Min/Max bet 100/500 in increments of 1. No doubling for less allowed and no surrender. If both players finish with the same amount of chips after the last hand, then they will play one more additional hand until there is a difference in anyone`s bankroll, at each point the winner is declared. BR1 (me, and have to bet first now on the last hand) 850 chips, and BR2 600. - Which would be the appropriate bets and bet responses ? (my bet was 350)
Sounds like GameAccount. In which case it is also worth noting that there is no doubling for less, as that may have some bearing on the answers. [Edit: Oops. Sorry, PlayHunter. Didn't notice you had actually already stated that rule.]
Yes, it happened on GA. Posted this because I still feel I could come with a better bet than that 350.. maybe I am wrong..
My thoughts based on 0 seconds or less consideration is; Blackjack with normal rules in most tournaments is a negative expectation game so being chip leader the final hand and betting 1st with only 2 players left, taking the low appears the best bet. I'll let gronbog or others simulate all possibilities to establish the most advantageous bet.
It's that 100 min bet again. If BR1 had just one more chip, 851, then 350 would definitely be the optimum bet. It would take the low against a BR2 min bet of 100 (501 to 500), and the high against a BR2 double win (1201 to 1200). But with 850, it offers only a tie in both these scenarios. So the value of a tie needs to be evaluated somehow. (Who goes first in the tie-breaker will be one of the variables to consider). 251 might be an alternative bet for BR1. It is enough to ensure that a max-bet win is no good for BR2, who must therefore bet 300 and double down (or play for a swing). I don't know if that is better than the 350 bet, though. [Edit: Thinking about it, BR2's best response to a bet of 251 would be to match it. BR1 can't then double without giving up the low, but by not doubling allows BR2 to double for the high.] One further quirk of the GA rules comes into play here: there is no doubling on a BJ. So if BR2 is forced to bet 300 [or less], and then gets a BJ, BR1's bet of 251 retains the high.
Let's Try Again I deleted me previous post, since the entire approach broke down once I remembered the 100 limit. My one-minute assessment was to bet 349 so as to take the high and keep the lose/lose low with the chance to beat BR2 with a blackjack or by doubling down if I had a strong sense that he was going to do so. My all-the-time-in-the-world breakdown goes something like this. Betting 249 maintains the lose/push low while allowing for the chance to double, if necessary for the high. Betting less than 249 offers no improvement. Betting 250 gains the ability to double to tie BR2's max bet blackjack at the expense of a lose/push tie. This could be an improvement if BR1 feels he has an advantage in the tie breaker. Betting 251 or more make sense, because BR1 gains the win/win high at the expense of the lose/push. Always a good trade off in my opinion. Betting 334 or more locks out BR2 with a blackjack A definite improvement. Betting 350 in order to cover tying BR2's double down win while giving up a tie for the lose/lose low might make sense if BR1 felt he had an advantage in the tiebreaker. Betting 351 or more covers BR2's double down, but gives up the low. A bad trade off. Betting 500 covers a tie with BR2's max bet blackjack and, while an improvement over betting 351-499, it's still not worth giving up the low. I think, given all this, that I would favour a bet between 334 and 349.
It might all come down to an assessment of BR2's abilities, but in general I think I prefer 251. Bets in the range 251 to 349 are equivalent in the sense that they all keep the low, except against a push. A bet of 251 is already big enough so that BR2 ought to realize that a max bet is a bad move (as it leaves BR2 needing to play for a swing if he does not get a BJ). A complete novice might bet 500 unthinkingly, but I think more people would bet 300 so as to be able to double down. In this scenario a BR1 single-bet win of 251 is enough to cover a BR2 BJ (which can't be doubled), and BR1 can also safely double his bet if needed.
London, I think you misread my above post. I stated with the circumstances taking the low appeared the best bet, the low is seldom a minimum bet with knowlegable players. Your title "there's that $100 min bet again" indicates thats what I was advising and it's certainly not, holding back one chip more than BR2 can with only two players remaining is probably the most common with 10-30 seconds to make a betting decision.
My title was just a reference to previous discussions about the impact of such a large minimum bet - https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/threads/4441. In this instance it might seem that to take the low means to bet no more than 249, whereas you can bet up to 100 more than this and still have the low against BR2, who you know must bet at least 100 after you. (And, importantly, a bet of 251 to 349 gives you the high and the low.) Playhunter's bet of 350, while not keeping the low, is not entirely giving it up either, as it potentially shares either the low with a BR2 bet of 100, or the high with a doubled BR2 bet of 300. (Whether that is better or worse than any of the alternatives, I still can't say with certainty, but my instinct is to go with the 251 bet).
