Just for fun lets look at MonkeySystem's situation and make it a NON-UBT situation shall we? BR1 betting first has 87,500 BR2 betting second has 73,000 Lets assume for all practical purposes no max bet, no surrender and NO SECRET BETS! Now what is BR1's best bet and why?
YES. On purpose because most of the tourney's that I've done 100,000+ is really unrealistic. I just wanted to see what bets people would do as BR1 with a 14,500 lead and NO SECRET bets
Assuming the min and max bets remain the same (1,000 and 100,000), I would bet 14,000 if BR2 was a strong player. The magnitude of the bankrolls can make a difference. If it were 84,500 and 70,000, then I would prefer a bet of 28,000.
London, there is no surrender in Fred's example, so I think 14,000 is the obvious answer, lest you give up the valuable low.
The $14,000 bet with no surrender is indeed the obvious answer. However, the abilities of BR2 can make a difference in how I would play this. For example: If I perceive BR2 as being very weak, I may consider a bet of say $1,500 to confuse BR2 into betting too low, maybe BR2 would then bet say $10,000 - you never know.
Need to get my eyes tested Ah yes, I didn't spot that. It's a bit of an odd question then. The 'and why?' answer is the one we all know from Wong's book. It's only the inclusion of surrender that might make a difference. (That or some degree of certainty that BR2 will bet a specific amount, whatever you do, which you might then decide to correlate with.)
In general, I prefer to hope that betting the most I can might afford me some doubling or multiple splitting opportunities, if BR2 doesn't bet enough to lock those out. Specifically in this case, if BR2 elects to split their bankroll, a DD will be enough to re-take both the high and the low.
No Max Bet With no max bet I think I'd just bet 14K, unless I were convinced my opponent is going to go all in no matter what I do, or seems totally clueless. In that case I'd hold back 13K worth of small chips in big stacks and push the rest in as quickly as possible. If you bet 14K you have a 56% probability of winning because you're forcing the opponent to get paid to beat you. If you bet 74,500 against an opponent who has a 50-50 possibility of going all in or otherwise giving you the high-low, your chance of winning is better than 56% If your opponent goes all in he can't double, so he can't use Curt's Revenge. You have an 80% advantage 50% of the time. If your opponent surprises you and takes the low he can't use the Strong Variation of Curt's Revenge and steal back the high. You win if you get paid (44%) or if you push while the opponent loses (5%). You are a 49% underdog 50% of the time. 80%*50% + 49%*50% = 64%. 64% is better than 56% but this is only true if your opponent is weak enough to have a 50-50 possibility of matching your bet. So you'd better read your opponent well enough to have this kind of confidence in your read, otherwise you could be giving away your 56% mathematical advantage. Hmmm.... this is gambling... Toolman, you play in alot of no limit games. Do you think such a holdback hustle would work? Or would it backfire too often?
The type of non-conventional betting you suggested has a very strong chance of backfiring in my opinion - limit or no-limit. By the time the final hand is played in no-limit games, most of the remaining players have some knowledge of tournament strategy. That's my opinion anyway. To expand a little on what I said in my last post i.e. bet $1,500 to possibly confuse BR2. As Monkeysystem said - bet quickly. Put all of your small chips in the betting circle. This could result in more or less than $1,500. The point is that BR2 may think you are just betting "any old thing" and maybe he'll under-bet as a result. Remember that any BR1 bet up to $14,000 gives him the low. To London Colin: I'm only suggesting a $1,500 bet possibly against a very weak player. Naturally, a $14,000 bet gives one more possibilities. I was only suggesting an alternative in very rare circumstances.
