6D,S17,DAS,LS. BJ:3/2. Only one player advances. Two oddities:.Insurance must be 1/2 initial bet & player can only double for same amount-not for less. I'm last to bet. Players listed below from first to last to bet. Min/Max: 10/500 Dealer's upcard: A Dealer's holecard: 8 for total of 19 Amount Player Bet Insurance Cards Action End Results $1110 B4 500 250 K,7 Stand 360 $1115 B3 500 10,5,8 Double 115 $1130 B1 500 250 Q,9 Stand 880 $1120 Me 500 2,6,9 Double 120 I can't change the outcome. I would like to know what the optimal bet should be---regardless of the outcome. 1. I first thought that taking the low was the best bet. However, with all players in close contention, I didn't think it was my best bet. 2. Next, when I got a stiff, I thought that surrendering was my best bet. But, the dealer would have to either break or deal to 20 or 21 for this to work. BR1 had insurance to cover a BJ. 3. Doubling a 2,6 didn't give me much hope, but I felt it was my only chance (as desperate as it was). Question: : What was the best bet in this situation.
best bet Guido.....what a game I'm assuming that you went first on the hand before this one. Did the other two players not have a clue of what to bet on the hand before this one? First you have to take the low......it was easy, just keep one more back than BR1 did, since everyone max bet.....when BR1 took insurance it would do you no good to follow......however....when player two busted.....you now had first high and first low.....go back and look .....good spot to be in....hit to get to at least 17...even if you get a stiff....hit to 17 ...hope this helps...good luck
Guido, You made a nice effort to write a detailed description of a blackjack situation you found yourself in. But no matter how hard I try, I can’t find a reason to double instead of just hitting. Did you misquote the circumstances? But then, there are some other puzzling comments. ..Me 500 2,6,9… Next, when I got a stiff, I thought that surrendering was my best bet. But, the dealer would have to either break or deal to 20 or 21 for this to work. A hand that has total of twelve to sixteen is what we usually call a stiff hand. How do see your surrender being successful if the dealer breaks? When you stood on your seventeen your chances of advancing were about 57% - you would lose only if the dealer ended up with 17, 18, or 19. You could have considered hitting your seventeen again. You could improve your hand, and if you busted you still had a chance to advance when the dealer made twenty or twenty-one. However, hitting seventeen lowers you chance of success to less than 47%. S. Yama
Thanks S.Yama S. Yama: Sorry for the confusion------My thinking was muddled. 1. I incorrectly called my initial hand (2,6) a stiff. I should have been called it a "big dissappointment". 2. Yes, I did double. I failed to take into consideration the $250 insurance bet that BR1 took. As you pointed out, I didn't need to double & shouldn't have doubled. I should have hit away until I made a hand. 3. Surrendering would not have helped me. 4. As Swog (thanks swog), pointed out, I also should have taken the low. The fog has begun to lift from my eyes. Thank you for your help.
let's see... Guido, Don’t give up. This site is for all of us to learn. No need to feel sorry. There are no ready-mixed formulas working all the time, they won’t even work most of the time. To find good strategies each and every case requires careful look at all controlling factors. Try to answer what were your chances to advance (after you doubled) if your total was sixteen? How about total of twelve? In all these cases you would advance only if the dealer busted out. You referred to your hand as a stiff hand and, after you doubled, your hand total was seventeen. Seventeen (which nominally is a pat hand) in this case had exactly the same attributes as any “real” stiff hand. So, calling your final hand a stiff would be justified. Now, let’s assume that you just hit. This is what I assumed in my previous post when I cited your chances of advancing with hand total of seventeen. However, my thinking was also muddled – and I should have known better (lol). Your opponent had nineteen. You wouldn’t advance only if he gained to you. When I quoted 57% -that were the chances of the dealer making seventeen through nineteen with an Ace up, no blackjack – this was when you wouldn’t advanced. You would advance in all other cases – about 43% of the time. Hitting seventeen once would increase your chances of success by about 3%. In this particular case the optimal play was to hit to eighteen. Also, don’t jump to conclusion that taking low was the best bet. The rationale of this decision is a little more difficult to present because the key element here is the other players’ style of playing (skills). If you took low on all three other players, BR1 would have to lose and the other two lose or push. This would happen less than a third of the time. If you took high, then you would need to gain to BR1, and couldn’t lose to the two other players. With proper playing strategy modifications, the difference in success ratio for both strategies becomes not that extreme. Add to the mix the rule of surrender (always great for experienced players), especially coupled with your great acting position, and taking high is the optimal bet. Since the differences in bankrolls were very small you had to bet exactly the maximum allowed. Regards, S. Yama
Thank you, S. Yama S. Yama: Thank you for your help and training. When playing, I'm attempting to use the optimal strategy. In the limited amount of time alotted and limited experience, that's a mouth full. But,I'll always be satisfied with the end results. What else can I do? What I don't want to do, in retrospect, is fit a solution to the outcome. That's like looking in the back of the book at the answer and the working the problem. Thank you for your generosity. I know you're a very busy man. Guido
