I keep running into the same basic scenario, just with different totals and dealer up card, and am never quite sure how to play it .... Two players. You are BR1 and act first, betting your lead minus a chip. BR2 bets enough to beat you if you both win, but does not cover your double down. When it's time to play your hand, you have the option to dd and reclaim the high, while keeping the low, at the expense of a BR2 push now being able to beat you. (Either surrender is not allowed, or a BR2 surrender would not take the low.) It seems like the dd should most often be the correct play; certainly if you can't bust your own hand, and even if you can, it being an almost free hit. Whenever I try to think this through and come up with a general strategy, my mind turns to mush. So I find myself agonising every time it comes up. Most recently I had the following - Dealer: 6 My total: 6 BR2 total 13 So if I dd, I will be on a stiff total or at best 17, but if I don't dd then BR2 should just stand stiff and the whole thing hinges on whether the dealer busts. A dd forces BR2 to violate basic strategy and either hit to a pat total or also dd. I elected to dd, as did BR2. Dealer made 21. Is my reasoning sound? When shouldn't you dd?
It Depends The decision by BR1 playing first to DD can hinge on your assessment of BR2's skill. A lot of players as BR2 will DD regardless of almost anything else that happens at the table. However if you hard DD and bust they'll probably know better than to DD and they'll just play out the hand. Against these players you DD all non-busting hands if you think BR2 will DD. Good players as BR2 will know better than to DD if you DD first. If you don't DD, they will. In this case you DD if your chance of winning yours is better than BR2's chance of winning their DD. You were correct to DD your total of six with dealer six and BR2 thirteen.
Trying to predict BR2's actions adds a whole other level of complexity, but I was really trying to understand the fundamentals first. i.e what the best play would be for BR1 if you assume BR2 makes their best play in reply. That being said, your last point doesn't make sense to me in the context of this scenario. If I expect BR2 to DD whatever I do, then it makes no sense for me to DD. I still lose if BR2 wins their hand, and now I can also lose if they push. I would think the DD was BR2's best response here, getting back the high that had been taken away. Even if they remain on a stiff total, it would be better to be able to stand on that and hope the dealer busts than have to hit again and hope to get a swing.
Oops I may have misunderstood the scenario. My answer was to the effect that BR1 has a correlation, and can keep that correlation if both DD. If BR2 has BR1's DD covered with his/her own DD, that changes the analysis. BR1 must still have the low if he/she DD's in this scenario. Am I right about that? If that's the case then the DD is correct in almost any case. The only time you wouldn't DD is if BR2 has a likely push. That never happens when dealer shows a 6. Perhaps you should list the bankrolls and bet amounts.
Yes, that's right. As I said, I'm assuming BR1's DD also has the low against a BR2 surrender (or that surrender is not allowed). It's not too significant, since this is just one example of what I'm categorising as a generic scenario that keeps cropping up, but for the record it was ... BR1 2805, bet 200 BR2 2602, bet 500 Presumably the variables that affect the decision are the relative probabilities of dealer bust and BR2 push. It seems a bit paradoxical that the bet is initially sized to cover the possibility of a BR2 push and then the significance of this possibility seems so small when the hand is played. If BR2 could get the low by surrendering I would think it would be a lot rarer for the DD to be the right BR1 option?
Specifics vs. Generalities The easiest way to describe a situation is to give the specific example you have in mind, then work toward the generalities under analysis. It's important to cover the push with your bet because that makes it impossible for BR2 take the low from you and forces BR2 into taking the high. Once that happens BR2's push is not usually a major factor in your decision making in the ensuing play of the hands. Such was the case in this example. The DD was great because it gave you a high low correlation and forced BR2 into hard DD'ing. Another bet if surrender were allowed could be 400. It takes the high with surrender back to force BR2 to get paid. It also covers the DD/DD because your lead was >2/5 of the max bet.
If surrender is allowed then I suppose BR2 could bet the min and surrender into the low, but otherwise BR1 needn't cover the push in order to force BR2 to take the high. BR1 could bet the lead plus a min bet minus a chip, but then would have less chance of advancing by not covering the push. E.g., in my example, the min bet being 100, I could have bet 300, rather than 200, and still have been guaranteed the low. But there would have been absolutely no point. I'd be reducing my chances. Covering the push is only a small fraction of BR1's chances going into the hand. The paradox, as I see it, is that it's significant enough to dictate the amount bet, and yet once the hands are dealt I won't necessarily recognise all the occasions when it makes a difference to how I should play my hand. And, altough it's a small proportion of BR1's chances, it's actually the bulk of the advantage over BR2, before we see the cards at least. Actually the max bet was 1000, not 500. BR2 goofed by betting 500. It caught me off guard in some ways; suddenly I was able to DD to take the high and low, when I hadn't been expecting it. 400 might still have been an option since I could DD to beat a single max bet as well as surrender back.
Oh, That's Different With a max bet of 1000, your best bet was probably what you did. 200. BR2 should've just maxed it. When BR2 bet 500 it opened a door for you. One thing I've found is you need to keep your eyes open for opportunities to exploit the openings weak players give you. It's an important dimension of your game.
