What to bet?

Two players, Blackjack21 rules (max 1000, min 100, increments of 1, surr.).
Hand 8 of 10.
You are BR2, acting 2nd.

BR1 2046, bet 145 (leaving 1901)
BR2 1681, bet ????

I made what I thought was a fairly good bet, but afterwards came up with what I think is a better alternative. I won't mention any numbers yet, to avoid leading the witnesses. It may well be that none of my candidates is the best bet.

There was also a quandary for me in the way the hand played out. But first things first, what would you bet?

[BR1 seemd like a reasonably good player, if that factors into your decision-making.]

 

with two more hands to go,betting 1st on hand 9 and last on hand 10 i would
try to take lead, if under time restraints i go with $680, with time to think about it their probably is a "better bet"

 

$400 to position myself for hands 9 and 10

 

Splitting BR2's chipstack is no good, a single loss leaves me crippled so there must be a better option. I like 520. Leaves me room for a Hail Mary all in push-lose, or even push-win. This is a great time to make a move, BR1 has left the door wide open.

 

my first thought

I'd bet 656 which covers br1 dd win or bj with a single win, while a loss would not put br2 out of it. Would be afraid to bet much more.






tgun

 

A bet in that range was my first choice, too, but here's why I decided to take the slightly lower amount. If I get swung with the lower bet, I've still got over 50% of BR1's new stack. With the higher number, a swing puts me at less than half his stack with two hands to go. Ouch.

 

Bet the max

With a relatively small bet by BR1 you cannot take the low on this 8th hand. You are going to have to win a meaningful bet sometime and with BR1's small bet here I would bet 1000 here. You should have no fear of busting out early if you can get a good swing when your bankroll is low. A slightly less bet might be better leaving BR2 a slim chance of winning the round if he loses this 8th hand. However who can calculate the best bet on a 3rd to last hand?


.......................................BlueLight

 

Call me crazy but I bet low here. Maybe match his bet or something -- perhaps a bit more so that a swing by me gives me the lead (221). But why, precisely, do I need the lead? I don't. I'm betting last on the last hand. Especially if this guy may go nuts and bet too big on 9 or 10. I'm betting low and giving this guy a little more rope to hang himself. Worst case scenario, I need to win hand 10. Which is no worse off than betting big here and having to win the hand.

 

Play for the lead...

My bet would be $511!
My reason is we have three hands left and incase a BR1 win/BR2 win, I'd take a $1 lead into hand #9, ($2,192 to $2,191).
In case it was a BR1 win/BR2 loss, I'd still have enough chips to take an all in shot on hand #9 and in case of a BR1 push/loss/BR2 win I could have the lead and last to bet going into hand #10 where I'd now be BR1 and just simply match my BR2 bets and hope for the same results on both hands.

By the way I LOVE the $1 bet limits, reminds me of the old New Frontier tournaments which to this day are still the best tournaments I've ever played in if your looking for true pure blackjack tournament. Entry of $300 plus live money buy-in's another $300 and betting limits of $5 to $100 with $1 amounts allowed after the $5 minimum, DD any first two cards, Split 3 times, Aces split only once, Surrender, Insurance, BJ paid 3 to 2, and several re-buys if needed.

For those that hate counting chips it would have been a nightmare...lol. No stack limits and stacks of $1, $2.50, $5, $25, $100, and even $500 chips. It was GREAT!!!!!!!

 

Thanks for all the responses

The actual bet I made was 756. My thought process, such as it was, runs something like this -

Like tgun and LeftNut, my first choice was 656, and that may actually be the better of the two. Betting just enough to cover a double tends to be my standard response in this kind of situation. The complication here, which has been alluded to in the responses, is that I'm running out of both chips and rounds in which to deploy them. If I lose hands 8 and 9 while making middle-sized bets, there's a strong chance that I may be locked out in hand 10, with a useless remnant of chips left over. If I'm not actually locked out, BR1 may be able to make a single bet that covers my all-in double.

Bearing in mind that BR1 will be on 1901 if he loses, here's what I will be on if I also lose various bet sizes -

Code:

[B]Bet  Leaves   Bet Purpose[/B]
221  1461     Enough for a swing
511  1170     High against a single win
656  1025     High against a double win
1000  681     Get the biggest lead you can

I didn't really consider the option of betting very small (i.e. 221 or less) at the time, but I definitely don't think it's crazy. My goal was to try and take the lead this hand, and if I lose have enough left to still have some chance, either with a swing on hand 9, or by at least going into hand 10 with enough chips to have a stab at Curt's Revenge if necessary.

I reasoned that any bet >= 511 is going to oblige me to bet the max on the next hand if I lose it, so I might as well ensure I have no more than 1000 left, meaning I can go all-in without being forced to double, but at the same time attempting to leave enough unbet chips to be able to make some sort of effort over the last two hands. (Which makes a bet of 1000 seem too much.)

So in the end I just bet an extra 100 on top of my original 656 idea, which has the benefit that I can then bet 100 on the next hand and take the absolute low, even if BR1 has won a double. (I might also have added a further 45 to cover a three-bet win from BR1, had I thought of it.)

It occurred to me afterwards that a bet of 706 - an extra 50, rather than an extra 100 - would have been enough, with a plan to surrender my 100 bet on the next hand. It's probably largely academic, but that seems marginally better because 756 leaves me with 925, and thus I could reach hand 10 with 1850. If BR1 were to go into hand 9 with 1901, bet 100, and surrender that would leave 1851. So betting 706 avoids that remote possibility.

I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is that masonuc's approach might be good if you believe your opponent is the type who is likely to always bet the max on the final hand, but perhaps not otherwise. The worst case scenario has to be that BR1 manages to stretch his lead to a point where he doesn't have to worry about you doubling, and then bets intelligently on the final hand.

Thanks again for the responses. Feel free to keep 'em coming.

 

first! thanks for the teaser, (would like to see more of these) i noticed that in your analysis of the amount bet, you never included my wag of 680 it seems to me that it could have been a contender. if both hands win you are2361 to 2191, if he doubles he go's to 2336 ,you still on top and in position for 100 bet/surrender play.if both hands lose you are 1001 vs 1901 with two hands to go... so tell me what i'm not seeing. (i'm sure there is something that i am missing) and thanks again.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore anyone's suggestions. I was mainly just running through the ideas that had occurred to me at the table (and in the immediate aftermath). I'm still very much open to the idea that there may be better choices than any of the ones I considered.

It looks like you had a similar idea to me, ensuring that the next bet can be essentially an all-in? (though leaving $1 in your case, which might conceivably come into play if BR1 is foolish enough to go completely all-in with a double).

I try to picture a step-ladder of possible values when looking for a good bet size, each just enough to achieve a particular goal if won, and/or not too much to prevent a particular goal if lost. It's then a question of which rung to choose.

Rather than leave exactly 1000 (or 1001), my thought was to pick one of the higher rungs on my ladder, rather than one of the lower ones, leaving some amount of unbet chips <=1000.

I was probably nit-picking to worry about the 25 that could be left over following bets of 656 and 1000, but nevertheless that is in part what motivated me to look for the next step up, adding 100 so that if I win 756 and BR2 wins 2*145 we get -

Hand 9:
BR1 (me) 2437 Bet 100 leaving 2337
BR2 2336

As I said, I might have been better with a bet of 706, aiming for 2387, with a view to surrendering my bet of 100 on the next hand.

It seems to me that a bet of 680 falls between two stools (to mix my metaphors ). -

• Bet a little less (656) and you have essentially all the same benefits, with a few more chips left in reserve for the next round if you lose.
• Bet a little more (706) and you have an additional benefit.

 

Having noted all of the good reasons for the 656/680 range, I still like the 520 (or Tx's 511, which is essentially the same idea but more micro-managed :laugh for the reasons stated in posts #6 and #9. I'll admit that I missed the 1,000 max bet in the original question, which would render my idea of an all-in bet on the penultimate hand somewhat more difficult.

Paging SYama...... Paging SYama.........

 

Don't you think it is worthwhile to add the extra 50, or 100, as I did?

I'll admit that I'm not sure if my desire to cause my unbet chip total to dip below a max bet is based on particularly sound logic, but the small increase in bet size does have quite a large benefit in any case.

I suppose this is mainly a function of the weird betting limits. Consider a more normal setup, with say a min bet of 10, and a betting increment of 5. If you achieve a lead of 5, and then lead off with a min bet of 10, you are relatively safe against any outcome other than a push or a win for your opponent. They need to bet at least 20 to take the high, meaning they can't surrender without losing at least a min bet in the process.

(The worst that could happen in this scenario is that your opponent chooses to match your bet and then surrenders for a tie.)

With a min of 100, an increment of 1, and a lead of just 1, you are in much worse shape. If you bet 100, your opponent might repsond with 102 or 196, forcing you to think about surrendering your hand in order to avoid giving them the chance to do the very same thing.

There's actually no doubling for less, other than to go all-in, under these rules. But it's a good point in general. (I've played so little with that option available that I would probably miss the opportunity when it arose.)

 

The next dilemma

The hand went as follows -

BR1 2046, bet 145
BR2 1681, bet 756

Dealer: 2

BR1: 3,6 doubles down to a total of 18
BR2: A,A

Do I stick with my plan and just hit, or do I split my aces?

 

You left out another possibility on those aces - DD or DD for less.

With the 756 bet already out there, I'd be just hitting. That dealer upcard is dangerous, if you split & get bricked on both, you're dead meat if the dealer makes a hand. Same situation with a full DD. If you win your single bet, you've got the lead. If you lose your single bet, you've still got a chance, albeit a small one. Hitting gives you two chances to make something good out of those aces.

I've been following this thread with great interest, to say the least! Even with the good logical reasoning in many of the above posts, I still like my 520 (or Tx's 511). So what would I do with those aces on that 520 bet? DD for less, just enough to take back the high. Even if I get bricked, dealer must make 17 or 18 to completely screw me.

 

I didn't really consider those, because they don't make much sense for my actual bet size.

But, as you say, DD for less might be preferable with your bet. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow it! I think you'd probably be forced to split, however reluctantly.

 

Yeah, not having DD-for-less does change it up. Strictly flying by the seat-of-the-pants, I think I'd still hit. If it was the last hand, I'd think differently, but if I was in your scenario I'd still have a severe allergy to splitting and losing both bets because that would be Game Over. Granted, I'd give up the opportunity to re-take the high without a swing. By hitting, I'd still have a chance to pull some form of skullduggery in the last 2 hands to save the day.