What to do

I really don't know what my best bets and plays are on this scenario that I faced yesterday, so I could use some advice.

Last 2 hands. 2 players. I will be on the button on the last hand. So far my opponent has seemed knowledgable in his play and had calculated where the button would be with 5 hands to play.

50K max bet, 5K minimum, BJ pays 3-2, DD cards are down, surrender available. The game has a power chip that can be used in the usual ways (exchange one of the first 2 cards, exchange the last hit card or look at the DD card and exchange it if you want to).

I have 131K, opponent has 50K. We both have our power chip. Opponent bets 50K. I looked at it awhile and finally decided to bet 30K. My reasoning being that if he wins and I lose then I will still have a 1K lead on the last hand. Also if I get a BJ then I will have a 76K lead unless he also gets a BJ, in which case I would have a 51K lead, and there are push scenarios, but in general I would go into the last hand with the lead.

On the hand, I have 17, he has 19 and dealer unfortunately has 18. So I have a 1K lead. If we both didn't have our power chips, I would probably bet 5K on the hand to keep the low if we both lose. I don't know what a power chip is worth, but I use 15% in the play. So instead of my opponent having a 44% chance of winning I use 60% for one hand. I decided to bet 50K and opponent also bet 50K. I have J-4, he has 2 face cards and dealer has 5. I have options. I can DD and look and keep any card that doesn't bust me. I can exchange the J or 4 and see what I get and then make a decision after I get the next card. I decided to exchange the 4 and caught a 7 and I eventually stood on the 17. My opponent split and caught a 10 and a 3. He stood on both. Dealer eventually had 19. So my opponent pushed and I lost.

So what do you think I should have done on the last 2 hands?

I just edited this post and added this thought. Maybe I should have bet 50K on the next to last hand. If I get a BJ then I will go to 206 and will close out my opponent unless he also gets a BJ on the hand.

Edited again. I am pretty sure that I should have bet 50K on the next to last hand. I can always surrender to have 106. It gives me options on my play, since I had J-7 on the hand and I could use my power chip to try to improve my hand. This would give me a chance to get to 181 which will give me more options on the last hand even without my power chip.

Larry

 

Second from last hand:

I would have bet the minimum (5K) in order to maintain a minimum half max bet + lead going into the last hand - assuming my opponent does not get a BJ. Even if he gets a BJ, I still maintain a small lead. Since my opponent is "all-in", he cannot overtake my lead with a split or DD.​

Last hand:

I now have a half max bet + lead. So I would bet 25K and stand on any stiff except if my opponent gets a BJ in which case I would DD or split. Without a BJ, my opponent now needs a swing or he may DD or split. If splitting, he must win both hands to beat me. A push when splitting does him no good, a push when doubling does him no good, and a push with a single bet does him no good.​

This play may look like I made it fit the end results but that's not the case. Maintaining a half max bet + is a strong position especially going into the last hand. Personally, I would prefer that the results were not posted until some feed back was received. Would I have made this play in the heat of battle? - not sure.

 

I did think about the minimum bet. It has one advantageous in that I can surrender and if my opponent pushes (assuming both he and dealer do not have BJ), I can bet the minimum and surrender again. This would leave me with 126 which he could not get to. So it is about 8% chance for a lock out which is a better percentage that the max bet BJ.

I did not think of this at the table. I got on a one-track train of what to do if my opponent wins the hand.

Larry

 

That would be an interesting play. I've never before seen it talked about. Because of the uniqueness of this scenario, it would be worth a shot on the second from last hand - nothing to lose. I'll add that to my "toolbox" and hope I can find it if the situation ever presents itself.

 

This is a trick that I used with impunity during the days of the UBT online BJT's when the winner got a seat on their TV show - something with which I had some minor success p). The opportunity didn't present itself often but this was a great move when it did. Matter of fact, I think Deb did this with my advice on the last two hands of the online final table for her TV seat. Min bet + surrender (x2) = a locked victory.

In the scenario here, I'd have done that on the next-to-last hand then reevaluated the situation before betting first on the final hand. If Villain wins and goes to 100K, I cannot be less than a half-max bet ahead if he didn't BJ. Assuming that's the situation and I'm ahead 128.5K-100K, then I'm betting 36K because it not only gives me the high over his max bet and allows me to use my Mulligan to take the high over his max bet DD, but it also gives me the option of surrendering into a lock if he screws up and bets the 5K min..... a classic surrender trap.

 

As ever, I'm not sure what I would have done, nor what would be optimal. But here are a few random thoughts...


The Power Chip certainly adds some complications, and you pose an interesting question regarding whether you should take the high, as BR1 on the last hand, if you and/or your opponent still have it available.

However, if the intention behind the bet of 30K was to make it possible to take the low on the final hand, even if you get swung, a bet of 25K would have been better, so that you would have a lead greater than a min bet. Otherwise you might get beat on the last hand by a push/lose combination.

In fact, since 20K is enough to maintain a max bet lead if you both win, that might be better still.

But I'm tempted by the aggressive idea of aiming to use the Power Chip on the penultimate hand to go for a lock by doubling (with the option to replace the dd card giving a higher chance of success). There would be some initial hands that would necessitate a change of plan, but equally there would be some scenarios where doubling is cost free (i.e. can't bust and opponent has stood on a stiff total).

Ignoring BJ possibilities, a bet of 36K, doubled, would mean you could surrender on the final hand.

And there is still the possibility of abandoning this strategy and surrendering on the penultimate hand to keep the high, if your opponent has a strong hand and you do not.

 

I believe y'all have got my brain back on the right track. I should have taken my first inclination, which was to bet the minimum, and not worry so much about my opponent winning the hand. I might have worked out that betting 5-25 might be a better long run play. I probably couldn't have picked a worse bet than 30 on the penultimate hand.

The casino, Choctaw Durant, has averaged 2-3 quarterly tournaments a year for the past 4 years. They have twice a week, a one table (6 player max), six rounds, table winner goes to the daily finals. The rounds have 2 elimination hands with 5 hands after the 2nd KO round. Most rounds last about 15-16 hands. The winner of the daily final gets an automatic seat in the quarterly finals.

The "power chip" a tantalizing thing. Because of these tournaments, I have had some experience with it. I have a tendency to wrap by boney fingers around the chip and keep it probably to a fault. I don't know how many times I have been eliminated, because I will just not let go of the damn thing.

Larry

 

Never again

Ah, yes, good old Durant - where they make up the rules as they go. :flame:

 

Surely a max-bet lead is worth a lot more than a half-max-bet lead?

With the opponent all-in and acting first, allowing you to alter you hand-playing strategy for greater correlation of your outcomes, the probability of a swing must be pretty small.

Given the above, I can't see that it makes sense to bet less than 20K, and I still wonder if 36K might in fact be better.

 

Of course a max-bet lead is better but the min-bet/surrender scenario makes the swing possibility completely moot. With the half-max lead all but guaranteed going into the last hand and the powerchip/mulligan available, our hero remains the big favorite even though he must bet first.

 

I realise that. It's a question of which is more to be feared: a swing on this hand, or a win followed by a double win on the next hand.

Each will have a particularly probability of occurring, and a particular impact on our chance of advancing if it does.

i.e. do we gain more by staying ahead by a max bet if both players win than we lose by risking the swing? My assumption is that we do, but I confess I haven't done the necessary calculations. (Thanks to the Power Chip, I'm not sure I could.)

 

Second from Last Hand:

Minimum bet of 5 (and surrender that bet for the possible benefit of the last hand):

Probability of being chip leader going into last hand = 100%

Probability of have a half-max-bet+ lead going into last hand = about 95.5%

Probability of having the Power Chip on the last hand = 100%

Probability of making a mistake = 0%​

I like those odds so I'll stay with the minimum bet.

 

I don't think anyone is forgetting any of the factors at play; it's assigning them their proper weights that seems to me to be the tricky part.

To quote Donald Rumsfeld, there are known unknowns...

Regarding the final hand,

What would be your best guesses for the probabilities of advancing, given:

1. > max-bet lead
2. > 2/3 max-bet lead
3. > 1/2 max-bet lead
4. > min-bet lead

and both players having their power chips?


Regarding the penultimate hand,

Wong quotes figures in Table 4 for two players, no doubling or splitting:
A win / B win = 30%
A win/ B lose = 12%
A win / B Push = 02%

But what would those figures be if player B adopts the 'Win Both Ways' strategy, having seen player A act first?

20K almost guarantees a lead too. Only a BJ could give enough of a swing to lose the lead. However, in the event of a swing, it would be a micro-lead of 11K, compared to the 28.5K (>half max) achieved by following Leftnut's surrender strategy.

Out of interest, would 20K have been your choice if there were no power chips involved?

 

Playing for the last hand lead

Larry I think I would have played $19,500 on the next to the last hand. had we both won I would have $150,500 vs. BR2 $100,000. This would allow me to bet $50,000 on the last hand and cover BR2 DD (if needed) without betting away my lead.

However this bet would also leave me with my lead down to only $110,500 vs. BR2 $100,000 in case what did happen, happens and I lose, BR2 wins. Now with me on the button I would have to decide if I would take the low or high. Straight up against only one other player I would have taken the low with a $5,000 min. bet and hoped for the best.

Now on the final hand I would have switch out the 4 just as you did and stood on your 17 (again just like you did).

Monkeysystem is correct about the value of keeping your "Power Chip" as long as you can, hopefully till the last hand (even better never needing to use it for the win).

The most surprizing thing to me about your match was BR2 split his 20 against the dealers 8 and you standing on a 17. I think I would have stood if I was BR2, I'd win with a swing or a push on either of the two hands. By BR2 splitting their hand they gave you another opening to beat them.

 

The complexities

The complexities

Another interesting tournament bj problem.
This one is really complex because of its conditional layers.
It is better to base tournament bets/plays on some/any analyses than shooting in the dark, but the most common (e.g. losing), or most obvious (e.g. taking low), or specific (e.g. blackjack) occurrences will not necessary point us to the overall best play.
It is the total of all possibilities weighed with right statistics and psychology.

The complexities here are:
1. Proper usage of power-chip is not obvious. Most players under appreciate the value of doubling down with the power-chip, in lieu of replacing a card to a Ten, or unnecessarily using it too early in difficult hands (for example, with max bet and three hands to play, having 9 and 7 vs. dealer’s Ten, replacing 7 instead of doubling or hitting).
2. Since there are two rounds (hands) left to play BR2 should have some restrain to use power-chip (in order to use it for doubling or improving hand to achieve a “swing”), and BR1 have even less incentives to use it, thus, creating various chances of neither or both, or just one or the other players, having power-chip in the last hand.
3. Assessing skills of the opponent (and our own). For example, our optimal bet, lets call it bet X, against optimal opponent’s play would advance us 50% of times and 55% against an average player, though, bet Y would advance us 45% of times against optimal player but 60% versus an average player.
4. And finally, just the loads of possible outcomes. Later I will consider 3 different bets for BR1 in next-to-last hand, with four outcomes (bj, single win, push, and loss), where BR2 can get bj, win, or push. And this is before we get to play the last hand...

Fortunately many of the options replicate themselves, and the situation is less complicated than it may seem from what I wrote above, lol.
Specific hands tomorrow,

S. Yama

 

Damn I miss talking with S.Yama

By far he has a better breakdown of a situation than any other. No offense to other members here, but S. Yama is still the King!

 

Bets next-to-lat hand

Thanks TXTP,
It’s been a long and busy day(s)... I wish I had more time to share my thoughts and opinions on this board.

Two hands left, both players have power-chip, BR2 all-in $50K, BR1 $131K (will be betting first on the last hand. 5K minimum bet, 50K max, surrender available.

Let’s consider three different bets for Larry’s example. What would they be?

1. Small bet – 5K. It guarantees ½ max bet lead if BR2 wins her hand, and a lead, even with her blackjack. 5K bet should be surrender to any hand that is worse than BR2’s total. Minimum bet could be repeated on the last hand and both surrendered but that would advance BR1 only if BR2 would win one hand (of the last two), including by a bj, and pushed or lost the other. Betting minimum twice would amount to slightly more than 70% chance for BR1 advancing.
Betting 25K or 50K going into last hand when BR2 won his hand offers better odds.

2. Medium bet. We should consider Larry’s bet of 30K and 25K.
25K would be a minimally better bet in a tournament without power-chip, due to possibility of BR2 winning and BR1 losing next-to-last hand. Then, with chip count 106K to 100K, BR1 could take low and lose minimum bet when BR2 pushed. Loosing 30K would leave BR1 with 101K and surrendering or losing minimum bet would get him eliminated to BR2’s push.
Betting 30K benefits BR1 when he gets blackjack. Having 176K versus BR2’s 100K allows him to bet 25K and lose it to BR2 single win, thus forcing him to doubling. Also, once in about 500 rounds both players will get bj and BR1 will carry lead of more than maximum bet.

3. Big bet. It should be at least big enough that BR1 double locks BR2’s winning next-to-last hand and then winning double. So, it would have to be at least 36K. 48K with bj would do the same trick. But the most important outcome would be to achieve single win of 45K.

Subsequently—different outcomes of playing next-to-last hand and playing the last hand coming later.

S. Yama

 

Does 25K offer an advantage over 20K?

The only scenario I've so far considered where they differ favours 20K :

Penultimate hand: BR2 pushes while BR1 loses.

BR2 -> 50K
BR1 -> 111K

BR1 can now cover a BR2 BJ on the last hand by betting between 15K and 21K, then surrendering if BR2 does not get a BJ.

Whereas with a bet of 25K,
BR2 -> 50K
BR1 -> 106K

BR1 must bet no more than 11K for the virtual lock (by surrendering back to 100.5K), but then would need to double down in order to beat a BJ.