logic works the same way as in the "Insure if Lose Both Ways" section of Wong's book. That's a lot to think about in the short time Global Player gives you.
Another bad rule Seams to me that Global Player needs to learn how Blackjack is played. :vomit: Or, on second thought, maybe we should just accept this as another bad rule in blackjack tournaments. Yes, that must be it. Can't wait 'til this one hits the brick & mortor casinos!!! It'll drive the dealers nuts.
