Interesting situation. 2nd to last hand. BR1+2 tied. Opponent bets first, minimum.

You bet next. To be clear, here's a summary:

Only 2 players. BR 1 and 2 both have exactly 5000 chips.

You know you will bet first on last hand, but this is 2nd to last hand and you bet last. Your opponent bets the minimum (100).

Two options:

Bet minimum or bet something more. My first thought was to bet more -- because I wanted to be BR1 on last hand since I was betting first. But then I realized that the penalty for being BR2 on that hand was much worse than the benefit of BR1, so I matched his minimum bet. And here's the kicker, in my opinion -- if you are tied going into the last hand, then betting first is not a disadvantage at all. (In fact, it may be an advantage because you can bet minimum and hope the other guy bets more).


Okay, so then... what if he had bet more than minimum? Say 200. I think the right bet there is 200, for the reasons I just stated above. As opposed to 100 and "having the low" for the 2nd to last hand.

Thoughts? Am I missing something?