Protecting a Large Lead

Here is a situation I found myself in a few weeks ago.

Semi final round, 3 hands remaining, 3 players remaining, but only 2 contenders, 1 advancing. I was on the button for this, the 3rd last, hand. The rules were 8 decks, S17, DOA, DAS except aces (one card only), split to 4 hands, no surrender. Max 500, min 25. The bankrolls and betting order were as follows:

Me: 5,000
BR3: 400
BR2: 3,900

The button would proceed to BR3 and then to BR2 on the 2nd last and final hand respectively.

What would you bet on this, the 3rd last, hand and why?

 

I would bet 500 (max). The choices I see is either play minimum 25 as you have a lock, at least for this hand or play 500. However, you run the risk of BR2 catching up with you. A better option is to play just less than your lead but you limited by max of 500. The 500 bet is about half of your lead, which makes BR3 job very difficult trying to do play opposite. Even with a full swing, you will still 100 ahead.

 

Minimum bet. Even if he gets a double or blackjack with a max bet, you are still chip leader and betting after him on last two hands unless br3 loses this hand. Of course it is possible for him to split up to 4 times and have doubles on each in which case you just weren't meant to win.

 

I would bet min. Make him catch you. This is the only round BR2 has a position advantage for the rest of the tourney. I would make him catch me . Making a large bet would make his job easier (give him a better chance to catch you). You will have position the two rounds unless BR3 busts out this round. BR3 must go all in this round. The other option is to realize you might be out of position last hand and bet to protect your lead until you see whether you actually have position on the last hand. That answer will come after this hand. The odds of a full swing are smaller than you both enjoying the same outcome on the next hand. A bet of 500 opens more doors for the BR2 than a bet of $250. With a BR2 BJ and your loss the $250 bet would still have you in the lead by 100. And a full swing would have you ahead 350 with position on the next hand and the knowledge of whether you have position on the last hand.

I still like the min bet but with BR3 having a good chance of busting out on this hand costing you position on the last hand it isn't as automatic a decision. A slightly larger bet does have its appeal.

 

OK --- good responses. All of the points that I was interested in and had thought about were touched on:

• I have more than a 2 max bet lead
• I will have position over BR2 on the second to last hand
• I may or may not still have position on BR2 on the last hand, depending on whether BR4 busts out on the 3rd last hand.
• BR2 will almost certainly be betting the max and looking for a double/split.

That last point was probably evident just from the situation, however, it was also the case that BR2 had come back from the dead with 2 successful max bet doubles on the previous two hands and I knew that he was charging hard. I should have probably included that information in my original post.

Also, as evidenced by the responses, my choices were to try to protect my lead by correlating BR2's expected bet and action or to do it by betting small and virtually guaranteeing that I would still have some lead going into the final 2 hands and knowing that I would have position on at least one of them.

I think that I like Monkey's response the best. I wanted to correlate but was concerned about exposing myself to BR2's max bet double/split. Betting 250 would leave me more than a max bet ahead if I win even against BR2's double/split and leaves me less than a 1/2 max bet behind if I were to lose against his winning double/split. And, as he points out, winning that bet leaves me in position to do it again on the 2nd last hand.

I ended up betting minimum but, as usual, spent a lot of time questioning that play afterward.

As it happens, I lost the 3rd last hand while BR2 won yet another double. BR3 went all in and lost, so I would only have position on the 2nd last hand. I now have a lead of 75. I was feeling pretty good about my decision at that point. BR2 and I both bet max on the 2nd last hand and both lost with my lead preserved. On the final hand, I bet minimum and BR2 bet max. BR2 was dealt hard 16, I got hard 15 and the dealer had a 6.

This leads us to a follow on question; perhaps a little bit basic but always worth re-enforcing: What should BR2 do and why?

 

I initially thought you both bet the max on the last hand but BR2 bet the max and you bet the minimum. So BR2 best shot to stand and hope for dealer to bust.

 

Hi! I'm brand new here; just joined today. My very limited experience has been 15 weekly tournaments at Jumer's in Rock Island, IL, $1,000 prize pool, live action, $100 buy-in per round, and once in Four Winds monthly tournament in New Buffalo, MI playing with $6000 in chips. I'm still waiting not-so-patiently for my first prize-money win, although I've somehow managed to make it to the final table 4 times.
Unless I've misunderstood something from gronbog's last post, it seems as though BR2's move on the final hand would be to stand. He's already chosen to bet max against your minimum (don't understand why, if he was last to bet and play, unless he's just in the habit of doing so based on the last few hands), so he can't go for the low. Whether you win, lose, or push the hand, BR2 has to win the hand to win the round. If odds favor the dealer busting, BR2 should stand. Even if you hit or double your 15 and catch a 6, BR2 wins the round by beating the dealer on this hand. However, since I can't tell for sure based on the min and max, was this live action (playing with your own money) or chip play? I just don't see a reason for BR2 to bet max on last hand, regardless.
Please let me know if I'm wrong. I am very appreciative of all the information available on this site and everything Ken Smith is doing to educate those who want to learn. Thanks to all of you!

 

Thanks for the welcome, Monkeysystem.

Jumer's only has the Thursday night tournaments. $400 1st, $300 2nd, $200 3rd, $100 4th. But they do have a double deck table open on Thur/Fri/Sat nights with same rules as their other BJ: 8 deck, H17, DOA, DAS, Late Surrender. It's $15 min, but only $100 max.

 

First of all, welcome!

You'll find the max and min limits earlier on in the thread. They were 500 and 25 respectively. Since I bet minimum and am unlikely to double and split to 4 bets in play, BR2 has no choice to bet for a win. This is not a live money event (those are quite rare these days), so the easiest bet to make in that situation is max. No point in getting picky and perhaps making a mistake with a "just enough to win bet".

The Professional and Monkey both got it right and, Monkey hit on the only point I was trying to make, which is that BR2 should play to win his hand (push is as bad as a loss). There are some playing strategy adjustments for this
(see https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/threads/strategies-for-must-win-one-bet.8201/), but it turns out that there is no deviation for this particular situation. Some players would hit this, not wanting to depend on a dealer bust, however.

 

This leads to another good follow on question. What should BR2 do in this situation if we had both bet max?

 

I think he would have had to double with $100 to retake the high, if you did not double. If you played first and doubled with another max bet, he should just stay and hope the dealer makes a hand. I am assuming that you played first in the last hand.

 

Sorry -- yes it does depend on what I did and what I ended up with. I should have said that you can assume I would have stood on my stiff.

 

"Some players would hit this, not wanting to depend on a dealer bust, however."
With the dealer 6 showing, the chance of dealer busting is 43%. If the player hits 16 the chance of getting 2-5 (assuming one card only) is 30%. Getting an ace does not help because the best 17 can do is tie the dealer. So, it probably better to stand.

 

I agree -- just remarking on what I've seen out there.

 

What you do is irrelevant. He has to win to beat you. Basic blackjack strategy gives you the best chance to win negating pushes. A push is a loss to him so hitting would even be less desirable than basic strategy would lead you to believe. He must stand. Basic strategy says stand and stand is even better than BS would rate it at.

 

He has position. If you stand he must hit. and beat or push a dealer's made hand to beat you.

With a 6 up the dealers chances for making made hands for 8 deck S17:
17: 0.167
18:0.107
19: 0.107
20: 0.102
21: 0.096
bust: 0.422
At 17 4/13 cards improve BR2's situation so you (.274 + .381 +.483 + .579)/13 = 0.132 so hitting 17 hurts his overall chances of 0.167 at that pont.
He should hit his 16 one card only.

I assume you would not hit so that is it.

 

Not true. Basic strategy maximizes the EV of your original bet. See the link I posted earlier in this thread for strategy variations which increase the percentage of wins. It does this by reducing the number of busts and pushes. Some become wins, some become/remain losses and the EV of your bet is reduced, but the goal here is higher win percentage.