Last hand, 500 max, 10 min, 6 people left, 3 advances Player1 $1500 bet 500, dealt a 16 hit 10, busted player2 $350 bet all, dealt 13 hit 10, busted player3 $1000 bet 500, dealt a blackjack and get paid 2 to 1 (first bettor) player4 (me) $1050 bet 500, dealt a 15 and stand player5 1200 bet 400, dealt a 12 hit 10, busted player6 950 bet 500, dealt an 18 and stand Dealer shows a face and turn up a face for a total of 20, so player1, player3, and player5 advance and I didn't make it. Did I bet and play my hand correctly?
time difference Sorry Darklord but because of the time difference between England and the US I always seem to see your posts before anybody else and I love tourney teasers!! Here's my answer: I would have bet $90 to give me likely 2nd low with the possibilty of surrender to 1st low. After the hands had been dealt I would have surrendered because P1 and P2 were beaten already and P5 and P6 are both dogs to the dealer. P5 might also decide to surrender to tie with P1, beat P2 and hope that P5 gets beaten or pushes which would tie them for 3rd and a play off. A P5 surrender would be good for you. Incidentally if you'd surrendered your $500, which I would have done, you'd have tied with P5 and had to play-off for 3rd. Cheers Reachy
Surrender is not allowed. Is there a reason why you like the $90 bet. But I think $500 is not a bad bet at all because given the position where I have to bet second after the 4th chip leader, my best bet is to corrolate my bet with the 4th chip leader to protect my 3rd position. Since player2 is pretty much out of the play and there are 5 players left with 3 advance, the question here is whether max bet or min bet is the best play. It was really bad luck that the 4th chip leader got a BJ; otherwise I would had made it. Now that I think about it, I think I should have go with minimum bet because in addition to 3 advance on each table, they also take the 2 highest chip count out of 3 tables.
No surrender Without surrender I would bet $40 which will give you at least 2nd low and likely 1st low. 3 players out of the 4 that can reach you would have to win for you not to advance. If you bet $500 then P2 comes into play against you as they could take you with a swing. In fact P2 is already threatening P3 and P6 and could get to P5 with a BJ. With $500 if you win you are almost a lock to go through although BJs and DD could cause you trouble. If you lose, only 1 out of 3 needs to win/push (except P2 who needs to win) for you not to advance as P1 and P5 have the low on you. Cheers Reachy
My .02 I would have bet $160. Without the surrender it gives me more chances to win and fewer to lose, imo. Since I am assuming you were 2nd to bet, I think betting less would have probably changed some of the other players bets, but let's pretend it wouldn't have. With a bet of $160 you force players 2, 3, 5, & 6 to win if you win. Assuming everyone bet the same way regardless of your bet, if you lose, 3 of the other players have to win for you to be out. If everything had played out the same way you would have advanced using the $160 bet. Also, I would have hit the 15, as it gives you a better chance of winning the hand. I'm not very good with the 1st low, 2nd high, blah blah terminology. I don't know how what I've come up with actually stacks up in that way. With your $500 bet out I would have hit the 15. BTW, if I had been player 5 I would have stood on the 12 after you stood on your 15.
4th to bet $160 would be 2nd low, 5th high With $40 I would have 1st low, 5th high, blah, blah. If I win with $40 I also force players 1, 3, 5, & 6 to win (P2 is irrelevant). If I lose, 3 players out of a pool of 4 (because BRL doesn't count in this case) must beat me for me not to advance. This where my $40 bet differs from your $160 bet; you said that 3 players need to beat you also but infact 1 already has if you've lost, BR1. So you only now need 2 players to win out of a pool of 3 (BRL doesn't count in your case either) for you to lose. For a $40 bet the odds of at least 3 out of 4 winning are 32%; for $160 the odds of at least 2 out of 3 winning are 42%, therefore you are more likely to lose with a $160 bet. In summary, $40 and $160 have the same chances if they win but if they lose $40 gives you a slightly better chance. Unless of course I'm talking complete drivel... Cheers Reachy
Imho I think you played it right, darklord. Your bet gave you 3rd high and 3rd low. Your decision to stand was also correct, because of other other remaining players' weak hands. You just got outdrawn. Welcome to my world.
OK, here goes... here is my (probably very dodgy) explanation for why I think $40 might be better than $500. With a $40 bet you need 3 or more players to win for you not to advance regardless of our outcome. In the Gospel according to Wong and if we say that in effect only 4 players can beat us we can figure the odds that we will advance. They are 1-.19-.13=.68 With a $500 bet it's much more complicated to figure. If you win your bet 3 out of only 4 of your opponents winning will be enough to eliminate you because BRL can't bridge the gap. Because you have 3rd high that will mean 2 of them will need either BJs or successful doubles to overtake you. If you lose your hand you only need 1 out of 3 to win for you to be eliminated. The reason it's 3 is because BR1 and BR2 will have already beaten you which leaves BR4, BR5 and BR6. If you push it's like taking the low and 3 out of 4 opponents winning will be enough to see you out the door. The maths for figuring the odds for a $500 bet is a little "forced" but should give a good approximation. I think. Here goes: You have a .44 chance of beating the dealer. For the sake of this example I will assume that if you win your hand you advance. I realise that the figure is actually lower than this as there is a chance the smaller stacks can overtake you with DD/BJs but if we keep it at .44 that puts the bias in favour of the $500 bet and thus makes the test tougher for the $40 bet! You have a .48 chance of losing to the dealer. If you lose to the dealer none of the 3 smaller stacks can win else you will be eliminated. The chances of that happening are .34 according to Wong (Three players: none win; all lose or push). This gives us a figure of 0.16. You have a 0.08 chance of pushing and if it requires 3 out of 4 to eliminate you we can use the figure of .68 from above as your chances of advancing. This gives us a figure of 0.05. Soooooo.... to approximate the chances of winning with a $500 bet we add up the above, .44+.16+.05 = .65 O.65 is less than 0.68 therefore I conclude that $40 is a better bet than $500! However the main cause of inaccuracies in this calculation will rest with the fact that it doesn't take account of the fact that all players tend to have similar outcomes vs. the dealer. If I win it is more likely that everybody else will, and likewise if I lose. The figure of .44 for winning is probably and over-estimate because beating the dealer doesn't guarantee my advancing. If I lose then the smaller chip stacks a less likely to overtake me than I have given them credit for. So if we play about with the figures a bit, say if I win I have a 90% chance of advancing and if I lose the smaller stacks have their chances of winning reduced by 10% what does that do to the final figure? .396 + .179 + .05 = .6299! So what do you think? Am I talking out of my gastrointestinal tract? Cheers Reachy
Wong CTS Wong CTS says to leave the third biggest unbet stack on the table. In this case that would be a bet of 95. 45 does the same thing as 95 but also covers a push by spot 3. I'm not a grizzled old veteran of this by any stretch but my experience has told me that those small bets in a crowd on the last hand are suicidal. Darklord is the only one that can tell us his opinion of the player on spot 6. If darklord believed spot 6 was a weak player who would bet the max, just because it was the last hand, then 500 was by far the best bet he could make.
Another thought My reading of this rule, along with the examples presented in CTS, leads me to believe that Wong meant the unbet stack rule applies if you are betting after your opponents. If you are betting first, as is this case, being inside your opponents' head is critical. You need to second guess them to make the best bet. If you cannot get a "read", then bet the max and keep your fingers crossed. Note that this only applies if you are betting before any contenders and you are in a "crowd". As for as playing, I believe P4 should have hit his hand. Why you ask? P3 has a BJ which makes him one of the top 3. With P4 standing like he did, all P1 and P5 had to do was also stand on their stiffs and each would lock out P4 - leaving P4 as BR4 or BR5. But P1 and P5 were not alert enough to see this. Instead, by P1 and P5 hitting their stiffs and busting, they blundered in that now they presented P4 with a chance to pass them.
