Ken, I enjoyed your article in Blackjack Insider. It was worth the price of admission. I hope this discussion is not an infringement but regarding your play at the Canadian Masters of Blackjack Tournament on the second to the last hand: you are BR2, 1 advances, table max $500, betting last. behind by $725, BR1 bets $500. You made the optimum bet antcipating a lose/lose outcome to be down less than a max bet. I made the optimum bet anticipating a win/win outcome and protecting myself from being behind by a double max or greater lead. We both wound up making the same bet. Considering the lack of time allowed to make a betting decision it was easy for me to see I needed to subtract a chip. I think I would have added the chip using your strategy. Is the mechanics here the same or just a quirk?
Well, at least I intended to make the optimum bet! However, back to your real question. It's just a coincidence here that the best bet for my purpose and your purpose are exactly the same. That does however make it an even better bet! Here's the situation with some example numbers. Betting is $25 to $500 in $25 increments. There are two hands to go and one advances. BR1 has $4000 and bet $500. BR2 has $3275. My priority was moving within a max bet for the last hand. To do that I can bet $250 or less. If we lose/lose, I'm down by $475 after the hand. ($250 is much better than less, to retain the swing option.) Your idea was to stay within a double max bet in the event of a win/win. To do that you must bet $250 or more. With a win/win, the bankrolls go to $4500 and $3525, just within two max bets. So, $250 works perfectly for both purposes. But, as I mentioned, this is just coincidence. If we reduce BR2's bankroll by $25 to $3250, let's see what happens. Now moving within a max bet if lose/lose requires a bet of $225 or less. Staying within a double max bet if win/win requires a bet of $275 or more. Now these ideas are mutually exclusive. If given these choices, I'll take the lose/lose scenario.
