Maybe someone can help me understand this hand I observed recently. Since I don’t play at this point I figured I just watch some of the better people this is what happened. Hand 25 with 3 players Player 1 had 20,750 used his secret bet got 3-4 Player 2 had 34,000 bet 7,000 got 10-10 Player 3 had 19,500 bet 8,000 got 6-4. Doubled down Dealer showed a 2. Player one didn’t do anything. Player 2 hold. Player 3 doubled down. Got 20 Dealer busted. Player one only bet 1000 and surrendered. He got eliminated. Why did he do that? It that a normal play?
Player 1 Took The Low Player 1 had a 56% chance of advancing by forcing player 3 to win the hand. He/she took second low as BR2, which is usually not an advisable bet. But since BR1 (player 2) was so far ahead this was essentially a one-winner game for players 1 and 3. Do you remember how player 3 had been betting? If player 3 was reckless/aggressive then a better secret bet would've been 19,000, getting the high/low correlation on player 3's likely all-in bet. Even if player 3 was only 50/50 to go all in player 1's chances would've been 65% just to finish ahead of player 3 with an even higher chance of winning due to the benefits of the possible swing on player 2. Where does the figure of 65% come from? If player 1's 19K bet got the high-low correlation with player 3's all in they were an 80% favorite. If player 3 bet low then player 1 had the high from the lead which is a tossup. If you assume a 50% chance that player 3 went all in then 80% * 50% + 50% * 50% = 65%.
I'm not positive that this is what Player #1 was thinking but here is what I see from his move.His bet even though its a secret now will have no outcome on who will get eliminated.Even if he were to lose his 1,000 he would still have 19,750 enough to beat a push by player # 3.So his thinking was most likely if player 3 loses his hand he will have an extra 500 in chips to use on the last 5 hands against player# 2.He gave nothing up with his surrender. Now my question to you how is it that you knew these players were some of the better players? Joep
underbet Minor point. Did Player 2 not underbet? $7K doesn't cover all-in win by BR1 and can't be doubled to cover BJ. $9K would have been better. Cheers Reachy
Good Players If I were player 1 and I thought player 3 was a good player I'd probably bet 500 in secret. I would assume player 3 won't let me get the high-low correlation so I'd play it safe for a 56% chance to advance. After the cards came out I would've doubled my 500 bet, just to give players 2 and 3 something to think about. It's essentially a one winner game because player 2's lead is so big. Player 2 can cover me by betting 7,500 and indeed could bet the max and still surrender to force me to get paid. Player 1 hurt his/her chances a little by betting 1,000 then surrendering the 3,4. There was no point in surrendering this hand at all. By not taking a card on 3,4 it was obvious that they had surrendered. He/she essentially told player 3 that they needed to get paid to win. It's always better to hide this kind of information. Betting 1,000 instead of 500 made it riskier to double down to hide the card. Player 2's actual bet was so-so. 500 more would cover player 1 without significantly changing anything else. He/she may have been thinking about the possibility of having to split a pair while still forcing player 3 to get paid. The chances of losing both hands of a split pair while another player pushes are so remote that you're better off covering the possibility of an opponent's BJ instead. What player 3 actually did in this game was okay. They made a bet that was unlikely to have been correlated by player 1's secret bet, while giving player 1 a wide range of possible secret bets that would make that bet of 8,000 the low. It's also big enough to have a good chance of taking back the high with a double down, which is what player 3 apparently tried to do. If this were a one winner game with five more hands to play I might've tried to get by more cheaply if i were player 3. If you're in an elimination hand that's not a final hand you want to survive as cheaply as possible. Another option in this case would be to go all in. If you're the one about to get eliminated unless you win a hand you may as well use all your ammo.
One Winner Game? I hadn't considered that hand 25 here wasn't the last hand. Player 1 may have been trying to save money for the last five hands.
Maybe he just didn't play the hand that well. Cheers Reachy PS. What you guys doing up this early/late anyway
I was thinking the same thing, Player 2 under bet. I would have bet between $9,500 - $13,000. Any bet between those would keep the lead for you on your lost and either Player 1 or 3's push, it also covers either of theirs possible all in BJ. As far as Player 1's surrender, once he took the low with a $1,000 bet he was just wanting the dealer to beat either of the other players, it didn't matter if he made a hand or not, if both the other players won he was eliminated. I do like this play, it does make Player 2 stop and think about a possible split and Player 1 would have a free DD here.
One Winner Game I'm a chronic insomniac, Reachy. This hobby is likely part of it... I believe Joep was trying to get us to discuss strategies as if this were a one winner game. If this were a one winner game and there were still five hands to play after this one it changes everything as opposed to a two winner game where this is the final hand. Player 1 may want to go all in in secret, or at least all in minus 500. They'll need to win a bet sometime to catch player 2. They'd do well to make that secret bet do double duty and work as a catch up bet as well as guarantee surviving the elimination.
