Hello, I see a contradiction in Wong's book between Table 3 (chapter 6) and examples 41, 42, 43 and 45 and I don't know what to conclude about it. When 2 players advance, Table 3 specifies that the most desirable spot for last hand is: - "Middle" when there are 3 players in contention (#2 if all win and #2 if all lose) - "#1 if all win" when there are 4 or more players in contention. Most examples with 3 players in contention (from 26 to 40) agree with Table 3. But in most examples with 4 players or more, the player can make a bet to be "#1 if all win" but the advice given is different. In examples 41-42-43, the player is BR1 and must bet first. According to Table 3, I thought the advice would be to cover all max bets by other players but instead the advice is to follow another rule (which is either cover a max-bet by BR4 or keep what BR3 has left plus a chip). In example 45, the player is BR1 and must bet last. The advice given is to bet "#2 if all win and #2 if all lose (Middle)" which is normally the advice he gives when there are only 3 players in contention. Do you also see this as a contradiction? If not, what am I missing? If yes, which do you think is a bad advice? Thanks.
zweeky it looks to me as if you are right - Wong cites some general guidelines in Table 3 - then cites entirely different guidelines in the section on 4 players in contention - and uses that second set for these examples - and he doesn't explain why the second set of criteria are desirable - just states them and uses them - it looks to me as if he is trying to set bets where whatever the other players bet - he will end up BR2 and advance - with a high degree of liklihood - whether everyone wins or loses - but the other players chip counts don't let him lock in these bets in examples 41 & 43 - when he bets first - so you are betting an amount where you will get the low over two and the high over one - or vice versa - or the high over all three - depending on their betting choices - in example 42 - BR1 has the high over BR4 - no matter what he bets - so he advises to go for the low on BR3 - leaving BR2 to decide if he wants the high or low - again locking it up where he has a high or low advantage over two of the players and the opposite over the third player in example 45 BR1 gets the high on all but one player - and the low on all but one player - I think we are seeing the difference between a statement of general principle - and the calculation of specific odds and the affect of position and chip counts on the best bet - the goal being to create the best options for advancing - but Wong doesn't fully explain why he is choosing those bets
Thanks. It seems that Wong did simulations for these examples, then he derived the rules to fit with the results. But I wonder how Table 3 was done since none of the examples where 2 advance and 4+ players in contention fit with Table 3.
I think that he must have based table three on a simple calculation of probabilities of winning and losing hands - as he lays out in table four - what is the prob of everyone winning, losing, one win and three lose, etc. - but in the examples - he is including the impact of chip counts on the probabilities - can you close out players or not - prob of double and bj - that type of thing I hope otherwise he is just ploppying out junk -
