To Cover, Or Not to Cover (the double downs) PART DEUX

You're absolutely right that getting a read on an opponent can help. In that case you make the optimal play or bet relative to the read that you have. That's why I prefaced my initial sim results with the assumption I made about the response of the two opponents. Programming my software to quantify skill levels other than optimal and basic strategy is a difficult problem that I have not managed to address.

 

WOW! Thanks S. Yama for letting me know this discussion continued on. Didn't realize it continued on past reply number 5. So yes, the was the semifinal round of the Golden Nugget 100,000 tournament. BR3 (who best first) was a tournament expert. Seen him many times before. BR1 did not look familiar to me and really pissed me off when he didn't match BR3's max bet. So this is what happened.

Dealer is showing a 2.

BR3: 10 and 6, bet $2000
BR1: a bust hand. I vaguely remember being happy about his hand, bet $800
BR2 (me): can't remember specifically but it was better than BR1's hand

It's great to know I bet $700 and statistically that was the best bet but I'd like to add this thought. I bet took the low with the intention of seeing how everything played out since I played last. After more consideration I think $600 was a better bet and I'll explain why.

BR3 doubles down on his 16 and pulls a 4!
BR2 doubles and still has a stiff
I double out of frustration but again realize now that was a mistake.

Dealer busts, BR3 moves on. IF dealer pulls 21, I win. IF dealer pull 20 I LOSE and this is the $600 was a better bet than $700. When I doubled down I gave up the win in case of a BR3 push. True, I should have doubled for less but let's say it was a situation where I needed to put more chips on the table but had to split instead. I could've match BR3 and still win if the dealer pulls a 20.

Thank you so much for your input. What was worse than losing that hand by a double down 16 was having my friends constant nagging about how I played it wrong (which continued into the last tournament). Thanks again everybody.

 

I would have been debating $2000 or $700. The situation would be more interesting with surrender as an option. Also what would you do if the dealer shows an ace figures into this. $1900 is enough to get the high including double downs of course that means you double down to cover BR3's double down if necessary That extra to $2000 allows you to take more than the no risk $50 insurance ($50 would secure a win in event of dealer BJ if nobody else takes insurance) if it is necessary to cover other insurance bets. I pose 2 questions to the experts.

How would surrender as an option affect your optimal bets? Given that you have position it could be the most useful tool in your arsenal.

How do you quickly figure insurance bets into your calculations? It is obvious the optimal insurance bet for BR3 would be $675 (if nobody else took insurance) and BR1 could only take at most $400 insurance but has no reason to take insurance unless someone else does. Now the trouble is they can bet a combo of insurance bets that can cause you difficulty. Are insurance bets made in playing order or as a free-for-all?

 

In playing order

 

Yes, surrender can change things quite a bit. It can allow you to over bet your lead in order to cover a high threshold while leaving you the option to retake the low if you or your opponent are dealt a weak hand. So in situations where you would normally bet your lead minus one chip, you can bet twice that amount instead. If you are dealt a strong hand, you can play on, but if your hand is weak you can force your opponent to win his hand by surrendering.

Another option is the surrender trap, which works against players who know enough to take the low, but perhaps aren't thinking about surrender. At the same time, the required bet can often strengthen your high position. For example:

You: Bankroll: 1975, BR2: Bankroll: 1500, min 25, max 1000

This is a case where you would probably bet 450 in order to preserve the low. Betting 475 doesn't cover BR2's double and exposes you to a 1/2 swing. However, if you believe that BR2 knows to take the low you might mutter something along the lines of not wanting to give up the low while assembling your bet and then bet something like 550. This covers BR2's max bet but gives up the low. For added effect, after betting, you might then indicate that you thought you had made a mistake by swearing under your breath and acting like you are upset with yourself. If all goes well, BR2 will notice your overbet and bet the minimum 25. He might even smile to himself while doing do, thinking that he is being clever in capitalizing on your mistake. At this point, no matter what you are dealt, you can pretty much lock him out by surrendering. He would need a 4 way split, all doubled in order to tie you. If he doesn't take the bait, you still have him high and low with his double covered.

You don't need to be able to completely lock him out or need to cover some high position in order for the trap to be effective. If you can lock out is double or even his single bet, it can be an effective play, if you believe that there is a decent chance that he will take the bait. I believe that Grosjean did an analysis of how sure you need to be and how big you lead should be relative to the minimum bet in order for this play to be effective.

This is a really weak part of my game. I am eager to see some of the responses to this. I concentrate on covering the normal high and low positions before I consider insurance. Even then I usually only end up using it as a hail mary if my position is weak and can be improved with an insurance bet, or if I am correlating a key opponent how has taken insurance.

 

I loved surrender strategy in BJT's and dearly miss being able to spring a trap on the unwary. It's a rare rule to find any more, most host casinos have removed it because their favored players were getting smacked around by wiseguys using it effectively. Sometimes you'd even get one who would sit there with a dumbfounded look on his face, even after the round was over they still didn't know what just happened.