Teaser from St. Ignace

Err, no. Wong contradicted himself in his book. That's what I was commenting on.

But the numbers just don't stack up. You would still have been better off had you bet the minimum. Moreover, if you had reason to think that BR2 would underbet then that's even more incentive for you to bet the minimum: you might get the sort of correlation possibilities I mentioned earlier - https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/posts/36843 - potentially just as lucrative as a max bet correlation.

 

Thanks for clearing it up about the contradiction - I really did spend a fair amount of time conjuring up this teaser and couldn't figure out where I'd gone wrong.

Had I bet the minimum - and believe me, I pondered that for quite a while - there isn't a doubt in my mind that he'd have blasted in with a huge bet. But I surmised correctly that he'd be unable to figure out even a decent bet once I flung out the max. Maybe I did give up a couple of percent on the play, so be it. In a very similar future situation (including a lockdown "read" like that on my opponent) I'd do the same thing.

Call me an idiot if you like, it's OK. I've certainly been called worse. Lots of times. Mostly with some accuracy, too. :laugh:

 

No problem. There is endless scope for misunderstanding one another on internet forums.

In case there's any doubt, I might well have made the same bet you did. The point I've been trying to make (and clarify whether you agree) is that, once BR2 followed with a $50 bet, rather than match mine, my thought process would have been along the lines of -

I wouldn't dream of it.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly!