Surrender on Blackjack?

I don't understand how the player in this months Hiltons qualifier could justify surrendering on his blackjack. We discuss this on an earlier post, but I just thought the player had a big lead and couldn't lose. I have just found out he was in 4th place on the last hand with the dealers up card a 4 (if the information I received is correct).

Even with his blackjack he needed to double down after another player in front of him (CD) double down on her 17 and caught a 2 for 19. To make the top two and qualify for the semifinals and a shot at next year’s finals he needed to double down and or hope the dealer swept everyone ahead of him if he kept his blackjack.

I know the person and he is a good player (he actually won one of the monthly qualifiers before). I am sorry but I can only think of one situation where this play is the perfect play and that is if he takes the lead over me on the last hand with his blackjack, then by all means surrender is the way to play it...LOL.

 

A Poor Rationale, but a Rationale Nonetheless

Hi Rick!

I am "the man who surrendered a blackjack". It was stupid, but not QUITE as stupid as your post suggests.

Here's the pertinent facts as I played the final hand of the third round:
__Player 1 had a bankroll of appr. $6500, with $5000 committed to a doubled-hand of 19.
__Player 2 had a bankroll of appr. $7500 with $5000 committed to a split-had of 15 and 17.
__Player 5 (I) had a bankroll of $5000 with $2500 committed to a blackjack.

If I doubled my blackjack AND WON, I would still not have high if my opponents also won. AND I would reduce my chances of winning at all, if I got a poor double-card.
The correct play was to accept my 3:2 payoff. This would've given me a lock on low with $8750 if the dealer made any hand.
After I knew I could not take high, I also realized I could get a lock on low if I surrendered and the dealer made any hand except a 17. So I did. I forgot to play my blackjack. (<--- this is the stupid part) By doing so, I reduced my chances of advancing by about 20% (i.e. if the dealer did, indeed, make a 17.)

As things turned out the dealer busted on her 4th card. Player 1 finished with $11500; player 2 with $12500. Other than changing the order of the cards in the deck (by doubling?), I could not win. If the dealer had made a 17, I would be devasted, instead of just embarrassed.

Good Luck !

 

I can't name one player

Hi Dan,

I didn't post you name earlier, I try not to post names except for positive posts, but since it has been mentioned I guess it is okay.

Like I posted I wasn't sure of the exact standing going into the last hand, another player than the ones you have listed on your post was the one telling me about your play.

I thought you probably had a brain fart (forgetting about the blackjack sure winner) while so busy trying to figure out the correct play you got tunnel vision on taking low with the surrender play.

Like every other round we ever played in, had you won nothing would have been said, but when we lose all the questions come out, (why did you play it that way?).

As it turned out it sounds like it didn't matter even if you DD and won. The nightmare would have been if the dealer had drawn out to 19, 20 or 21. You would have been the one having nightmares.

One thing that I hope makes you feel better, I don't know one player out there that hasn't make the wrong play or won't make the wrong play again at sometime during a tournament!

One last question, when we were in the finals together and you the chip lead, position on me and had 20 on the last hand, why didn't you surrender then?...LOL.

 

TxTourplayer writes: <"As it turned out it sounds like it didn't matter even if you DD and won. The nightmare would have been if the dealer had drawn out to 19, 20 or 21. You would have been the one having nightmares.">

__I don't understand this comment. After I surrendered I WANTED the dealer to draw out to an 18,19,20,or 21; I'd've taken low. (If I had properly taken my 3:2 blackjack payoff, I'd've wanted the dealer to make ANY hand for me to take low.)
__If your comment addresses what would've happened if I had doubled . . . I would've gotten a 10-spot for a 3-card 21. I think the dealer would've ended up with a 14 (4,2,8) and whatever the next card in the deck was. But because my winning a double-down would've only yielded me $10000 total I'd've still needed the dealer to make a hand for me to advance. Whether I had taken the 3:2 payoff (for $8750) or won a successful double (for $10000, but not assured before I got the ten-spot), I still needed the dealer to beat Player 2's split hand.


TxTourplayer also asks: <" One last question, when we were in the finals together and you the chip lead, position on me and had 20 on the last hand, why didn't you surrender then?...LOL.">

__I had 2 face-cards against a dealer's 9 up-card, if I remember correctly. Only a loon would surrender a perfectly good 20!!! Ummm, . . . never mind.
__More seriously, I actually did misbet that hand, but (as you pointed out in your post) since I won nobody noticed. I over-counted Seat 2's chips by $1000. He was the chip leader and had to bet first. I did not bet enough to beat him if we both won, because I thought erroneously that I had too few chips to do so. But he graciously busted (on 5 cards if I remember correctly) and gave me the lead.
__Actually, Seat 5, occupied by TxTourplayer himself, could've doubled his hand to try to overtake me. Had he done so, I'd've had to decide whether to split my 10's or sit tight for 2nd. But he graciously only hit his hand to improve it.

 

My Brain fart

Sorry Dan, I read your totals wrong, I see my mistake. Guess it was my brain fart...lol

As far as our finals, of course you wouldn't surrender your 20, I was only joking.

You were the chip leader on the last hand over player 2. You had $6,700 to his $6,450, I was sitting in 3rd with $5,150.

Player 3
Had $3,700...bet$3,500 (Bust)

Player 2 (PUCK)
Had $6,450...bet $5,000 (5 card bust)

Player 3
Had $4,700...bet $4,700 (7,3,9 = 19)

Player 4
Had $5,050...bet $2,500 (split Jacks $2,500/$2,500 and made 19 & 15)

Player 5 (me)
Had $5,150...bet $5,000 (Ace, 6 and only hit Jack = 17)

Player 6
Had $4,800...bet$100 (T,J = 20)

Player 7 (Dan)
Leader $6,700...bet $3,500 (K,Q = 20)

Dealer had 9 up flip a 8 for 17

Dan pointed out after the round that I could have DD and had a chance to win. My problem was that in the first few tournaments we only had 10 seconds to make our play and I couldn't get a count on him within that time, having to watch several players in front of me.

I thought he closed me out even if I hit a DD with my extra $150. Had I got to count the correct play would have been DD for $125 for the lead and hold back $25 to take 5th in case I lost. If I would have DD and hit, Dan could have still split if needed.

Dan won, Player 3 passed me for 2nd, and I stayed at 3rd. Even if I DD I would have pushed so it didn't matter.

 

Reliving History

I cannot dispute anything in your recreation of the final hand of April 2002.

As I had indicated I underbet my hand, because I THOUGHT that the first bettor had $7450 and I couldn't catch him if we both bet the maximum.

I do note, however, if the bankrolls you cite are accurate, I could not have split my 10's; I was $300 short. So one might conclude not only did I bet TOO LITTLE to stay ahead of Player 2 if we had both won, but also I bet TOO MUCH to split my hand if I found it necessary.

In spite of all our thinkin' and figurin' very often it turns out to be the fall of a friendly card that determines the outcome after all.


Why . . . I remember a mid-sized tournament in Laughlin in which I had to play a 5-hand playoff at the end of the semi-final round 'cause I tied an old lady by making a maximum bet on the last hand. On the last hand of the mini-playoff I was the chip leader, but I had to bet first. The lady was not a good tournament player; she had bet incorrectly. I had doubled-for-less my soft-hand and received a down card, so she didn't have good information either. (I had a 14.) When she hit to a 17 and stood, I was thrilled. If we both won I would advance; if we both lost I would advance. The only way for her to advance was if the dealer made exactly 17. Of course the dealer made a 5-card 17, which included 2 aces (8-4-A-A-3).
The fall of a friendly, or unfriendly card, often determines the outcome.

 

Luck, figurin' and thinkin'

Certainly in BJ tournaments where card count and basic strategy on the last hand means very little in a such a short term event, chance will certainly in some longer term way favor the prepared mind.
However, when the very best prepared minds such as John Ressman, Anthony Curtis, Neil Browne and many many others cannot break through and dominate consistently then I say that above all, "luck be a lady to me" and to all of us.

 

Those are some of the best!

BJFAN the names you mention are indeed some of the best around and I agree 100% with you, “Luck” is the main ingredient in these tournaments.

I think the tournament player’s slogan should be "Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda".
And of course the “I couldn’t or didn’t catch any cards the whole round” saying.
If you have played any number of tournaments you have heard this from the losers at almost each and every table, myself included.

 

surrender BJ

What am i missing you said by surrending you BJ you locked up the low.Didnt you accomplish the same by taking the 3 to 2 payoff.Dazed n Confused

 

Answer to Joep

Yes, Joe.
Accepting the 3:2 payoff and receiving $5000 more was the superior play. That is why I referred to surrendering my blackjack as "stupid".
I only posted here to 'splain my deficient thought process and correct Rick's inaccurate summary.

Good Luck to All !

 

Corrected summary

Sorry my summary was incorrect, that is why I posted "based on the information I was given". I was told you needed to DD or get a swing on the last hand. As it turns out it was a swing you needed so I wasn't off to bad (just on the need to DD).

I originally posted about your play because several players commented on it. You called it "STUPID" and it wasn't the best play I have ever heard of, but you still had a chance to advance.

As far as the questions, WHY? Here is the correct summary:
There was no reason to surrender as the Blackjack was a sure winner. Although Dan could still advance if the dealer had made a hand of 18 or above, he allowed a 17 to beat him by surrendering.