UBT rules, which means bets 1,000 to 100K, surrender authorized. It's the last hand of the final table. Both of you have your secret available. Your opponent has been playing a decent game, i.e. correlating, taking the low when needed, aggressive when appropriate, not wasting risk. You have the button. => You, Bankroll 187,500, secret bet (28,000), cards 7,6 Opponent, Bankroll 173,000, secret bet (?), cards 8,5 Dealer, Ace Question 1, Do you insure and for how much? Question 2, Could you have made other bets? What would you bet if your opponent were an aggressive weaker player who is lucky to have advanced this far? Question3, What would be your playing decision if you hadn't taken insurance and there was no dealer BJ? Would it be different if you had taken insurance for the amount you specify in question 1?
With this hand and secret bets there are soooo many ways to do this. My method for choosing MY bet would be to see if I could guess what my opponent would do then make a secret bet that would help me win. For example with 173,000 BR2 has several choices: First choice: 100,000. This is actually the first choice many newer players make and when in doubt – put it out. So if I think they are going to bet 100,000 then I would be inclined to bet 86,000. The danger of this is I’m giving up the low My second choice: They will split their BR betting 86,500. This would allow them to split and get their whole 173,000 on the table. In this case I’d still be inclined to bet the 86,000 – in essence correlating with their “anticipated” bet. My third choice: I’ll assume they are a crafty player and they bet 1/3 of their BR – in this case 57,500 – this would allow them to get 3 hands on the table. In the event I’d be thinking about wagering a bet of 43,500 and then correlating with their actions pending cards. My forth choice: betting 2x my lead minus a chip or 28,500. This allows me to surrender back to the high low but if the dealer busts and BRL has bet all, ½ or 1/3 then I’m screwed. So if I’m BR1, betting first and have my secret bet then I’d bet 86,000 which still leaves me some options. While it gives up the low it still allows me to take the high unless they get a natural. With regard to the dealer having an Ace showing – I’d take insurance for 500. My only reason for this is to confuse my opponent. Since I’m doubting they would take the low on me and I think they’ve bet ½ or 1/3 of their BR if I can get them to use chips for insurance it may take away their ability for a split.
1. I probably wouldn't have insured, but the way you've phrased the question made me suspect I probably should . 7,000 worth of insurance seems like the right bet. It's enough to keep the lead if your opponent insures for the full amount and the dealer does indeed have a BJ. 2. Against a strong player, I think I would have bet <= 14,000. What's the benefit of betting twice the lead minus a chip, for this size of lead? [N.B. Fred, a chip is 1,000, so the 28,000 of the original example equates to your 28,500 suggestion.] Against an aggressive player, I might summon up the courage to bet 86,000. 3. Without the insurance, I would surrender in order to be able to beat a push. If I've insured for 7,000 and the opponent didn't take insurance, then I'm not sure. I think surrender may still be the best option. Depending on what the opponent bet, surrender may be needed to take back the low. E.g., if the opponent bet just 15,000, the minimum for a swing against a push, the low bankrolls would be - Me: 152,500 Me (Surr.): 166,500 Opp:158,000 Opp(Surr): 165,500
London - you actually explained my choice for taking an insurance bet better than I could. If you take an insurance bet (regardless of the amount - remember it would be a secret) and your opponent DOESN'T match it odds are they've gone max or 1/2 BR so they CAN'T. So in my scenario that I chose if my opponent didn't take insurance in my mind it confirms them betting BIG.
An excellent teaser with numerous possibilities. With the bet that you have offered, my response, good or bad: 1. Insure for 7000-guarantees a win if dealer has BJ. No BJ still win with a push. 2. No BJ- play BS and hit to 18. Hit and hope. Not very analytical and probably not a good response. I am old-school, Wong and practice. I think I would have played the hand this way. 1. Bet 14000 2. No insurance necessary 3. Play BS. Would like to hear more from our resident experts on this teaser.
No. I wouldn't even insure for the $500 minimum, it might "sucker" BR2 into full insurance, and if the dealer's got it, I'm screwed. Either way, I like your bet very much. The only bet I might like better, since it's secret, is 13,500. This allows me to DD for 500 and possibly force BR2 into a bad situation where he thinks he's gotta try a bad double to keep up. Obviously I'm probably giving up the high, but my lead is so small that it's just guesswork as to his bet. Make him win the hand outright. Plus it takes the insurance question right off the table. Same, and Nope.
I'm getting old - I totally missed your bet - only after reading LeftNuts post did it finally hit home! In this above case - absolutely I take insurance for 7,000 for the very reason that London posted. I guess THIS was really my first response and my choices were based strictly on what I thought THEY would bet. Now THIS is a tough question. You bet 2x your lead to give you back a surrender high. With the above cards, dealer ace and your 13 and player 13 I think you've gotta do what you planned - surrender at this point because that was what you had originally planned for. The only problem is it telegraphs your move to BR2. The only other option is to DD for 500 to cover your card - however that usually prompts them to DD also, most of the time for all-in and well....
Exactly! That's the whole idea behind the 13,500 bet. I'm liking my chances very much with my opponent doubling a hard 13 v. Ace and having to win the hand.
If BR2 bet the max, they would have 73,000 left, with 50,000 needed to insure the full bet. That's why the insurance amount has to be 7,000. If the dealer's got it, you win! If you don't insure, then BR2 almost certainly will. It gives them an additional way to beat you, with a 30% chance of success. Whereas, so long as BR2 has bet >=15,000, all the insurance costs you is the ability to beat a BR2 push by surrendering.
My Bet Choice Betting double the lead minus a chip by betting 28K is no different than taking the low by betting 13 or 14K. The idea is that you'll surrender almost anything and force your opponent to get paid. By taking the low either way you concede the high to your opponent. But if you are dealt 20 or BJ you don't need to surrender and the bigger bet just might be enough to cover an opponent who's trying to avoid being correlated. Example: If the opponent bet double the lead, 29K, and you were dealt 20 or BJ you win with your bet of 28K. With this bet you could double if your chance of winning it were better than your opponent's chance of losing or pushing. You'd be the winner if your opponent bet less than 71K. You'd have the correlation if if your opponent bet anywhere from 42K to 70K and didn't double. If you insure for 7K you no longer beat your opponent's push if you surrender and he didn't insure. However, pushes are unlikely if the dealer upcard is an ace. If the opponent were reckless/aggressive I'd have bet 86K to cover the double down and would be very unlikely to surrender. This scenario actually happened in a tournament I played the other day but my actions were most unusual. After my bet of 28K I got an Internet delay before I had a chance to insure. :flame: By the time I got my signal back I found I had won the tournament. I guess it was my lucky day. :cheers:
OK, I will concede Monkeysystem's logic re: betting double the lead minus a chip. However, I still disagree with Colin and FGK's logic for the insurance. For a 30% chance, I'm not going to give up the positioning that my original bet gave me. It means that there's a 70% chance that I'm screwing my surrender option. It is a novel idea to debate strategy like this without being called names or be otherwise rudely attacked! :cheers:
I usually don't dwell on teaser questions and solutions very often, but this one has been quite interesting to me. I have followed each of the responses and understand the reasoning behind each one, but still have difficulty with the answers. This may be one reason why my recent tournament results have resulted in early elimination. Question: What is the best bet for the teaser? 28000, 86000, 14000 or some other amount. The question was based on a bet of 28000 and was answered on that basis, even though a bet of 86000 was suggested. From the perspective of our experts, what is the best bet for BR1 I am far from an expert but I do have a few thoughts on this particular teaser. 1.By taking a low of 14000, I have a 56% chance of advancing before the cards are dealt. BR2 MUST WIN PERIOD a 44% chance. 2.We both have secret bets so the advantage favors neither. 3.Once the cards are dealt there is a slightly greater chance of BJ than would normally be the case because of the card distribution,ie 5,6,7, and8. 4. With a 14000 bet I DO NOT NEED INSURANCE. 5.I may be taking a few liberties here , but combine my initial 56% expectation with a 30%+ chance that the dealer will have BJ and I AM a heavy favorite.We both have 13 so there is no advantage in the cards we hold. 6. No BJ, BR1 PLAYS BASIC STRATEGY. Thanks fellow BJT posters for your input.
Insurance And Correlating Buying insurance for 7K does indeed weaken your surrender option, because now you lose if you surrender and your opponent pushes. You also lose if you surrender and your opponent bet the minimum in secret from behind, which I've seen happen. But a crafty opponent who sees you haven't insured is very likely to take maximum insurance. I think the increased opportunities for correlating in all dealer upcard situations make up for these special problems when the dealer upcard is an ace. By the way, I edited my previous post, changing 80K to 86K in the second last paragraph. What was I thinking??
This is where my 13,500 bet might be sneaky smart. If I insure for the 500 minimum, my online opponent can't see how much insurance I took. Perhaps he would pass on the insurance, hoping that the dealer doesn't have it and I'd be in worse shape than I intended to be. In addition, perhaps an original bet of 27,000 could be a consideration, as that would allow the same insure-for-minimum trick without giving up the originally intended surrender positioning. The variations are almost endless! FMike756, you've got a pretty doggone good handle on the situation. I think it's time for our Resident Guru to check in on this one. Ken?
But you will be losing 70% of very little, and gaining 30% of a great deal. The chances of BR2 pushing must be about 5%, at a guess. The chances that they actually secret-bet the minimum are an unknown, but I think 20% would be a very generous upper limit. (From which, 80% of the time BR2 should insure if you don't, and let's say 70% of the time they actually do insure.) So, very approximately, using those numbers, taking insurance costs us - 70% * (5% + 20%) = 17.5% [P(no dlr. BJ) * (P(BR2 push) + P(BR2 min bet))] and gains us - 30% * 70% = 21% [P(dlr. BJ) * P(BR2 insurance)] Obviously, you can arrive at any answer by plugging in different values for the unknowns concerning BR2, but the above example seems to me to be the worst-case scenario, and still favours insurance.
