Thank you for all your advice on my previous posts. I hope you don't think I'm taking advantage of your good nature by asking more questions so I hope you can help me. It's a general rather than specific query and relates to betting, mid-game, when you have a lead. If you act after those that might trouble you should you correlate your bets with theirs or, because you have a lead, bet more because you can still have the most chips left on the table and increase your lead if you both win, or bet less because you can still beat them if you both win and you risk less of your chips if you both lose? I can personally see merits in all of the above. In addition what would you recommend if betting first with a lead. You expect you opponents to want the lead if you offer them the high but they are also likely to take the low if you give them that option. For example, BR1: $1250 BR2: $1150 BR4: $1100 BR3: $1125 What would BR1 bet here? It's mid game and we are just jockeying for position. Maximum bet is $500 and only 1 will advance/win so I could bet $405 to take the high, $455 to allow me to double down, but those both allow all my opponets to take the low. The other option is to bet $95 which allows everybody to take the high from me. $195 would allow me to surrender to the 1st low and may encourgae my opponents to bet large. Am I best off using the negative expectation to my advantage and going low whilst reducing my flux also? I look forward to your responses. Many thanks Dogen
Good question... I'm anxious to read what the experienced players will say. They'll probably say it depends on several factors. Including the skill of your opponents in relation to the skill of you. The more inexperienced you are, the more aggressive you should bet. Betting exactly right is more important in the end than mid. I also know that you will be more aggressive when only one advances. The best strategy in such a tournament where 1 advances is to be BR1 going into the last hand or bust out trying. I'm still not sure HOW aggressive to be though. I think in time we will get a better feel for the right thing to do. But like Ken's saying, "There's always a better bet". Good luck Rounder21
Stay in the hunt I guess there is no answer that everyone will agree on. It's mid-game and the main object is to stay in the hunt. Maintaining a BR1 position is desirable but not critical. My philosophy is to bet on the conservative side at this point with the chip counts as described. Remember, you must be in the last hand to have a chance of advancing. Betting too large puts you at risk of going from BR1 to BR4 really quick. Also, if you bet large and win then everyone else will start betting large to catch up and with 3 players, at least one will probably do it. With that said, since I'm betting first, I would bet no more than $100 and that would depend on "table temperature" i.e. how hot is the table. Like I said, I just want to stay in the hunt at this point and I don't worry too much about who gets the high and who gets the low at mid-game. Others will disagree and I'd like to hear their opinion also.
Toolman answered exactly as I would. I would keep it on the low side, so as not to get myself into trouble. It gives the others at the table an "opening" to bet high and try to take BR1, which gives me the chance to extend my lead if they lose. If I lose BR1 in that way I still have plenty of chips to bet and get that spot back. In your example I would either bet $50 (half my lead) or $90 (most of my lead) based on what I've learned about the other players, and like Toolman said, how hot the table is. If I had a large lead (half max bet or more) over the other players I would bet minimum.
