This one somewhat gets back to basics, but it might be good for the relatively new posters and lurkers here. Last hand. One advances. Two players remain. Minimum bet 100. Maximum bet 10,000. You may bet in increments of 25, but payouts on BJ are rounded down to the nearest 25. BJ pays 3:2. You may insure up to one-half of your original bet, rounded down to the nearest 25. Your remaining chips can be counted after the last hand even if under 100 (you are not eliminated). Surrender is not allowed. Tie breakers are handled so that position is randomly assigned. Villan: Bankroll 12,100 bet 6000 You: Bankroll 16,300 bet ? What would you bet and why? Let's give some of the newer folks a chance to answer this one, and then the more experienced can post their analysis.
bet I would bet 8099. The I will have the low and the high even if he gets a natural. If he doubles or split, I still can double or split keeping 101 if both lost the splits.
I think that the bet range should be: minimum bet 7925 up to maximum bet 10000. Edit:Re-thinking at it I see that the maximum bet should be no higher than 8075 for BR1 because in some situations a split would be optimal for him. So the minimum-maximum bet range should be : 7925-8075 !
Time For You Veterans Okay, We've gotten some fine contributions from newer folks here. Now, let's open the thread to the experienced experts. Care to comment on the comments we have so far? What would you veterans bet, and why?
With a lead that large and Villain acting first, I will almost never give up the opportunity to force him to win his hand to beat me. Been smoked too many times by overbetting a big lead to maintain a correlation when it wasn't necessary. Plus, I'll never get crazy trying to cover the 4% chance that he gets a natural when I have to give up so many other options. My bet here is 4150. I can still split/DD to maintain the high and the low if he does either one (and that's where position is huge in this case). If he does get a natural and I'm unable to get three bets out, then good luck to that lucky S.O.B. in the next round!
I hear what LeftNut is saying, and have also been the victim of the half swing, but I would still give up that half swing in order to cover the villain's double/split with my single bet win. If I had a strong sense that the villain was a basic strategy player, then Lefty's bet would make sense to me, however, the villain's bet of roughly 1/2 of his bankroll is a strong indication that he intends to double/split just about any hand he gets. At the table, I usually choose a bet based on a criteria like the above and then, if time permits, I make adjustments. So, based on my originally stated goal I would bet at least 7825. Once there I would probably adjust that to 7925 in order to cover his all-in (split+double for less) win, since the arithmetic is easy and there is no additional risk. Then, since my arithmetic (easy or not) is not to be trusted, I would probably just go ahead and bet 8000. Moses' comment about sims is well taken. I've gotten into the habit of going to the simulator too often here which yields precise results, but less obvious lessons. While his bet of 7900 covers the villain's best result exactly, betting the extra 25 avoids a possible tie breaker at no additional risk. BR1 can bet up to 8150 and still double or split and there is some value in limiting his bet to this amount or lower, since splitting is sometimes the optimal way to win 1 or more bets (but doubling never is -- see http://gronbog.org/results/blackjac...one/generated/complete/1.0/p1.X/strategy.html). PlayHunter's suggestion of limiting the bet to 8075 allows this manoeuvre to be made without giving up the low to the villain's possible double/split. Rockky176's suggestion of 8099 optimizes this in theory, but is not allowed here due to the betting increment restriction of 25.
Change-up pitch Duly noted, Gronbog, and thanks for the kind words. My bet was strongly influenced by the advantageous position, it would be different if those positions were reversed. Great logic in your analysis - I just happen to disagree. Matter of fact, let's do that. Let's reverse the position for this teaser, with all other factors remaining the same (scroll up to Monkey's first post to see them). So now the situation has changed dramatically. What Do You Do? You: Bankroll 16,300 bet ? Villain: Bankroll 12,100
Heh - if politely saying "I think you're wrong" qualifies as kind words, then you and I need never worry about ever offending one another Do you want to restrict initial answers to newer folks again as Monkey did?
If you are easily offended, I'm probably one of the last people you'd want to hang around. Monkey didn't get much response from rookies so let's just toss it out there to everyone right outta the gate.
My bet would be 4200- He will have to bet at least 25 and this gives me the low, which has slight edge on the high in 2 players final hand. He will have to bet at more than 8400 to get the high. I will still have the option of double or split if needed to cover his bigger bet.
That's the right thinking. I would go step further and bet 4175 so as to take the villain's push out of play.
Another variation Suppose we have Monkeysystem's original teaser - Villan: Bankroll 12,100 bet 6000 You: Bankroll 16,300 bet ? - but this time there is no max bet. Can you come up with a different optimal bet, or range of bets, compared to when there was a max of 10,000?
My response to the original teaser was to bet 8000. I can't see a reason to bet more, so making it no limit doesn't change anything for me.
Without the 10K max bet, there is reason to bet more (up to an upper limit). Consider the possible consequences of a dealer ace...
Aaargh! I take it back. In my excitement at finding a scenario which can be covered by betting more, I failed to notice that the size of the bet required to cover this scenario would actually mean giving up the low! Oops. The scenario itself, should it actually be possible to cover it and keep the low, only offers a small benefit. So another issue would be whether or not it gives a greater gain than what is lost by no longer being able to split a pair. The smallness of the benefit stems from - a) it's a rare event, in terms of the cards dealt. b) the opponent also has to play the cards suboptimally. Are the above clues enough to reveal what scenario I was thinking of?
Stumped! I'm still not getting it. Even with all the clues. A bet of 8,000 covers the villain's best possible result. If the dealer shows an Ace, then insurance comes into play but, if the villain does not take it, then we don't have to either and, if he does, then we can approximately match his bet to cover it. I still can't see a reason to bet more.
The case I had in mind was when the dealer has an ace and the villain has a BJ for which he does not take even money. In that situation we would ideally like to be able to take enough insurance to beat 12,100 (in case the dealer has a BJ and pushes with the villain), while at the same time still being able to beat the villain's max total without the need for us to double down. That is, if villain doubles down on his BJ after the dealer peeks, then he may reach 24,100. By my calculation, our initial bet would have to be at least 11,475 in order to be able to make the insurance bet and still beat this. E.g., Bet 11,475 and insure for 3650. If insurance wins : 16,300 - 11,475 + 3650*2 = 12,125 If insurance loses : 16,300 + 11,475 - 3650 = 24,125 But the most we can bet without giving up the low is 10,175, which is obviously a rather more important consideration!
