Just curious how people would handle this if any different. The casino I play uses 6D with deep penetration. 25 hands per round. The dealer ends up shuffling once usually and both shoes get dealt very deep (down to about the last 1/4 deck). I have read and heard from most experts that the way you bet depends largely on the way your opponent(s) bet. The first 15 or so hands everyone is always so up and down, I've decided to go ahead and count and bet roughly according to what is acceptable to me weighing the risk of ruin with profit potential for the total hands in that round. Then I drop the count close to the end and start watching everyone else. Now if I see someone pulling way ahead before then, I will bet higher and increase my risk of ruin to try to catch the person, but I try to pick a higher count to raise my bet if possible. My question is, would anyone handle this differently because the player has at least a 1% edge off the top in this game!!! I understand the value of betting big and sitting on the lead when the house has the edge. I know that the fewer hands you play, the greater chance you have of doubling your bankroll before going broke when the house has the edge. And when the player has the edge the opposite is true, more hands played means lower risk of ruin. Just wandering how you guys handle this? Ken would you still usually be an extreme player or would you think medium size bets would be okay in this sort of game? Just trying to figure out some new strategies also. Its been so frustrating for me that I'm usually leading by the last 5 hand countdown, but I hardly ever get to advance. I try to correlate my bets with my opponents but I usually end up getting caught on a swing that puts someone else ahead which isnt supposed to happen that much. Starting to think maybe I should take the count into consideration more even at the end. hmmmm. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Rounder21
mediocre advice if you'll take some advice from a mediocre player - in a tournament risk of ruin is a, maybe the, major consideration - and that is not 'going bankrupt' - it is 'falling so far behind that you have no realistic chance of winning' - even if the 'game' is in your favor - in terms of expected value - you will still lose more hands than you win - and are more likely to lose any given hand then win it - medium sized bets and multiple 'moves' are therefore not a good strategy - regardless of the rules - you are better off playing a little under the other players bets, to take advantage of the tendency to lose more hands than you win - but staying close enough to keep the leaders in range - hoping that they will lose back to you - then - if you need to make a move - make it in one hand - that gives you the best odds - and remember - a 'move' can be counter-betting a big bet by the chip leader - this is actually better odds than your winning a bet - but throwing out medium bets and playing to win multiple hands to take the lead - pretty much a strategy for losing I've found -
Thanks for the advice... Here's whats confusing for me. Though you will still lose more hands than you win, the player will still win more money, even playing basic strategy with these rules. So going all in on one hand seems like a bad strategy because youre slightly more likely to lose it than win it. However, the amount of hands lost to hands won is so close that it is made up for with the double downs and the 2-1 blackjacks (I dont know how often double down hands occur, but blackjacks only occur about once in every 20 hands on average I believe). When you double down, youre actually less likely to win the hand because you take away the advantage of being able to draw more cards, but you still have a better than 50% chance of winning the hand when it is suggested to double down AND you have twice the money on the table. A good example is doubling the soft 18 against a bust card. Most of the time you will make the hand worse by doubling down, but doesnt make it worse enough for you to have less than a 50% chance of winning the hand AND you have twice the money on the table. When youre all in, you actually take away the advantage that doubling down gives you in your positive money expectation, but youre more likely to WIN the hand if you dont double down. The trick I would think is to bet high enough to overtake the other players who are playing basic strategy and have a higher money advantage than the house, but not so high as to risk all of your bankroll on one hand that youre more likely to lose than win. What is the right formula? I dont think betting lower than your opponents would be correct in this game. Say they are betting 25 dollars a hand and you bet 20. They are betting low enough to avoid a high risk of ruin and they would probably expect to make more money than you because the game has a positive EV. The higher you bet, the greater your risk of ruin, but also, the higher EV. Maybe the best strategy would be to keep your risk of ruin just under 50% so that youre better than 50/50 of staying alive and if you do, it is most likely that you will be beating all your opponents especially if you count. Would this mean betting half of your bankroll every time? Which means youre still alive if you lose that hand and youre leaving yourself open to double and split (but not split more than once-not sure how much of an advantage is taken away by not being able to do that but I would suspect its very small). You should still bet minimum when the count drops so low as to take away the money advantage, but anytime the player has a positive EV, he/she should try to get the most return on each hand. This is really confusing for me, could some of the math wizes help out here. Thanks, Rounder21
more mediocre advice Rounder - you probably want to hear from Ken or Joep or one of the very good players - but here is my thinking - you don't bet tournaments the way you bet live Blackjack - your bet sizing is more dependent on what your opponents bet and what the chip counts are then on what the count is - also - basic strategy is a very chancy guide in tournaments - basic strategy was developed based on the assumption you would be playing an infinite series of hands - 20 or 30 is not even close to infinite - it is very unlikely you will see 'basic strategy probabilities' in a short series of hand - there is an area of probability theory - drift/walk theory - that deals with this - but it is far more likely in a tournament round that the actual results will be quite different from the results you would predict based on basic strategy - you just don't know which way they will go - and you also have a very limited stack of chips - no rebuys - so if you bet big and the cards go against you for a couple of hands - you are dead meat - no chips to work with - also - if you have sized your bet correctly initially - you want to think twice about altering it into what is likely a poor bet - my approach is 'never double down' and 'never split' as increasing the amount of chips bet while decreasing your odds of winning doesn't make a lot of sense in a tournament to me - of course this isn't strict - I'll think about doubling ten or eleven against a 4, 5, or 6 because I will usually be taking only one card anyway - also may - say - split Aces against a 5 or 6 - if I have only a small bet out - will double for less a lot of times when I do double - but doubling or splitting is done very conservatively and is based more on strategic considerations then on basic strategy - also based on the size of my bet relative to the other bets - if I am betting way less than everyone else - I'll go for the split or double more often - as that will only bring the chips I am risking up to the level the others are risking - as far as multiple moves/doing a series of overbets - again - look at relative chip counts - sizes of moves - if the cards go against you - will you have enough chips left for a move later? - but - reality is - forget expected value - it doesn't apply - and think 44% chance of winning a single hand - 19% chance of winning two hands - that tells you why the good players like Ken and Joep move big and do it all in one hand - when they need to make a move - they play the probabilities - at any given table - anything can happen - the drunk-all-in-guys do win sometimes - but better play will win more often - and in the long run make money - and that is the goal - bottom line - to win or advance - you will need to take risks - but take as few as possible and take them in a way that you have the highest probability of being successful -
Thanks for the post... I suppose you are correct. the short amound of hands isnt much to think about EV and it is more important to think about what opponents are doing. I guess I was frustrated, I always seem to go into the last 5 hand countdown with a lead and then usually end up getting passed by someone and not even making it to the next round. I was just wandering if I should work harder earlier to build up a bigger lead, but I suppose I will continue doing what I'm doing. Thanks again, Rounder21
I like to tell people my rule of thumb: anything can happen in the last three hands, unless you walked away already.
Corre;atiion Rounder - it is the last few hands where correlating your bets to your opponents is very important - I usually start out playing a table - trying to bet strategically - to get into a good chip count position for the later hands - trying to minimize risk and letting the negative expectations (lose more than win) work for me - making as few moves as possible and keeping them as small as possible - the further into the hands I go - the more I shift towards correlating my betting to that of my opponents - and in the last few hands - it is all about the correlating - either going for the lead or protecting it - and making whatever move or play you need to - it sounds as if you are playing well early - then the other players are making moves to pass you at the end - or you are failing to proparly correlate their bets to protect your lead - playing on UB/Bet21 - online - might help - Elimination Blackjack is nothing but a series of late/final hands - with someone going out every few hands - so there really are no early hands in that game - it can really help you practice that part of your game - and help you learn to make the proper moves and bet correlations - I've found that the online play has really helped my game - especially because whenever I play badly - I can go right back into another sit and go or tournament - to work on what I did wrong and improve -
Thanks for the post... Sounds like you have a good strategy. I do play online sometimes UBT. When I have correlated my bets at the end when I have the lead, I got caught on the swing most of the time. Then wishing I would have bet minimum to still have a chance. Just unlucky I guess but I'll still keep playing that way because thats what experienced players say to do and I know most hands usually have similar results. Rounder21
Correlate ROunder - I am using 'correlate' to mean more than just matching bets - sometimes I'll go 1/2 lead - sometimes bet small - so even if swung will still have lead - sometimes match - sometimes match 1/2 bet - always a calculation against bankrolls and bets - and on UBT - garbage play always - on UBT I just counter bet a lot - figure the other players are so bad they'll screw up - on bad days I'll win aboiut 1 of 4 or 5 - on good days - I'll win 1 of 2 or 3 tables - even had one hand wins - I bet min bet - everyone else goes max bet - dealer sweeps the table - I am only survivor - one hand=oneTEC - I've got that twice -
Thanks for the advice... I know what you mean about garbage on UBT. I usually do pretty good there too. Only played the free games. As far as correlating, I usually just try to match the opponents bets when I'm ahead. What youre saying makes sense. I should bet smaller if the lead is big enough they cant catch me on a swing. But if my lead happens to be very small, I should match their bet right? Thanks for the advice. I think part of the prob is chip estimation. I need to get quicker at this still. Been practicing but it takes time. If I dont know exactly how much they have but I know I'm ahead and think they can easily catch me is when I match them. Gotta get going. I think I'm on the right track. Thanks for the advice and patience. Rounder21
Confused me also Although I did understand what he was trying to say, I did have to re-read the post a couple of times. If toolman gets confused then there is no hope for me! Cheers Reachy
correlate My impression was that RKuczek was using the dictionary meaning of correlate which is "to show a relationship". So I understood his post. But I agree with toolman that in tournament bj correlate has a more specific meaning. I what to thank RKucsek and Rounder for their interesting posts. I would like to ask a question regarding short term and infinte. Isn't playing an infinite number of tournament hands equal to playing an infinite number of non-tournament hands? I believe a couple of points are: Be in the right seat for the last hand, and if not, be in the lead going into the last hand or bust out trying. tgun
Nope. Because there is no value in finishing a run of say 25 tournament hands with a lot of chips if your opponents have more. And similarly there is no harm in finishing with few, so long as your opponents have fewer. The +EV effects of things like 2:1 BJ or betting big with a high count only come into play with a single BR carried forward of 1000s of hands. But we start each tournament anew with the same number of chips.
Food for thought... I'm kind of wondering the same thing tgun was suggesting. I understand that you should change things according to whats going on with your opponents, but isnt the play of the game important in the beginning hands? If positive EV doesnt even matter, why even play basic strategy? We play basic strategy because we have the best chance of winning money or least chance of losing and in the beginning it seems thats most important. Anything can happen and in the first 10 hands or 15 hands even I know, I'm trying to make money or avoid losing money to stand a better chance against my opponents in the end. Why worry about who is in the lead on hand 5 or 6? Unless someone is WAY ahead or WAY behind. I dont think anyone would argue that the count is useful in the playing strategy (it can only improve basic strategy). For example, if you have 12v5 and the count is below -1, your best option is to hit. If you have 9v2 and the count is +2, your best option is to double down. I can understand not taking the risk of doubling it if you have a big lead over your opponents close to the end, but in the beginning I think the count can be useful for betting and playing strategy decisions. Just my opinion. Too bad some simulations cant be done on this. I play tournaments every week. It may be a long time before I see even 5000 tournament hands, but I do plan on playing for a long time so I want to get every edge I can. Luck should even itself out in the long run. All those Tournament Players who split 10s on hand 5 to get more money on the table or bet high when the count is low may get lucky from time to time, but over the hall I believe I will win more tournaments than them. Right now my opinion is to use the count to play and bet in the beginning, but keep an eye on your opponents and pay closer attention to them and less to the count as the round goes on. I'm still figuring things out though as I'm new to this, just my opinions. Thanks for all of the great posts and keep your strategies and opinions coming... Rounder21
clarification Colin, what I was trying to say was that I believe "basic" is the mathematically correct play regardless of whether in a tournament or not. But in order to win you will probably have to not use "basic" throughout the entire round. When "basic" won't get the win then you must not use it even though it is still the mathematically correct play. I hope my poor English didn't cause more confusion. tgun
correlate I was using 'correlate' in the general sense of relating my betting to that of the other players and their bankrolls - etc - which is why I posted the explanation of what I meant - as I realized the way I used 'correlate' was not the way we normally use that term - with Basic Strategy - I pretty much go by basic strategy in playing straight hands - such as hitting hard 13 against a dealer 8 - so forth - where I vary - is on doubles and splits - as both frequently reduce your odds of winning the hand - and as you are increasing your bet at the same time - I do not see that as desirable - as I originally made what I thought was an optimal bet - so I am just increasing my risk of ruin - and that I see as a major consideration - but - it all depends - on the strategic position - if I am far behind - doubling or splitting certain hands can be an opportunistic move - I will also double for less a lot - when I do double - but - in a short series of hands - basic strategy is only a very general guide - as you can be pretty sure that actual hand outcomes will vary from basic strategy odds - in fact it is unlikely that basic strategy is the best strategy for playing any tournament round - you just don't know what strategy will be optimal - I've played tournament rounds where the 'optimnal' strategy would include assuming the dealer will bust every time he has an ace up - but how could you predict that - Rounder - one reason I vary from basic strategy - is that I think won/loss % ratios are more important in tournament play than ev - also - some hands you may want to minimize your chance of losing - others maximize your chance of winning - neither may involve maximizing ev - also - sometimes you want to 'correlate' your play/results with another player's - if they stand on their stiff - so do you - if they bust - you surrender - etc. - the more I play - live/online - the more complex the choices become - would be nice if one of the 'big dogs' would weigh in here with some comments/advice
If you're betting the min, it probably doesn't matter much whether you stick rigidly to basic strategy or not, but in principle it's not clear that normal basic strategy is the most appropriate for some splitting and doubling decisions. I think I posed the question in another thread of whether there ought to be a 'Tournament Basic Strategy', and which decisions might differ from the regular version. For example, in the context of a tournament, does it really make sense to split 8,8 against a dealer 10 unless you need to win two bets? There's a very good chance you will lose both bets, which you could trade for the certainty of losing half a bet if you surrender. (According to gamblingtools.net, the EV for the split is -0.4776, compared to -0.5354 for the hit and of course -0.5 for the surrender.) Ah, I see. I was thinking purely in terms of Rounder's original comments about bet sizing when the player has the advantage. But, as I imply above, I think my comments apply to strategy decisions too; it's just that if you're not currently in the mode of play where your decisions are influenced more by the need to match/leapfrog your opponents then you are likely to have bet the min anyway, so it doesn't matter much. To decide what is mathematically correct, first we have to agree what the goal is. I don't think it is to maximise EV, but rather to maximise the probability that you are still in contention after n rounds.
Leapfrog huh??? I never thought of that one, Colin, but that's a good analogy. Thats exactly what its like in the beginning. Even if you get the lead, you probably wont keep it for long. This may help though. When you think of the probability of winning a hand, doubling actually always decreases your probability of winning the hand. While it increases your money expectation. The reason is you take a winning hand and turn it into a less likely to win hand (though still a winning hand), but you have 2xs the money on the table. Doubling increases your risk of ruin, but it also increases money expectation. Logic tells me in the beginning (leapfrog stages) its more important to double down every time you are supposed to, to maximize E.V. no matter what others are doing. Think about this. If its early and you bet half your stack because your behind, but you dont want to go all in and you get a double down hand, like 11 v 10. Should you double or not? I would say yes. Doubling down gives you two winning bets on the table. Though not as likely to win as 1 would be if you didnt double, its still 2 bets that are most likely to win. Maybe you should be even more aggressive with your doubling early in 1 advance tournaments. For example if youre lucky enough to get A8 v 6 (a winning hand) why not double it and take a chance of making more money? I would think a $250 double down on such a hand is more likely to win than a $250 stand on A8 v 6 followed by another bet of $250 on an unknown hand. Just more food for thought. The splits are kind of confusing to me. Youre taking a chance of losing more money on the hand(s) obviously, but youre also decreasing your over all risk (I think) by splitting. 88v10 is a losing hand either way. but you will lose more money by not splitting. I have to go now, but I am more inexperienced probably than anyone on this board so dont take anything I say too seriously. Thanks for the posts. Rounder21
