You're BR1, with two hands...

to go in a live tournament final table with 17,000 chips and your closest opponents have respectively 6,450 an 6,200 chips (min.bet 25; max bet all-in). Everybody started the final table with a stack of 5,000 chips.

First place 50k, second 5k. The other three BRs at the table having less than 3000 chips are irrelevant. BR2 has been mostly flat betting the minimum since the beginning (except on hand 15th out of 21) while BR3 just made BJ the hand before to reach 6,200 chips). Since the count at hand 16th, you've been betting the minimum.

Ways of spending that 50k first prize are starting to creep in your mind. But you still have to make two bets, first on the second to last hand, then on the last.

Bad position is you're main problem : you'll be be betting before BR2 and BR3 on the last two hands (no secret bet, no hidden cards, no surrender).

What would you do? What are the two worst bets? What's optimal and why?

So, to recap : two hands to go, same betting order on both hands (other BRs are on the button and bet before all of you on these hands and their stacks are irrelevant)...50k first prize, 5k second, 3k third

BR1 (you) : 17,000 bets first
BR3 : 6,200 bets second
BR2 : 6,450 bets last

As this is a past live tournament. I'll give you the final results after a few posts.

 

The first question that popped into my mind is why are you betting before BR2 & BR3 both times? But anyway…

In my mind the most difficult part of these types of questions is that you’re taking a whole movie and only giving us a “snapshot” to make a decision upon. I say this because many times how your opponents have bet during the match and the flow of cards influences me (but hey what do I know right?)

My initial gut reaction when I read this is to just bet min on the next to last hand and let them “catch me”. So they win I still go into the last hand as BR1 with a sizable lead. Then the neurons kick in…

I doubt BR2 or BR3 want to go all in on the next to last hand (just an assumption) but they need to make up ground. If I min bet I leave the door open to them and I want to minimize that window as much as possible. Therefore I make an assumption: that BR2 &/or BR3 will bet ½ BR and hope for a DD opportunity. Therefore as BR1 I would likely bet 3,000. When in these situations I’m not too worried about the ubiquitous 12% swing occurring (BTW Great explanation of how this occurs written by Ken Smith for ALL IN – highly recommended reading)

A 3,000 bet causes BR2 & BR3 to pause and think. I mean usually the whole table wins or loses so if they [BR2 &/or BR3 hereafter referred to as BRO (others)] only bet 3,000 they can’t pick up ground unless they DD. Therefore they would be “forced to either take the low (25) or go max (all-in).

Let’s look at both cases:
BR1: 17,000 bets 3,000 loses 14,000
BR2: 6,200 bets 25 loses 6,175
BR3: 6,450 bets 6,450 loses out
Or
BR1: 17,000 bets 3,000 wins 20,000
BR2: 6,200 bets 25 wins 6,225
BR3: 6,450 bets 6,450 wins 12,900

With a 3,000 bet by BR1 the only real danger is a swing between BR1 and whomever goes all-in (in my opinion I HIGHLY doubt BOTH BR1 & BR2 go all-in)

Worst case scenario:
BR1: 17,000 bets 3,000 loses 14,000
BR2: 6,200 bet 25 wins 6,225 or 12,400 if they go all-in and win
BR3: 6,450 bests 6,450 wins 12,900

Now with a final hand and BR1 at 14,000 and only 1 opponent with 12,900 (or 12,400) we know what to do and that is to take the high. Betting 11,825 which gives you a win over BR2 25,950 to 25,800.

Now I know there are those out there saying, but you didn’t bet enough to cover a BR2 BJ! Yup I know because I don’t have enough chips to cover BR2’s 12,900 BJ anyway. So why not just bet 12,900?

I WANT BR2 to be ALL IN on the final hand hoping for either a swing or a BJ to win. If I bet too much to make it obvious that I’ve got a lock on BR2 then they simply bet 25 min and have a better chance of winning that way: 44% versus a 12% swing.

Something cleverer could be thought up with surrender but I’m doing this on the top of my head, no calculator, just thoughts like in a tourney setting.

Unfortunately I don’t have the math down and memorized like other members here. I just have “theories” that I float. So I’ll float this one and see if it’s filled with helium or lead.

 

Min

Unlike FGK I think BRO are likely to go all-in/bet big since there is such a discrepancy between 1st, 2nd & 3rd prize money. I'm likely to bet the min on the penultimate hand and let them play catch up but another thought would be $2325 which would guarantee, if won, greater then 1/2 max bet lead over BR2 if he wins an all-in bet (assuming no BJ).

Cheers

Reachy

 

The optimal bet...

for the next to last hand, I think, would also be in the range indicated by fgk and Reach : just enough to make the right safest bet on the last hand if everybody wins when BR2 and BR3 go all in. If everybody loses, huge reward : he wins the tournament.

In real life, here's what BR1 (betting first) bet on the next to last hand and the results :

BR1(you): 17,000 bet the minimum (25) and got BJ
BR3: 6,200 went all-in and stood on hard 17
BR2: 6,450 went all-in and stood on hard 20

Dealer busted (upcard 3)

Would you agree that betting the minimum (25) in a such a situation is about the worst bet anybody that close to winning 50k could make?

Well there is another bet coming and he's still the favorite going into the last hand.

Now, what would you bet on the last hand if you were in his shoes?

50k first prize, 5k second prize, 3k third prize:

BR1(you): 17,037.50 bets ???
BR 3: 12,400
BR4: 12,900
all other BRs irrelevant

 

I don't agree. I'm a little pressed for time right now. Leaving for 2 days for a tournament tomorrow and have to get stuff together. Will respond toward the end of the week. In the mean time, I curious if anyone agrees with me.

 

positioning

Toolman – With a minimum bet you take yourself out of the action and there is a 58% chance that one or both of your opponents will catch-up with you. If that happens your lead will be less than 1/3 max bet which weakens your position especially as you will be acting first. If you bet in the range £2325-£4000 then you have a 44% chance of guaranteeing a greater then ½ max lead which puts you in a very strong position (i.e. you can guarantee the absolute low and high on the final hand). If you lose you’ll still be in the lead since you have taken the low on your opponents highs and it won’t be a much worse position than being caught up when you minimum bet as in the first example.

I don’t think there’s much statistically in it between these 2 strategies but the ½ max lead approach just edges it in my (revised) opinion. Of course the top-ranked players may well have other opinions and it’d be interesting to hear them.

Archie – I can think of far worse bets than $25 in this situation; anywhere between $10.6K and $17K for starters! If we are going to assume that your opponents will max bet (as they did) then the obvious contrarian approach is to bet the min.

As for the bet to make on the last hand, well I think you have to take the high. Sure you’ll be offering the low to your opponents and I’d be surprised if one of them at least didn’t take it but I prefer this approach to taking the low as your win locks the $50K and you can still win if you lose. If you take the low your actions are irrelevant and even doubling won’t allow you to retake the high. If both your opponents go for it you’ve only got 42% chance of victory whereas betting for the high will give you greater than 44%.

Of course a BJ by BR2 or BR3 at any point would throw a spanner in the works and there is about an 18% chance that may happen.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Bet 3000

With a bet of 3000, then if everybody wins or everybody loses (reguardless of what BR2 and BR3 bet) BR1 still will have a >1/2 max bet lead. You can't cover everthing like full swings, but a bet that covers everything could leave you without a >1/2 max bet lead going into the last hand and betting first.

I have just started to think about working out ideal bets on the next to last hand using Wong's table but no results yet.


......................BlueLight

 

Archie,

If you read my first post - initially my first instinct was to do just that, bet min, and let the dealer do the work, so not it wasn't the "worst bet"

However, if you also remember I said a lot depends upon how things are going. We all know there are killer shoes where the dealer is just on "fire" and other times when the dealer just "dumps" every single hand. In addition the overall play of our opponents has to be considered.

In your scenario when you bet min I think you forced BR2 & BR3 to go all-in. I know that's what I would have done as BRO in that case.

There is math involved with TBJ - undoubtably this is the first and foremost best asset a TBJ player can possess. However there is also LUCK (don't get started guys ) and part of that is psychology.

My initial reaction when I read this was bet 25.

After 30 seconds I came up with the 3,000 figure much differently than the guru's here. I arrived at that figure by trying to think what my opponents were going to bet and how to best compensate for the bet(s) that they will be making. Yes, it's the azzbackwards way of doing things however....

 

My vote here as BR1 is 8,890

Rationale:

I want to take the high away from an all in by BR2. Now I know this doesn’t cover a BJ by BR2 but I’ll take that chance.

BR1 17,037.50 bets 8,800 win = 25,837.50
BR3 12,400.00 bets 12,400 win = 24,800.00
BR2 12,900.00 bets 12,900 win = 25,800.00

Now I’m assuming that surrender is available (I know I shouldn’t assume ) but this leaves me the option to surrender and still beat BR3 with them having a push.

I can’t see BR3 doing anything BUT going all in. BR2 on the other hand has the option of taking the low, having the dealer win and winning the tournament. However, by only betting 8,800 I want BR2 to go all-in and think BJ – I just don’t WANT BR2 to GET a BJ.

Just my .25 cents (inflation adjusted)

 

Final results..

Still betting before his main opponents, BR1 choose to bet the minimum on the last hand:

BR1(you): 17,037.50 bets 25 gets hard 19
BR 3: 12,400 went all-in and stood on a hard 16
BR4: 12,900 went all-in, hit hard 12 and stood at18

Dealer upcard 8, downcard 7, hit a 9 and BUSTED

BR 1 ended up third. He said he had a bad beat, but I now think that betting twice the minimum with that kind of a lead (especially on the next to last hand with almost three times the bankroll of BR2 and BR3) was not a bad beat but much less than optimal play to say the least. He left the door wide open to BR2 and BR3 in my opinion.

On the last hand, I think the optimal bet, as fgk said, is to cover the all-ins (no BJ) and you win if no swing occurs.

 

Like his play, his spelling is wrong. What he had was a bad "bet" (just eliminate the "a" from the word "beat"). I find it amazing how often people don't take responsibility for their own mistakes - always looking to blame others or other circumstances for one's misfortunes. This applies to cards as well as life.

Food for thought.

 

Oz

Mr Toolman

I was hoping to hear your response to my response to your earlier post in this thread!

Incidentally how did your tourney go?

Cheers

Reachy

 

Sorry:

Bad BEAT ne bad bet. How esoteric! Way to go Toolman.

And Reachy, it seems, has restricted himself to numbers only! I guess under fear of a three day ban. Poor Andy. One can not even say , yet sing loud and proud, "nappy headed hos" anymore.

 

Like this one? :joker:

 

I knew you would not let me slide on this one Reachy so here goes.

It looks to me from the responses so far that there is little experience among the responders in playing no max bet tournaments. No max bet tournaments are different from the conventional. Although most strategy guidelines still apply, one must understand the way one’s competitors play this type of tournament then adjust accordingly. Almost nothing is written on this subject so my opinions are based on my experience.

First of all, the assumption that BR2 and BR3 will go “all in” is absolutely correct. Remember, a ploppy is not necessarily stupid, he’s just not an educated gambler.

In the scenario outlined by Archie, a minimum bet by BR1 on the SECOND FROM LAST HAND (hereafter to be referred to as SFLH) is the way to go in my opinion. This accomplishes a number of things:

1) In no max bet tournaments, being BR1 going into the last hand is the key to winning this type of tournament. It is substantially more important than being BR1 in other types of tournaments. In this scenario, BR1 is guaranteed to be chip leader going into the last hand by making a minimum bet on the SFLH. Even if BR2 gets a BJ, BR1 will still be the chip leader. If BR1 bets 3,000 on the SFLH he risks losing that lead if BR2 or BR3 get a BJ.

2) In no max bet tournaments, I have used an easy to remember formula to determine how much I need to have assuming BR2 makes 2 max bets and gets 1 BJ that would pay 3:2. Simply multiply BR2’s bankroll at the start of the SFLH by 5. In this case the answer is 32,250 (6,450 x 5). So I know that if BR1 doubled his bankroll to 34,000 (17,000 x 2), he has a near lock on winning (only 2 BJs with max bets can beat BR1 if BR1 wins a max bet last hand). By betting minimum on the SFLH, BR1 assures himself that he will have the bullets to fire if the need arises.

3) If the best that BR2 and BR3 can manage on SFLH is a push, BR1 has an absolute lock on winning the table.

4) If only one wins their SFLH, even with a BJ, BR1 only has one competitor and again is the chip leader.

5) In my experience with no max bet tournaments, the value of a ½ max bet lead is of little importance compared to other type of tournaments. The reason is because on the last hand, most everyone goes “all in” on the last hand with the last few betters holding back a few chips for the low. Unless one has a lock, it does not matter if your lead is 1% or 99% of BR2’s bankroll, BR1 must win that last hand. So risking around 3,000 on the SFLH as was suggested only opens BR1 to losing the advantage he had with a chip count of 17,000 (as I outlined in # 2).​

Now the final hand and that’s simple. Knowing BR2 and BR3 won their SFLH and the fact that BR1 bets first, BR1 should fire all his bullets by going “all in”. Don’t even think about the low. There are a total of 5 competitors at the table and someone betting after BR1 will be able to take the low, so trying for the low is futile. Besides, with 5 competitors, the low is very unlikely to win – sure it happens but it is rare.

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

Reachy:
You asked how my tournament went. This was a “qualifier to qualify to qualify”. One tournament per hour for 9 hours, two rounds per tournament, 15 hands per round, and a max of 36 players. The table chip leader from round 1 goes to round 2. The table chip leader from round 2 wins $500 and a seat in their May 12 playoff. The top 6 on May 12 will win a seat at the MILLIONAIRE MAKER tournament to be held in August at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Anyway, each tournament was only $25 so the ploppies just plopped in. I succeeded in winning one tournament so my next play is May 12 against a field of about 60 players to compete for the 6 seats.

Over time, I am not completely satisfied with my play. This series of tournaments has been going on for about 3 months with the tournaments being held about 1 day every other week or so. I’ve tried about 15 to 18 of these tournaments and only won the one I mentioned. With 36 players per tournament, the average is one win every 36 tries – I took 18 tries. Not exactly stellar performance but I guess better than average. In my own defense, I must admit to doing some experimenting since the entry fee was so low and I still had a lot of tries to fall back on. And guess what! THIS WAS A NO MAX BET TOURNAMENT. How do you like that???

PS: fgk42, you should not assume surrender is available in most of these teasers. The vast majority of live tournaments do no have surrender so it's the exception rather than the rule. Besides, Archie stated in the first post that surrender was not available.

 

On SFLH...

I thought that discarding the BJ possibilities by BR2 and BR3 would make a 3,000 chip a much superior bet for the following reasons :

1- If everybody loses, you win the tournament on the correct assumption, I believe, that BR2 and BR3 would go all-in. That's a real big reward for BR1, in my mind, and well worth discarding the BJ possibilities on SFLH.

2 - If everybody wins, you can safely bet 6000 on the last hand to cover the all-ins and get the high and low with the same results across board. Only a swing (again discarding the BJ possibilities) would beat you on the last hand.

Thanks for your analysis and insight Toolman and congratulations for that win. I'm sure you'll do well in the bigger event on May 12.

My thanks also to fgk and to Reachy for their own analysis and for pushing you in following through with your final thoughts. Your long experience of live tournaments is well appreciated.

 

Thanks for the compliment although I have to say that my experience is only a few years. I wish others with more experience would enter these discussions but it looks like that's not to be.

If everyone loses then any bet of 3,000 or less will lock up a win for BR1 (assuming the other players are far enough behind).

Agree but only if BJs are disregarded. Under your scenario with 2 contenders and 2 hands to play, the probability that a BJ will show up on the last or second from last hand are about 1 in 5 or 20%. That 20% and when you factor in the fact that you must win the second from last hand to get that low leads me to stay with the minimum bet.

 

Masterclass

Thank you Toolman for your excellent informative posts. I'd like to make a few follow-up comments:

1) I'm not sure I agree with your comments about the power of the 1/2 max bet lead in a no max bet tourney (NMBT). Although I haven't played in a "pure" NMBT, many tourneys I have played in have turned out to be just that. For example any game played at Bet21 where the remaining players BRs are less than the max bet are in effect NMBT. Anyway, having a greater than 1/2 max bet lead gives you more ways to win regardless. You can still lose your hand and win the tourney if your opponents lose or push since you have the high and the absolute low. If you have less than a 1/2 MB lead then to cover the high you give up the push and possibly the low if someone decides to take it. In my opinion that >1/2 max lead gives you a few more %.

2) By betting, for example $3K, you do open yourself up to a swing from a BJ but I estimate the chances of that happening as being less than 4%. Therefore I have a 96% chance of being the leader on the last hand and at least 44% of having 1/2 max bet lead and that doesn't take account of your opponents wiping themselves out. As the chances of our opponets wiping themselves out or pushing is the same regardless of our bet we both have a similar advantage in this case (although BRO push: BR1 loss maybe slightly more beneficial to a min bettor). But since we don't agree on the value of the 1/2 MB lead...

This I do agree with you on . It is a shame some of the more experienced/knowledgeable players don't contribute more to these types of threads as they used to. I don't know whether I or anybody else for that matter is talking out of their elbows so it'd be nice to get confirmation or otherwise.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Reachy,

The fact that we are talking about the second from last hand here has a big effect on how the hand should be bet. Keep in mind that with 2 contenders and 2 hands to go, the chance for one of those 2 contenders getting a BJ in either of the last 2 hands is about 20%. Also, in order for the 1/2 max bet strategy to work, BR1 must win both hands if either BR2 or BR3 win both of their hands and neither BR2 or BR3 getting a BJ with one of their wins. By betting minimum on the second from last hand, BR1 need only win the last hand if either BR2 or BR3 win both of their hands and BR1 has the allowance for a BJ by BR2 or BR3.

Anyway, we both stated our case so I'm basically done with this thread so it's time for SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:

Your latest avatar is gross. I never thought I would say this but bring back FLAT ERIC - PLEASE!!!