Question about early betting...

I realize that variance always conquers E.V. in a short series of hands. But in the tournament I play, there is a 2-1 payout for blackjacks, which gives the player about 1.7% positive E.V. off the top (6D H17 DAS)...
I've realized that its best to bet minimum in games where the E.V. is negative and make your moves in big chunks when you need to. But my question is, in a game where there is a positive E.V., should I be betting bigger early on? Or considering that there is only one BJ every 20 hands approximately, each person will only get about 1 blackjack in the span of the 25 hand tournament, is it even worth considering? It's very frustrating to get one of those 2-1 blackjacks when you have table minimum out there. Is it worth the extra risk with the positive E.V. to bet higher or should I stick to the original game plan that works in tourneys with a negative EV? They start you out with 500 and the table minimum is 15 and max is 500. How would you guys bet this early on?

Thanks for all the help,
Rounder

 

early betting

Just An Idea I Think I Would Bet 5% With A Positive Progression In Other Words 25 Bet Win Then 50 Bet And Let The Cards Do Their Thing And Maybe You Will Have The Blackjack At The Right Time-just An Idea However If Your Way Of Betting Works For You Stick With It

 

Thanks for the responses...

Monkey I think I agree but still not sure. I wish there was a way to do simulations for such a delima. At what point, if ever, would it become worth the extra risk of ruin for the extra chips you would have in a pos. EV game when you do stay alive? I guess that would also depend on what the others are betting, so theres probably no way to get an accurate answer, just theories. People tend to bet low at the game I play. So that means if I do bet minimum and the dealer is pounding everyone, I still have everyone to battle it out with at the end. Most people dont get eliminated until at least hand 20 of 25 if they dont make it to the last hand. whether I get eliminated in the last hand or the 5th doesnt matter if I'm going to get eliminated. If I bet aggressive, when I do stay alive I am so far ahead of everyone most of the time and they wont catch me. But I tend to think monkeysystem is right because even when I have to battle it out with everyone else, at least I still have a chance. When I'm eliminated I dont. And when I last, someone still has a chance of catching me. But in this tournament, when I have bet max on the first hand and won it, I have advanced EVERY time. But of course half of the time I'm eliminated on the first hand. It would be good to know some things such as what are my chances of advancing when I have double bank for the 24 hands remaining, to know if its worth taking the 50/50 chance on the first hand. If I can advance 1 in 3 times I am just above average. Since 2 advance out of seven. I suspect that I have a great chance to advance if I have doubled my bankroll within the 25 hands. Gotta go.

Thanks again for the help,
Rounder

 

What's interesting about this concept is that you're assuming that you're going to continue to have a diminshing BR - therefore the less I bet the more I conserve. Then at the last stage open the bomber doors!

What happens however if you bet 3 or 4 times minimum in the beginning? How about an agressive bet to take the lead?

Personally this minimum bet strategy worked well at Global or BJ21.com, however with EBJ prepare to be BRL most of the time and playing catch-up.

 

There was a player at Bet21.com who did that every time I played them, NHawk. You could count on it. All-in first hand every time.

There were many games that he won and then just min bet, daring people to catch him. Sometimes we did, sometimes we didn't.

Over time the law of averages must have taken its toll because I don't see that player anymore and the last time I did see them their initial bet was minimum NOT all-in.

Just some anectodotal observation!

What IS interesting is that when people get a max bet ahead I have seen other players IMMEDIATELY try to catch them on the next hand. More times than not it backfires and cripples them or eliminates them. Given the choice I would rather be a chip leader than BRL but that's my style - very agressive. I can tell you this, it's easier, at least for me, trailing because then I KNOW what to calculate to catch BR1. When I'm BR1 choosing the right bet is sometimes difficult.

 

Story of my life

<<Where you get stung in 2:1 games is the seemingly inevitable opponent who bets aggressively and gets several BJ's. You have more ground to make up late in the game.>> Monkeysytem

 

Actually, over 50% of the time you will be eliminated assuming if you push on the first hand then going "all in" on the second. If I play at your table, you become the target to me and everyone else playing. If we beat you only 50% of the time, that means you win a 2 advance table less than 25% of the time. About the same as a ploppy. If you have been successful "EVERY time" then the players are really bad or you haven't played this system enough to draw meaningful statistics. FINAL ADVICE: DON"T.

 

Thanks for your responses...

You've all made some great points. Ken I've thought about what you said about E.V. not amounting to much positive in 25 hands. But the other side of that is that in a game where E.V. is negative, say -.5%, then betting aggressively (using your example of 100 per hand) would only leave you with a neg. E.V. of $12.50, so why not bet high? But we have to think about R.O.R. and variance more than E.V. I think. I tend to be thinking E.V. really doesnt matter. Maybe its best just to do what other people aren't even from the beginning. Think of it this way, if everyone is betting aggressively and you encounter a house game (which happens about half the time), you will be the one left with chips after everyone is cleaned out if you bet conservatively. If everyone bets conservatively and you encounter a player favoring game (happens about half the time) and you bet aggressively, you will be way ahead of everyone else in the end. Betting with the flow early on I would think is a bad idea because it leaves you with more people to battle it out with since player results are similar. However, I am still baffled at the fact that my theory really doesnt work at UBT. Most people go all-in on the first hand and I betminimum. Even during a house game, there is always that one lucky S.O.B. who manages to survive and be way ahead (which is usually what happens if you survive and youre betting max) and I have to try to catch him by betting contrary. Sometimes this works, but I dont know if its the best strategy. In those tourneys, I am starting to go all in just like everyone else, because if you lose you can start right over and the goal is to get as many TEC points as possible, but this is not the best strategy in a regular tournament. Thanks again everyone for helping me out...

Good Cards,
Rounder

 

Rounder

you can't go by impressions of 'what happens every time' - you need to track many many tables of play and go with the odds - I play the sitngos at UBT for TECs and always go minimum for the first few hands - I agressively counter bet the chip leaders after that - and I win 1 of 3 - way better than the 1 of 7 raw odds - if you play enough tourneys - you'll see that going all in on the first hand loses you money and hurts your chances of getting to the final table - in the long run - anyone else can do an all in at any time - with the same 44% chance of success you have -

you need to develop strategies for playing the early and mid hands - and adjust your strategies for what happens - sometimes betting a little more than the mid point of the other players hands works - sometimes betting a little less - sometimes minimum bet - sometimes go to long progressions to slowly build your BR - sometimes counter-bet - at one recent table - I was falling behind - was BRL - so counter-bet with minimum bets while the others where betting big - because they were winning - and they apparrently thought that the winning streak would last forever - the dealer swept the table three straight hands while I was betting small and everyone else was betting big - and chasing losses - I ended up BR2 - after those three hands - then - because everyone else dropped to small bets - guess they were afraid of losing more - I went to a two step progression - putting out 1/3 of my chips on the first step - and everyone won that hand - me with a bj - and suddenly I was BR1 with a big lead - you need to assess the situation constantly and be prepared to shift strategies to play the one most likely to be advantageous for you - don't adopt one stragey or approach and play it mechanically -

 

I agree...

I will even take it a step further and say that no one person tracking tourneys could really get a true estimation of what the odds are. The only way is to run simulations and I dont guess that's very practical given the variation of the other player's bets. I'm going to continue to do what the other players are not even early on but if they are betting low, I won't bet so much that my ROR is rediculously high.

Thanks again for the help,
Rounder

 

Tourney Question

I recently played in a tournament with 21 hands to be played where each player is issued 5,000 in chips and the betting limits were 25 to all in and only one player advances.
Around hand 12 one player who was betting big got up to 18,000 and then droped down to 100 bets. I waited for some other player to bet big and chase the leader and force the leader to go back to big bets and hopefully they knock each other out if the dealer got hot. None of the other players wanted to risk this. Finally at hand 17 I decided to make a move and put out 3,000 of my 4,500. (I held back 1,500 figuring that if I lost I could hope someone else would chase the leader and I would have chips at the end if a chaser forced the leader to bet big and then the dealer got hot.) I won that 17th hand and on hand 18 again bet 2/3 of the new bankroll and won that hand. I was still behind and put out another big bet on hand 19 and lost. That pretty much finished me.
My question is :
(1) Should I plan on going all in on 2 consecutive hands?
(2) Play it the way I did?
(3) Other thoughts about what to do in this situation.


...............BlueLight

 

BlueLight,

I agree with Monkeysystem's thoughts but just have a few more suggestions.

A no max bet game with only 1 advance adds a larger element of luck into the game than normal. It becomes almost critical to be the chip leader going into the last hand. With that in mind and the fact that you were so far behind, I would say that you should have made your first "all in" bet (don't hold anything back) at hand 15 immediately followed by a second "all in" bet. This may catch your opponent off guard and temporarily confuse him. Now if you survive that, 5 hands remain and you have enough bullets to mount a serious challenge. If the 2 (or more) of you are close going into the last hand, and assuming your opponent(s) don't make a major strategical error, most likely you should go "all in" on the last hand (unless there is only one challenger and you can take the low) and hope for the best. If that sounds like a crap shoot you're right - and that's the problem with games with no max bet and only one advance.

 

Thanks for the responses...

And keeping this thread going with great ideas. As far as Bluelight's question, don't you think the best strategy would be to bet extreme contrary until there is no other way to catch than to bet max? Really if I understand right, he was just over 2 max bets behind the other guy. If the other guy is still betting max, I would say continue to bet minimum. Better not to hope for the swing unless you have to. If he's betting the 100, I would go all-in right away when youre that far behind. Youre better off trying to catch him in one clump than dividing it up into several hands. I dont have much experience in tourneys but I've played bj a lot and I know that when you have a target, in a game where the odds are against you, its better to bet it all in one hand to get that target rather than spread it out.

Good Cards,
Rounder

 

First, since there is no max bet (can go "all in" at any time), we can't use the term "max bet" here. BR1 had a lead of 4 times Bluelight's bankroll.

Next, Bluelight must bet big because BR1 reduced his bets to $100. Bluelight must make a move and in this case he really has no choice. In effect, he is betting "extreme contrary" because "there is no other way to catch than to bet max" (max meaning "all in").

 

I see...

Cool I didnt know they had no-limit blackjack tourneys. Thought the max bet here was 5000. That would make a fun game. Seems like it would be tougher to make the right plays with opponents not having an upper limit.

Happy New Year,
Rounder

 

No limit tournaments exist because there are not enough "regular" tournaments to play in. So we tournament junkies gab whatever is available. And yes, some "regular" tournament strategy is thrown out the window but is replaced by other strategy. The net effect is that luck plays a larger part in these games. But don't give up, skill is still important.

Happy New Year to everyone.