WSoBJ Episode 4

Time for another PG-rated episode of the World Series of BJ. Why PG anyway? Cause it's gambling?

Today's lucky contestants:
Previn Mankodi: Chicago investment banker. Hopefully, he'll pull something out for us local Chicagoans.

Ann Van Dyke: Astrologer and Medium. Every table has to have a woman, and this is tonight's entry. I'm not sure if she or the next player is the resident Foxwoods high roller.

Jimmy Pine: Professional Gambler and BJ player from Rhode Island with $300K in tournament winnings, but they point out at the end that he's a Foxwoods regular.

Nick Dillon: Casino manager in San Diego (Barona, I believe).

Stanford Wong: No explanation necessary. His book and software is the bible of tournament play that is being rewritten.

Hand 1: Ann comes out at 500, everyone else at 100. Stanford starts out by doubling 9 vs. 7, a little unusual, but I'm starting to give up questioning these plays, especially when Stanford pulls an ace for 20. Ann wins to take a 400 lead.

Hand 2: Ann bets 600, everyone else at 100. Jimmy misspeaks, asking to double down on AA vs. a 9, but they let him correct himself to a split, of which he gets 21 and 18. Matt's enjoying the 2 busts that the casino dealer gets. Ann loses, giving Stanford the early lead.

Hand 3: Everyone but Ann bets small again. Max and Matt are having fun ripping on Ann's talking with the dead, but then Nick calls the dealer the Anti-Christ for giving Nick a 4 on his double down. After all, Jesus would have given him a face card. I guess that's why this episode is rated PG.

Melena time: Time to learn about BJ Bonanza, the special sucker side bet offered at Mohecan Sun. But I suppose last week's shuffle trackers would be all over this one.

Hand 6: Stanford still has a small lead, while Ann has dropped 1400 off of the pace. Ann picks now to drop to 200 bets. Jimmy asks Stanford how to play his 8's against a ten, but Stanford isn't giving the answer up, while nick is teasing him about wating our time over a 100 bet. Jimmy gets 2 18s. Nick then does a pretty funny Nick imitation of whether to double 11 v 10, but does (Stanford suggests that he surrender). Jimmy's split puts Jimmy into the lead.

Hand 7: Previn's got Stanford's book in his back pocket. I try to keep mine in the room. Matt points out that Stanford doubled down on 9 because the dealer is supposed to bust on a five, but Max busts his balls pointing out that the dealer only busts 42% of the time. Stanford's double puts him back in first when the dealer does in fact double.

Hand 11: Since we left, Jimmy now has a 400 lead on Wong and about 1000 lead on most of the rest of the pack. It looks like it was all done with 100 bets. Everyone's still betting small. Previn gets BJ. The dealer hits to 17, dropping Nick back.

Hand 12: Max explains the term "to Wong" and Matt thinks of the Patrick Swayze/John Leguizamo vehicle. Previn hits his second BJ in a row. The dealer hits to 19, making Nick and Previn the only winners.

Hand 13: We learn Previn can be obnoxious when he needs to clear a table. Big deal. I know how to be obnoxious when I wanted to go heads-up using my Las Vegas Advisor Golden Gate "2-1 BJ for an hour" coupon. Previn hit his 3rd BJ in a row, earning him a total of 450 and a lot of smack from his fellow players. Nick also gets BJ. After the dealer bust, Jimmy still has a 400 lead over Stanford, 750 over Previn and 1000 over Nick.

Hand 18: Jimmy is now up 850 on Stanford and 1050 over Nick and Previn. Stanford now bets 500 which is either arbitrary or a set up for a progression next bet. Jimmy hasn't bet over 100, so Stanford is going to have to catch him. Ann gets affirmation from Stanford's bet so she bets 600. The dealer busts.

Melena points out something vaguely useful, for a change, pointing out that the candles on top of slot machine are color-coded to the denomination of the machine. Does that mean that the candle on a multi-denomination game is rainbow-colored?

Hand 21: Jimmy is still up 850 on Stanford and 1000 on the field. Matt points out that other than Stanford and Ann, noone has bet over 100. But according to Stanford's book, this is the time to look ot make a move. Ann bets 600, while Stanford bet 1000, just enough to take the lead. Standford tries to deflect attention, saying that he's not doing what the book says, when that's exactly what the book says. Stanford doubles A3 v. a 5 but the dealer hits to 21, and Stanford doesn't get a miracle.

Hand 22: Ann bets 1200, still not enough, and Stanford also underbets 1000. It seems to me that he has a nearly ideal 1/3 bet, and I'm not sure what 1000 buys you, but it's still early. Previn also bets 1000, which is, in fact just enough to take the lead. Ann and Stanford both have good double downs against the 9, but the hole card is an ace, and Ann and Stanford's double downs go down in flames while Previn ties.

Hand 23: Stanford has 6350 vs. Jimmy's 11000, but bets 1350. I don't know what the point is here. A max bet puts him into the lead, while if he loses, he is over a max bet behind. A 1350 win still puts him a max bet behind. Ann makes a similar bet. Previn gets BJ on his 1100 bet, vaulting him into the lead. Stanford hits to 17 while Ann busts. The dealer hits to 18, crippling Ann and Stanford.

Hand 24: Stanford goes all-in, Previn bets what Stanford's book says, the amount of his lead, 700. Ann bets 3000 of her 5200. Jimmy thinks about making a move, but holds on to see how this hand goes. Jimmy's BJ gets wasted for 100. Ann loses, while stan ties and Previn extends his lead.

Hand 25: Previn bets 700 again, while Stanford and Ann go all in (well almost...Ann holds back 100, trying to limp into 4th). Nick make his first bbig bet, but it's a little too low to catch anyone. Poor Wong gets a 15 vs. 10. Given Ann's attempts to come just above him, Stanford decided to surrender this hand, which really hurts his chances of coming back in this match wtih only 2500. It hurt especially in this instance as a hit would have given him 18 and won the hand, given the cards. The consensus seems to be that Stanford needed to hit, and that's what Max says. Actually, Max said that he read in Stanford's book that he shouldn't have surrendered. If so, it's in a later edition than I have, as my book doesn't even mention surrender, and I wonder if that has anything to do with this decision. Jimmy is the only winner at the table.

Hand 27: Stanford and Ann double up on hand 26 and go all in here as well. Max wants jimmy to bet big to keep Nick at bay, but the more important goal is passing Previn. Jimmy bets small though as Nick max bets. Previn bets 200, looking to keep a share of the lead. The dealer as BJ, busting Ann and Stanford and crippling Nick.

In his interview, Melena asks "You wrote the book on blackjack, why didn't you win today?" Stanford rightly points out that he had the second best result that his book talks about...you should win or bust out, and that's what he did.

Hand 28: Jimmy rightly bets enough to take the lead on Previn,while Nick goes all-in. Previn rightly matches Jimmy's bet. Jimmy gets a BJ, while the peanut gallery goes wild. Nick stands on 12 v. 5, but the dealer hits to 21. Ax Max puts it, "This may be the first time in the history of blackjack ever, that two professionals have had the privledge of throwing a casino manager off of a blackjack game!" Nick hilariously says that he lost because these guys are cheaters, cause everyone knows that the house always wins.

Hand 29:
*Previn 11300
Jimmy 12800

Max says that for a number of complex reasons, he would bet 2500. In my opinion, Previn needs to stay within 2500 of Jimmy for the final bet. If he bets under 500, Jimmy can freeroll the chance to push his lead over 500 without risk of losing the lead. If he bets over 1500, Jimmy can hold back 1 chip more than Previn, keeping the lead 81% of the time and going up over 2500 at least 56% of the time. I think my favorite bet here is 800. Jimmy will likely bet 800 or less. If Jimmy bets small, Previn stays less than 2500 out. If Jimmy matched the 800 bet, Previn has a shot to take the lead. Previn bets 1600. If Jimmy bets 3000 here, keeping an extra chip back, he keeps the lead and has a shot to go 2500 up (as well as protects against a double-down), but instead, he bets 1500. Previn has a 19, while Jimmy has a 12 with a dealer face card. Jimmy rightly does not surrender, but busts when he hits 13. The dealer has a 20, as Previn loses also.

Hand 30:
Previn 9700
* Jimmy 11300

Max say that Jimmy should bet 3500 to lock Previn off of the high, but the low is far more likely to come in, so I would bet either 1500 or 3100, leaving the option to surrender into the low. After a lot of thought, he decides upon 100. Not as bad as Max thinks it is, but he had better. Previn max bets which doesn't let him split (did he not watch the LVH finals?), while a 3200 would give him the same chances but he could split to 3 hands if need be. Jimmys 12 is irrelevant while win depends on Previn winning his 7 against a dealer 6. Previn hits to 13 and stands on 13. Under the dealer's 6 is a five, and a face card gives Jimmy the win.

 

2 cents

Not too many new chapters of thought being written here. Textbook play, aside from the occassional indiscretions (Previn's 5k final bet), although nothing that really changed the outcome. Here we find an example of a Mohegan Sun local (Jimmy) who really knows his stuff. I wonder what would have happened if he was ever seriously behind and had to bet more than 100 bucks?

Can't wait to get ahold of Previn in the wild card round. He's the kind of competitor I love in this Series -- predictable. But the real winner here? GSN. Notice something different this week? The commercials were much more high profile/big brand (Tylenol, Kleenex, Allegra) instead of all just being promo spots for other shows. Which means GSN is attracting more expensive product placement = higher revenues. If this keeps up, we'll actually be seeing beer and car commercials by the finals.

Of course, what episode would be complete without that little prick from GoldenPalace.com telling us about what a big winner he is now that he "plays like the pros" on his online scam site. Next year's Series will probably be sponsored by Shufflemaster!

-hollywood dave.

 

1/2 a cent

Speaking of commercials, the area of the show that I have been most critical of in my discussions with people involved in the production of the show has been the number of commercials. There are far too many to keep the viewers interest. On occasion, two hands of the tournament are shown, then the viewer is subjected to another 3 minutes of commercials.

 

I have to agree with Hollywood about the GoldenPalace.com prick. Although I will say that with the crackdown on gambling sites, it's pretty tough to sell the site without saying why you would actuall go to the site. At least the commercial is better than tattooing the site name on the backs of boxers. As for the other commercials, get with the times and get a Tivo. You won't even notice them

One correction that I realized last night. In a surrender tournament, the magic number to be ahead if you are first to act on the final hand is lower than 2500. For example, if you are 1800 ahead, you can bet 3300 on the final hand. It locks out the high, and if your opponent goes low, you still have the option of surrendering and forcing him to win rather than having to win yourself.

 

Last Hand

Toonces,
It seems an execllent bet for Jimmy may have been $1800. This would have set the bait for Previn to get excited and think he was going to "steal" the low with a bet of $100. Jimmy could then surrender as soon as the cards hit the table and lock out Previn for the win. The only chance of loss would be a dealer BJ. Of course, if Previn figures this out and takes the high, Jimmy is still in the same boat as a bet of $1500. Previn's "buy-the-book" (pun intended) methodology and novice tournament experience may have made this play a winner.

 

I did not see the show from my home. I watched the show at a gym here in Las Vegas, where I was working out, so that I can look even better for my next tournament.

 

Surrender bet

Yep,
Bait and switch or surrender traps are nice plays.
Since, as Ken said, it is out in the open, I will post "Surrender Trap" in the Tournament Strategy section.
Because of sensitivity and effectiveness of this technique the cat will be out of the bag just for a few days and then removed.

S. Yama

 

Isn't it unusual in tournament play that the double card is dealt face down? Normaly this practice is reserved for "ploppies" at the $5 table.

 

Before I chime in with my comments, I have to admit that I have not watched a single program and my opinions are based solely on other peoples’ messages. Toonces, thanks again.

Quick general-matter observation: many players having a chip lead and having to bet first - bet exactly their lead. It is not a good bet. In most cases betting a chip less than the lead is a better option. Leader losing his bet and opponent pushing - makes for, otherwise avoidable, tie.

Let’s move to hand 29.
Previn is trailing Jimmy by 1,500.
Now, if you were trailing, as a general rule, you would like to bet five times the gap.
You may want to read Ken’s “Rule of 2,4 and 5†to get the idea.
Actually, there are other intervals, too. I call it “Rule of 1+ through 5â€. We could event start with bet of half the difference and winning double, while opponent loses or pushes his bet, be it a minimum bet, matched, or matched plus almost all the lead.
The point is that that every multiple of the difference between bankrolls contained in the bet adds a little advantage to the player trying to catch the leader. However, the fact is that gross majority of benefits come from bets of just more than the gap, and bets of twice the gap.
Generally, if there are no other players that may overcome us if we lose a bigger bet, and we have enough bankroll to split three times - betting five times the gap covers it all.

Knowing all the particulars, we can analyze situation more throughly.
Let’s call Previn – “Player P†or simply “Pâ€, and Jimmy – “Player J†or “Jâ€.
In our case max bet is 5K and it would contain the gap three times.
Betting three times the gap (4,5K) is as good as betting only twice the gap (3K), because “Player P†doesn’t have big enough bankroll to be able to split his hand twice to have three hands, or to split and double for the full amount. If he could, “P’s†winning triple bet would overcome “Player J’s†winning doubled bet, even if “J†would bet “P’s†bet plus almost all of the lead. [4,5K x 3 –1,500 = 12,000 vs. (4,5K+1,400) x 2 = 11,800]

What is the best response to bet of 3,000?
This is final positioning for the last hand. Really, all that each player should care is to have a bankroll of just a minimum bet more than his opponent. Any lead is welcomed, but having specific lead provides additional benefits. For various reason it is a) any small lead, b) [only for player betting first] lead of more than 1,700, c) lead of more than 2,500, …and so on.

If Player P bets 3,000, Player J has two interesting counter-bets: bet of 4,400 (matched bet plus almost all the lead) and bet of 3,400.
Good thing about 3,400 bet is that losing it leaves Player J with 9,400, and Player P winning his 3,000 goes to 14,300 – difference between the bankrolls is still less than one maximum bet.
What works for bet 4,400 is fact that there is a 10% increase in situations (most of them coming from single win/single win) where Player J achieves lead over Player P by more than 2,500– half of the maximum bet.
Because each player’s hand can have six different outcomes, (not counting triple bets) from double loss to double win- there are 36 possible outcomes for two hands. Analyzing probabilities of their occurrences shows that the final value (for “counter-bets†of 4,400 and 3,400) is, once again, minimal. Bet of 3,400 is less than one percent more effective, and both bets would advance Player J about 56% of the times.
That means that if both players used optimal playing strategies, and “P†bet 3K, and “J†bet 3.4K or 4.4K, and then played one more (last) hand - Player J would have won about 56% of the times.

Are you curious what were the chances for the actually made bets, Previn’s bet of 1,500 and Jimmy’s response with 1,600?

Not much of a difference. With optimal play, which gets quite tricky, Jimmy would still have about 53% chance of ending up as the winner.

See you in a couple weeks,
S. Yama

 

I would suggest Jimmy bet 3275 for the last hand, suppose Previn will always play optimally. I have to say that the assumption "Previn will always play optimally" is not so true, after we see his bet of 5000, which didn't leave him the chance of splitting. But anyway, that's another story, let's just talk about 'theory" here.

Jimmy's bet should at least be able to cover the low if he surrenders, so he should bet <=3300. Then Jimmy can not cover the high, and because of Jimmy's potential surrender play, Previn's optimal react bet should be to cover the high. Since Previn only have 9700, so Jimmy should bet >3250 to force Previn to bet over 4850 without leaving him the chance to split.

Finally 3275 might be slightly better than 3300: if betting 3300, Previn might tie Jimmy's chip total if Previn bet 100 and both surrender.

------------------------------------

After more thought, I found that 3000 might be better than 3275. Compared to betting 3000, betting 3275 takes away Previn's split option, but also gives Previn the chance to tie dealer while dealer beats Jimmy. So now I think 3000 or 3100 might be the optimal bet, it leaves the double option open if Previn gets a BJ with max bet.