Just found this site, and am a first time poster. I've looked around a little, but didn't come across this situation in other threads. I played in a cruise ship tournament over the holidays and found myself in an interesting situation and am losing sleep trying to figure out if I played this correctly. CSM machine $100 minimum bet No maximum bet Dealer hits s17 double after split BJ pays 2-1 Last hand of a cruise ship 7 hand tournament. One winner ($500 prize) Dealer counts chips only on final bet. I have $3200 (on first base), player to my left also has $3200, player to his left has $1000 and player on 3rd base has $500. Dealer announces when she realizes we are tied that if we are tied after hand 7 we will have a 3 hand playoff (I didn't think to ask how betting order would work in the playoff). Player to my left (tied with me for BR1) bets first, he bets $500 Next player goes all in with $1000 3rd base goes all in with $500 I bet last (tied for BR1 with $3200) What should I have bet? I'm looking forward to your ideas..... Allen
I think you should bet a little less than 500, hoping that player on your left will lose. Then you have the option to double if you see that his hand will most likely win (and if he does not double).
If surrender was an option, I think I would have matched his bet. Actually,is surrender wasn't an option, I think I would still match his bet.
This is right out of Wong's CTS book. In a 2 player game, barring a bj by the player with the all-in bet of 1,000, and both the chip leaders betting more than 500, (a bad bet btw ), you should bet something less than the 500 the other player bet, making him win his hand, but still allowing you the chance to dd or split to beat his winning hand. Just as zweeky stated earlier.
Thanks for the feedback - I'll sleep better now! I bet $100 (thinking about player 3's potential for a natural - probably should have ignored him). I get a 14, man to the left tied with me gets a 16, player 3 with 1000 gets another stiff (don't remember) and guy on 3rd is dealt a 20. Dealer has a 2 showing. Nobody on the table hits, dealer busts - everybody wins the hand and I lost the tournament. Sounds like I was right to bet less and 300-400 would have been better the 100 for the chance to double if needed. I'll go back and study Wongs book - I don't remember a tie example in it - probably need to refresh my memory with the scenarios. I am also thinking it may have been to my advantage to match my opponents bet and gone for the a 3 hand playoff. I believe I was a more skilled tournament player then he was even though he did appear to play perfect basic strategy. I may have had a better chance to beat him over 3 hands. I should have asked for bet order details for the tie breaker rounds, I suspect we would have rolled a die and low roller would have bet first round and third round. Allen
Interesting stuff I don't think there are any tie examples in Wong, but the Curt's Revenge scenario sets the benchmark for how good your chances in a tie-break would have to be in order to make matching your opponent the better bet. According to example 19, the probability of winning via Curt's Revenge would be .55. A two-player, three-hand playoff must give quite some advantage to one player, since they get two hands in which they bet/act last. It does seem that matching the bet might possibly have been a better option, if the betting order would have been in your favour. I've done some hasty calculations, making the following general assumptions, scavenged from Wong: A skilled BR1, acting 2nd, has .81 chance against a novice BR2 (no Curt's Revenge), and .65 chance against a skilled player. A skilled BR2, acting 2nd, has .44 chance against a skilled BR1 (i.e. BR1 bets small, BR2 bets enough to win outright), and .55 chance against a novice (i.e. the novice overbets and BR1 employs the strong variation of Curt's Revenge, just as we have been contemplating for the final hand of regular play.) From your opponent's 500 bet, it seems likely that you might get the same .55 chance of winning the tournament on the final hand of the playoff as you are faced with now, should you happen to be BR2 at that point, plus you have the possibility of being BR1. For simplicity, I've assumed that each player has a .50 chance of entering the final hand of the playoff as BR1. In reality, your chance against a novice must be somewhat higher. So my calculations for the final hand of the playoff are - Against a novice opponent: Code: Act 2nd as BR1 = .50 * .81 = .405 Act 2nd as BR2 = .50 * .55 = .275 ---- .68 ---- And curiously, Against a skilled opponent: Code: Act 2nd as BR1 = .50 * .65 = .325 Act 2nd as BR2 = .50 * .44 = .220 ---- .55 ---- making it a tie between going for the tie-break and Curt's Revenge on the last regular hand! There are a few complications I haven't factored in. For instance, the lack of a max bet means that it may not be possible to employ Curt's revenge against a big bet.
3 Or 400 300 or 400 was your best bet. Your BJ covers your opponent's single bet. If your opponent stands you double if your chance of winning the double is better than your opponent's chance of losing. If your opponent doubles your hard standing number is the same as your opponent's hand if your opponent doubled and made a pat hand.
Ken obviously didnot see that a blackjack paid 2 to 1 for this tournament. 300 would be a good bet as well as 400.
Playing for the playoff I was hoping my previous post would prompt a few responses of the form "No that's not right, because...." or "Yes, I see what you mean." Was there anything obviously wrong with the logic or the numbers that I employed?
You guys really know your tournaments. I wish I had asked how betting order would have been established in a playoff round. One of us would have been first twice and as somebondy pointed out, that would be a terrific advantage. For future reference if any of you find yourselves in this situation, the tournament was played on a Princess cruise ship. I suspect all of the Carnival brands employ the same tournament rules (Princess, Carnival, Holland America). London Coin - your calculations are interesting. For the calculations what is the program assuming to differentiate a novice and experienced player? I think my REAL error was not paying enough attention to the next to last hand. I was chip leader for the previous three hands and had been betting minimum to protect my lead. Somehow my opponent caught up to me without me noticing until the dealer counted our chips for the final round. What would you all have done if you had been first to bet with the same tie situation? Allen
Fuzzy Logic London, You can use estimates when predicting the actions of marginal players. They don't always do the same things. Don't fall into the trap of assuming the marginal player will make the wrong move every time. I like to use the following fractions when I do math on these situations. Naturally I don't do this while I'm playing: 2/3 = STRONG possibility the player will do it 1/3 = FAIR possibility the player will do it 1/2 = The player could go either way 1/2 = I have no idea what the player might do. In many situations I would assume the marginal player has only a 1/3 possibility of making a mistake, and a 2/3 possibility of making the correct decision. Try factoring these possibilities into your math. Another assumption I don't agree with the Wong book on was your chance of winning dropping from .81 to .65 just because the player you had position on was an expert instead of a novice. That .65 figure assumes you'll play BS after the expert uses Curts Revenge and doubles down. That's a bad assumption. If your opponent doubles down you should double down almost any hand. You'd double down hard 19 or below in all but about three or four hand combinations if your opponent doubled down in front of you. So your .65 figure should be somewhat higher. That .81 figure assumes your novice opponent will always play BS. Most marginal players double down aggressively on the last hand. They're using Curt's Revenge, even if they never heard that term and even if they don't play it with perfect accuracy. I would say there's only a fair (1/3) possibility your marginal opponent will stick with BS when Curt's Revenge suggests double down.
Allen, I'm just plugging numbers, taken from Wong, into my basic assumption that the chances of being BR1 or BR2 after two rounds are 50:50. The skill factors being considered for an opponent, acting first, are - As BR2, do they use Curt's Revenge or not? As BR1 do they overbet, allowing BR2 to take the low (and use Curt's Revenge if needed)? But, as Monkeysystem has pointed out, you can't really be sure that someone will always play each situaton in a particular way, so the different possibilities ought to each be assigned a weight, which adds a measure of subjectivity. Acting first on the final hand, and tied for the lead, I would bet the minimum, so as not to allow my opponent to take the low. Monkey, Thanks for the response. Good points. But can't we compare the worst-case scenario (i.e. opponent plays the tie-breaker optimally) with the .55 chance of success available by betting 300-400? By my previous calculation, this had roughly the same .55 chance of success, making it seem preferable, since you are no worse off and can make further gains through any errors of your opponent. Doesn't that suggest that, even against an expert opponent, the tie-breaker would be the better option? (substituting a higher number for the .65 in the following ...) Code: Act 2nd as BR1 = .50 * .65 = .325 Act 2nd as BR2 = .50 * .44 = .220 ---- .55 ----
