It is true the Hilton Milion Dollar event offers this option. This must be a powerful rule for any experienced tourney player. But what other tourneys actually offer this escape/ploy? On another note, every BJ tourney that I have played is 2 to 1 on BJs. Any thoughts about this rule? -jacks
Yes the Hilton allowed surrender. The New Frontier also allows surrender in their events. Global Player allows surrender in its online tournaments. Once you've played a tournament with surrender, you'll miss it badly when it is not available. As for the 2:1 Blackjack rule in tournaments, I hate it. In my opinion, it adds too much of a luck factor into the game. Even worse, I've seen rules that paid 3:1 or even 5:1 for blackjack.
Greater than 3:2 Blackjacks I agree whole-hearted Ken. I feel the same way about "blind bets" (but less so) and no limit bets, on the last hand - all three of which are more common in Northern Nevada than Las Vegas Chips
The area tournament I play in has the 2:1 rule on BJ. They are normally 3:2. I asked why they made that change and was told it was it was easier for the dealers to remember than allowing the players to call BJ 11 and double. I wish they went the other way. They also don't allow surrender and I ran into a hand the last time I was there, that surrender would've been the best option. I think they don't allow it because it's not very familiar with their players. There are a few tables at a near by casino that allow surrender but I've never seen anyone use it. I did once and the dealer had to talk to the pit critter because she didn't know how to handle it.
Terrible's Same thing happened to me at Terrible's in St. Joe, Missouri. They offer it but the dealer didn't know the handsignal and had to call the PC over to pull the card from my hand that she had hit me with! Judiciously used with BS, it does take away a bit of the house's advantage. Much more valuable in tournament play though.
For the dealers most of the time Most times when you see 2/1 BJ payouts, no puck rotation (always start dealing at 1st base), and no surrender offered it is for the dealers. Most dealers are not familiar with tournament style dealing and there really is a big difference. Most casinos just simplifiy the payouts and dealing format for their dealers to avoid mistakes. Another reason is the tournament director doesn't have a clue what their doing, but give them credit at least they are hosting a tournament. At least it sounds like you have a tournament director that try to do the right thing. I personally would rather cope with dealer mistakes early and train them to deal tournament style from the start.
5-Card Charlie Pays 2:1 In a weekly tournament, a 5-Card Charlie pays 2:1. I think "lucky" rules help the casino to attracted the regular (non-tournament playing) patrons.
No Double On Naturals The casino I play at has pitch tourneys in which naturals pay 3:2, but you can't double down on them. How would you like to be dealt a natural on the last hand and lose because it doesn't pay enough money? If that ever happens to me I'll just walk over to the bar and drown my frustrations. :laugh: 2:1 payment on naturals seems to change the nature of the game fundamentally because you're playing a positive expectation game. Betting minimum on every hand would hurt you because most of your mid to large bettors should increase, not decrease, their bankrolls during the course of a round. Instead of nickling, I would think you need to size your waiting bets in a way that keeps your risk of ruin reasonable, yet allows you to stay competitive with your players. Any thoughts on strategy differences when naturals pay 2:1?
2:1 Blackjack Strategy Instead of a minimum bet when appropriate, bet according to the Kelly Criterion.
Kelly is not approriate measure Kelly Criterion as a measure for betting in blackjack tournaments is almost never correct. I’ve seen it advised so many times. It is yet another myth resulting from Wong’s blunder. Unfortunately, the correct bet is not easy determined because it depends on rules, position, and the specific player’s skill level vs. other players’ styles of play. S. Yama PS Count de McArds – great name.
S. Yama Glad that you appreciate my moniker. However, I choose my words carefully. I said instead of a minimum bet "when appropriate", bet according to the Kelly Criterion. I did not say that a minimum bet was appropriate! I was responding to someone who does bet the minimum in a negative EV game. I agree with you completely that the "correct" bet is not easily determined. The Count
Kelly Betting Instead Of Minimum With 2:1 Naturals I agree that you'd use Kelly betting in a 2:1 game in situations where minimums would be the best in an ordinary 3:2 game. Your advantage must increase about 1% for every TC +1 instead of about 0.5%. For example: with TC at zero your advantage is about 2% so you'd bet 2% of your bankroll. At TC=+1 your advantage is about 3% so you'd bet 3% of your bankroll. In negative counts you'd bet 1% or minimum. But how long would this last in an ordinary tournament where most of your players are betting medium or big? Not long. You'd have to soon find an optimal waiting bet that is appropriate for your situation, i.e. position, skill level of your players, etc. This principle applies in both 3:2 tourneys and 2:1 tourneys. In the positive EV 2:1 game it's probably smart to set your waiting bet to correlate or even slightly exceed the leaders, unless they're betting the max or something like that. This is probably one of the main reasons the experts don't like this rule, because it places a higher premium on dumb luck.
