I don't know the answer to this situation so I will let y'all help me out. Next to the last hand. 6D, BJ 3:2, split to four hands with double after split, 500 minimum, 10K maximum. The last hand has a 20k maximum. You have a 1/2 max lead (5K). You play 2nd and will be on the bubble the last hand. Scenarios: #1 you have 22500 and the other player has 17500 and bets 10K. #2 you have 27500 and the other player has 22500 and bets 10K. #3 you have 32500 and the other player has 27500 and bets 10K. What is your best bet? Also the reverse betting order where you are betting first on this hand and will be last on the last hand and do not know what your opponent is going to bet on the next to last hand. Larry
In all three scenarios when you're betting second, bet 10K. You must correlate. You do not have a lead of greater than 5K, so you cannot correlate without incurring the possibility of losing your lead. You don't want to bet 5K, because this incurs the possibility of being tied on the last hand. You want to maximize your chance of being the leader on the last hand, because you will have the disadvantage of acting first on that hand. When acting first in this situation, your leadoff bet depends upon your assessment of your opponent's tendencies. If you believe there is even a fair possibility your opponent will match your 10K bet, then bet 10K. If you think your opponent knows how to take the low, bet 5000. This is better than 4500 because it puts you into a tie on the last hand instead of being behind if you both win. The drawback is that the lose-push puts you into a tie instead of the lead on the last hand. But both of you winning happens much more often than the lose-push. The bet of 5000 results in very little chance that you will be behind on the last hand.
Would it not be better to bet a smaller amount that is still enough to keep the high if both players double? That way you will stretch your lead in the event that you both lose. In particular, in scenario #1 you could get a virtual lock by holding back > 15K (a bet of no more than 7K). Ignoring the possibility of blackjacks, or double-after-splits, the min bet to keep the high in scenarios #2 and #3 would be 8K, but 9,500 would probably be my choice.
My bet would be $4500 in all cases. The rationale is the chance of both losing is slightly higher than both winning.
On scenario #1, I actually bet 5K thinking that if we both lost I would have a virtual lock. The only thing keeping it from a total lock is he could bet 7500 and got a BJ forcing me to win the hand. What happened was we both lost the hand and even though I was on the bubble my opponent pushed out 5k before I bet giving me a lock. But this made me start thinking about the possible scenarios. I do believe that you should not correlate on #1. Whether you should bet more or less than 5K, I am unsure.
5K is not enough to cover a double down. If you bet 7K you have the option to double or split, making a total bet of 14K. That keeps the low even if your opponent does not double, but prevents them from getting the high if they do double. [I'm assuming there is no surrender available.] Acting first, the choice of whether or not to actually double (giving up the potential virtual lock) will be a tricky dilemma, based on the cards the opponent has been dealt and how likely you think it is that the opponent would attempt to gain the high by doubling. With regard to terminology, I'd still call any of these bets correlating. My understanding is that to correlate is to make a bet designed to keep the high and the low, not to make a bet of exactly the same size as the opponent. [One other bit of terminology - 'The bubble' is a term from poker tournaments, meaning the next player to be eliminated will be the last to go home with no money. I think you meant to say 'on the button' - betting and acting first.]
Thanks for pointing out my terminology. I had been thinking that correlating meant basically betting the same thing, however now that I actually think your explanation is much better. I will also try to remember to use "on the button" instead of "on the bubble". I do not play poker and really don't know why I used that term. I am sure it has something to do with my faltering memory.
No problem, Larry. I too am in the habit of meaning one thing, but somehow saying/typing something different! What's the consensus on the bet sizing question? Monkeysystem is a lot more knowledgeable than me about these matters, so I was hoping he might comment further. I can't see a reason to prefer 10K to my choices, but that does not mean that there isn't one.
Actually I can't see much reason to prefer 10K either. I'm just a believer in "go big or go home." In fact there is a lot of merit to trying for the virtual lock in the case of the smallest bankroll scenario. But I would hesitate to give up the high-low correlation in exchange for a virtual lock on the low side. A bet from 5500 to 6500 looks good for that lowest bankroll scenario. I missed that when I made that earlier post.
