If you gotta be unsure of your decision, it doesn't get any better than this. Last hand, two advance. Bet range 5-200 in increments of 5. No surrender. You cannot double down on blackjacks or totals of 21 (in case you split T's and draw an Ace.) I was first to act. =>Me, bankroll 825, bet ? Villan 1, bankroll 875 Villan 2, bankroll 415 I can't beat BR1 without also covering BR3, and I only need to finish as BR2. So I can ignore BR1 and play it like one advance against BR3. I usually hate giving BR1 a free pass, but in this case it was the prudent thing to do. She could and probably would lock out BR3 with a minimum bet of her own. When one opponent locks a position you can ignore them. It came down to this. I had to choose between betting 5 or 10. Betting 5 locks out BR3 unless he can get three bets on the table. In that case I have to double to avoid a tiebreaker. Betting 10 covers the three bet scenario, but I risk getting full swung by his double down and getting into a tiebreaker. Which is more beneficial - covering the three-bet or covering the double down vs. single bet swing?
Within the time limit... I'd bet $10. If BR3 is able to get a split with a (DD for less) you'll need $10 to cover them anyway. This also covers the split or DD as well and leaves you with the surrender to trap them in that case.
I bet $5 here. BR3 getting three bets working is already unlikely, but assume it happens. If you have a hand where you can't reasonably double or split, you can just play for the tiebreaker. If you can double or split, you still have the high. (If BR3 has either hand stiff, you're a lock if you have a non-busting hand.) With a $10 bet it seems more likely to have a BR3 double / I lose swing to force me into a tiebreaker. (By the way Tx, No surrender available here.) You're right MS. This looks like a hair-splitter!
My bad I sat right there and read no surrender and had it in my mind surrender...Opp's! Hope BR3 didn't catch a split with a DD...lol
