Fellow tourney palyers: I can only say "Grrrr" after today's GameMaster tourney. I could taste the $3,000.00! For those that didn't see it, the last hand I had a $2.50 lead, which was a gift from GameMaster. Now I bet last on the last hand. He bets $200 of his $600 bankroll, and I bet $200 to match up. He gets a 6 and a 7, I get a 6 and a ten, and the dealer has a 9 up. My questions to ya'll is: 1- Shouldn't GameMaster double?, and 2- when he didn't and got a 3 and hit again and got a 2 for 18, should I have stood, like I did? I had to get to 18 or better to get any value from a hit, and the dealer did have a 9 up. ......Oh yea, the dealer had an 8 in the hole, for 17, and a major swing on the last hand.......brutal. Also another question - in head up play, is there some special strategy to be used. Obviously the last to act on the last hand and the lead is huge, but any other suggestions? I apprecaite the input. Jimmy599 on Global
GPC GMO-tourney - suspense guaranteed! Yes, he should. If he succeeds, heat least gets back the high. If he busts he has lost anyway - no difference as when he stands. If you stand, GM needs a dealer 17 or 18 to succeed - that's a 77.3% chance for you to win (no count considered, only dealer updcard 9). If you hit, you win either way with a 2, 3, 4, or 5 (4/13). With an A, you hit again and win with a A, 2, 3, or 4 (1/13 * 4/13). With any other card (bust), you win only when dealer makes 19, 20, or 21 (53.3%). So your chance of winning is only 4/13 + 1/13 * 4/13 + (169-56)/169 * 53.3% = 68.8%. So you played it correct - however, that doesn't bring you the money back either. BJ can be so cruel.
heads up play Wong suggests to take the low rather than the high, if you have to choose. What do you think? Taking the low gives me (no count considered) a slight advantage playing basic strategy, but may take away all means of desperate doubles or splits (if the opponent bets high enough). What is worth more?
Thx for the input. I did think it was close regarding the stand or hit for me. Of course, if he had doubled then I would be deciding to stand or double, and I would have taken the free double and won with the 2. As far as taking the low. I assume thats what you do in head up play. I was just wondering if a player should be more aggressive early on to try and get a large lead (preferably at least a 1/2 bet lead). But betting last was so important, I assume being able to take the low on the last hand is the #1 priority. Again, thx for the info. Jimmy
heads up play 1/2 max bet won't help very much - you'd need to get ahead more than a full maxbet. If you bet last and are ahead, you automatically have the low and the high. And you play last - what more advantages could you have? I always wondered why the betting order always has to match the playing order. The last hand would be much more thrilling if the player who is to bet first can play last and vice versa. Maybe I should start organizing tournaments?
Now THAT is an interesting idea (switching first bet with fisrt action). That would certainly even things up some. By the way, isn't it true with a 1/2 max bet + a minimum bet lead, you could surrender into the low, as well as keep the high with a max bet, or bet just the 1/2 max bet and keep the low, and double into the high? Isn't that a pretty nice thing to have on the last hand? Especially when betting first?
Sure you're right, I didn't consider surrender and double. Which brings up the next question: When more than half a max bet ahead in a heads up match and betting first on the last hand, do you a) take the low with optional double/split into the high or b) take the high with optional surrender into the low?
My thinking Hello, Jim. Great match; sorry it didn't work out for you, but there's always next month...for what it's worth, I've never built the pot up to $5000, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to try! Anyway, I have found that playing a lot of poker tournaments lately has really helped my Blackjack tourney play, so let me share some thoughts. First of all, on hand 29, I cannot believe that I actually placed a bet that would give me the lead, but then changed it. The words "brain fart" come to mind, but in a way it was a good thing because it forced me to actually play the last hand, rather than do the usual, almost-automatic stuff. If you had received any hand other than a 16 or 15, I would have doubled; that's the obvious play. But, as I mentioned, playing poker has shown me the value of forcing your opponent to make a decision - with the idea (or hope) that they might make the wrong decision - so there was very little risk in hitting; if I busted, you won and that would be that. However, if I were able to make a hand, you'd be forced into a decision of either standing, hitting or surrendering. I think we all know the math involved in each decision and that's not surprising because it's basically how we've all learned to play tournaments: BR1, BR2, a 45% chance, expected value and so on. While I'm a great believer in e.v. and so forth in the game of Blackjack, to me it's much more important when playing a "cash" game against the house where we'll have the opportunity to play thousands of hands, which will allow the e.v to have its effect. But, in reality, I'm probably not going to play thousands of tournaments so I cannot rely on e.v. doing its job for me. Oh, certainly when I have a choice, I'll choose the higher e.v. play 90 or 95% of the time, but to me a tournament is basically a one-time event in which anything can happen, so I've got to do what I can to maximize my return for that event, even if it means making a -e.v. play. Admittedly, that'll eventually catch up with me, if I were to play thousands of tournaments, but I might get hit by a truck tomorrow. Now understand, I'm not saying tourneys are just all luck, so we should play in any wild-ass way that suits us at the moment, but at the same time, a tournament isn't all +e.v. or -e.v decisions, either. Tournaments are played by human beings and we all have the capability of making great decisions and dumb decisions. Heaven knows I've made more of the latter than the former, but if I can put my opponent "on the spot" so to speak, I think that'll improve my chances. That's what I tried to do here and I'll be the first to admit that I got lucky. At the same time, I've had opponents get lucky and beat me, so I guess it all comes out in the wash. You were a worthy opponent, Jim and while my words are no consolation, we had a very exciting match and that's never a bad thing. GM
To Gamemaster: Yes, it was a great match, and I think you got lucky, but like you say, I've been lucky many times as well. It's just that I was 3 to 1 to win it, not 54% to 46% or something like that, and it's not like you got the money. It was my money or noones. Of course, someone can now go through all those motions I went through and win it next month, and if it's not me, I hopes it's someone from this site (if it has to go, that is). I think the reason you made the mistake on hand 29 is you were probably thinking I took a $2.50 lead on you, not $7.50. A $2.50 lead would have made more sense. That is why you bet $10 instead of $15 to my $5. Anyway, that is all water under the bridge now, and tomorrow is another day. One thing is certain though, I will try to go with the highest expected value I know of each time I make a tourney decision. Of course, I won't make the right decision every time, but that will be my goal. You may find that 'long run' to be a much shorter run than you may think.. And, by the way, thanks for your post. Jimmy
Surrender Selecticom, The answer to your question is "B". Now that you know the answer, you'll figure out why.
Highs and lows Both a) and b) are wrong . Sorry for the confusion. Jim was right, half a max bet plus a chip is sufficient for receiving the high and the low. Example: Max bet: $200 BR1: 800 BR2: 695 BR1 simply bets $100 -> high and low
