I was playing in a tournament a while back and had this scenario unfold. I was on hand # 13 out of 15 hands that you get to play and needed to double my bankroll to have a shot of qualifying for the next round. I had 1/4 of my bankroll out on the table. The count was neutral. I had 20 and the dealer had 6. Was I correct in splitting here? My rationale for doing so was that even after splitting, this might be the highest EV hand I would get for the remaining hands and I obviously had to take on some risk to have a chance.
Tough BJ decision to make
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
Thanks. You wouldn't believe the flak I got from the dealer and ploppies who were watching after losing that hand. It's one thing to have ploppies criticize your play but when you have a dealer doing so too, it makes me long for intelligentsia which as you well know, is decidedly lacking in casinos.
Not really, I guess it would partly depend on the rules. If this was one of AC's typical free-entry tourney, then it was most probably an 8-deck shoe whereby you play roughly 10-15 hands to qualify to second of three rounds. It's usually H17 and min bet $100 tourney chips. There would be a miniscule edge, if any, when playing such a small number of hands against an 8-deck shoe. In addition, I've also seen BJ tourney's in AC where the table (usually 7 player deep), doesn't start a fresh shuffle before Hand N.1 - it just continues "mid-shoe" where the shoe left off from the previous 7 players. 
Rendering the count completely useless as one would have absolutely no idea as to what cards would have passed during the previous 10-15 hands. I believe there is a specific name for this tourney rule but it slips my mind...
Rendering the count completely useless as one would have absolutely no idea as to what cards would have passed during the previous 10-15 hands. I believe there is a specific name for this tourney rule but it slips my mind...This sounds like a good play to me, since you could keep resplitting if you had the opportunity. Like another poster suggested, I think the 1/4 BR bet was probably too low to start, so getting that extra money out there by splitting 10s is probably a great call.
BTW, what would be the optimum bet in this situation (assuming table max is not an issue)? It seems to me like 1/2 of his BR, but I could be completely wrong...
BTW, what would be the optimum bet in this situation (assuming table max is not an issue)? It seems to me like 1/2 of his BR, but I could be completely wrong...
Bet it all. It's a lot easier to win one hand than two. The drawback of not being able to make BS splits is not something to worry about.
The only slight complication is what to do with the remaining hands if you do successfully double up. If the requirement to double the BR is an absolute minimum, so that even losing one or two further min bets would see you fail to advance, then you might as well go to a 1/3, 2/3 progression for the last two hands, or bet it all again on the last hand if the first (and/or second) of your three bets was a push.
But if doubling the BR is only an approximate requirement you can just play out the last hands with min bets.
The only slight complication is what to do with the remaining hands if you do successfully double up. If the requirement to double the BR is an absolute minimum, so that even losing one or two further min bets would see you fail to advance, then you might as well go to a 1/3, 2/3 progression for the last two hands, or bet it all again on the last hand if the first (and/or second) of your three bets was a push.
But if doubling the BR is only an approximate requirement you can just play out the last hands with min bets.
There was no maximum bet limit. I chose 1/4 of my BR because if I lost the hand, I wouldn't be totally screwed and it would allow me to split if need be. I'm not sure what the optimum bet would have been (perhaps going all in would have but then if you needed to split, you'd be screwed) While counting wouldn't make a big difference, I'll take all the help I can get in a short tournament like that.
If I had successfully doubled up, I would have just bet the absolute minimum. It was one of those stupid H17 8 deck tournaments but out of 5 times having played it, I've qualified once and have come darn close to it twice. Even though your chances of qualifying are quite slim, I know should you advance, your chances of winning are pretty good.
If the goal is definitely to double up or bust out trying, then doing it with a single bet has by far the greatest chance of success.
If the goal is a bit more uncertain than that, then splitting the tens doesn't seem like quite such a good move after all. Had you stood on the 20 and won, you could have used the last two hands as a progression, giving a high chance of adding another 1/3 to your new BR. (i.e. the final BR could be 5/4 * 4/3 = 5/3 of your BR at the start of hand #13).
And if you lost with the 20, you could go all-in on the next hand and attempt to reach 3/4 * 2 = 3/2 of the BR.
I think the notion of 'needing' to split is a false one. Splitting when BS calls for it may increase EV, but it will quite often result in a push, winning one hand and losing one hand. And EV is irrelevant with so few hands to go; the need to win a specific amount trumps all other considerations. (In fact, if you find yourself all-in on the final hand, needing to win, you should even deviate from basic strategy in certain ways, such as standing on 12 v 2 or 3, because BS incorporates possible pushes into the EV calculation, and a push is no good to you.)
It's true there are some hands for which a split can only improve the probability of winning (e.g., for 7,7 and 8,8 vs 2-to-6, if you are all-in you will stand and hope for a dealer bust, whereas if you can split you might make 18 or above on one or both split hands, giving more ways to beat the dealer). But, equally, betting the full amount you need to win up-front means you never have to reduce your probability of winning the hand by doubling down and limiting yourself to one hit card.
The topic of counting (or not) in tournaments gets debated at regular intervals over at the bjt site.
Have a read through the following thread. It starts off talking about elimination tournaments, but moves onto accumulation tournaments such as the one you played - https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/threads/6076/
I confess that thread stuck in my mind because of the praise from Ken which my contribution received.
With 15 hands and 8 decks I suspect you may not see a shuffle before the tournament round is over, meaning counting is of no benefit for betting purposes, as described in the above thread.
If the goal is a bit more uncertain than that, then splitting the tens doesn't seem like quite such a good move after all. Had you stood on the 20 and won, you could have used the last two hands as a progression, giving a high chance of adding another 1/3 to your new BR. (i.e. the final BR could be 5/4 * 4/3 = 5/3 of your BR at the start of hand #13).
And if you lost with the 20, you could go all-in on the next hand and attempt to reach 3/4 * 2 = 3/2 of the BR.
I think the notion of 'needing' to split is a false one. Splitting when BS calls for it may increase EV, but it will quite often result in a push, winning one hand and losing one hand. And EV is irrelevant with so few hands to go; the need to win a specific amount trumps all other considerations. (In fact, if you find yourself all-in on the final hand, needing to win, you should even deviate from basic strategy in certain ways, such as standing on 12 v 2 or 3, because BS incorporates possible pushes into the EV calculation, and a push is no good to you.)
It's true there are some hands for which a split can only improve the probability of winning (e.g., for 7,7 and 8,8 vs 2-to-6, if you are all-in you will stand and hope for a dealer bust, whereas if you can split you might make 18 or above on one or both split hands, giving more ways to beat the dealer). But, equally, betting the full amount you need to win up-front means you never have to reduce your probability of winning the hand by doubling down and limiting yourself to one hit card.
The topic of counting (or not) in tournaments gets debated at regular intervals over at the bjt site.
Have a read through the following thread. It starts off talking about elimination tournaments, but moves onto accumulation tournaments such as the one you played - https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/threads/6076/
I confess that thread stuck in my mind because of the praise from Ken which my contribution received.
With 15 hands and 8 decks I suspect you may not see a shuffle before the tournament round is over, meaning counting is of no benefit for betting purposes, as described in the above thread.
Last edited:
It's about proper bet sizing.
I don't like your 1/4 BR bet. I think you had 2 options, bet all your BR or half your BR (so you could split if need be).
If you bet half and won you bet the same bet again . If you win the next hand you doubled your BR and bet min. If you lose you go allin on the last hand where a win doubles your BR. If you lose hand 13, 2 allin wins get you there.
If you bet the whole BR on hand 13 you either make it on that hand or you don't. If you double up bet minimum the next 2 hands.
The first option (bet half) gets you there if you win 2 out of 3 hands or a double or split on the 13th hand and win. Allin on hand 13 covers all the scenarios that bet 1/2 gets you except LWW and win both hands of a split. It picks up WLL. There isn't a big difference in the percentages between the 2 but I think allin on hand 13 has a slight edge.
Given the betting mistake, I guess it was OK to split. Simply winning the hand still left you needing to win the next hand otherwise. You put yourself in a bad spot with the 1/4 BR bet.
I don't like your 1/4 BR bet. I think you had 2 options, bet all your BR or half your BR (so you could split if need be).
If you bet half and won you bet the same bet again . If you win the next hand you doubled your BR and bet min. If you lose you go allin on the last hand where a win doubles your BR. If you lose hand 13, 2 allin wins get you there.
If you bet the whole BR on hand 13 you either make it on that hand or you don't. If you double up bet minimum the next 2 hands.
The first option (bet half) gets you there if you win 2 out of 3 hands or a double or split on the 13th hand and win. Allin on hand 13 covers all the scenarios that bet 1/2 gets you except LWW and win both hands of a split. It picks up WLL. There isn't a big difference in the percentages between the 2 but I think allin on hand 13 has a slight edge.
Given the betting mistake, I guess it was OK to split. Simply winning the hand still left you needing to win the next hand otherwise. You put yourself in a bad spot with the 1/4 BR bet.
Last edited:
I say it was a good call, it's a tournament. Counting is not completely useless, but what can you get out of counting in 15 hands that will really help you? If you can get say 30 rounds like some tourneys I've played, it does help. I try to stay ahead of the person to my right as this puts pressure on the people after you. If I have a min bet, and the person after me has a bigger bet that will damage his / her bankroll, I will make moves like splitting almost anything up to the dealer's card of 8, double hard 12's and 13's vs. bust cards, stand on hands I should hit like soft 17's and 18's if the count is there etc. Tournaments are cut throat and you're never playing to make friends.
From Thunder's description I've been assumng it was an accumulation tournament. The others at your table generally have no bearing on how you play such a tournament.
I presume you are talking about messing with the minds of any opponents who happen to believe in the mystical flow of the cards, rather than saying that you believe in such things yourself.
Even with min bets, I'm not sure the benefits of such a tactic will outweigh the costs.
I presume you are talking about messing with the minds of any opponents who happen to believe in the mystical flow of the cards, rather than saying that you believe in such things yourself.
Even with min bets, I'm not sure the benefits of such a tactic will outweigh the costs.
That's very true, but your 'If I have a min bet and the person after me has a bigger bet....' comment is not an example of that. In such circumstances it scarcely matters what you do. Which is why I thought you were talking about messing with the 'flow' of the cards to get under your opponents' skins.
And something like standing on S17 is surely the opposite of what you are describing. For one thing, if you win your hand, so does everyone else at the table who hasn't busted.
I can only think of one circumstance in which it would make sense to stand on a S17 - if you need to match the result of another player and that player has stood on 17 (or is to your left, holding H17, but is unlikely to be desparate enough to hit it.)
If, rather than stand, you choose to hit and then stand on any hard total above 11, avoiding all risk of busting, there's the small chance that you end up on a stiff total and the dealer makes 17, giving your opponent a push.
And something like standing on S17 is surely the opposite of what you are describing. For one thing, if you win your hand, so does everyone else at the table who hasn't busted.
I can only think of one circumstance in which it would make sense to stand on a S17 - if you need to match the result of another player and that player has stood on 17 (or is to your left, holding H17, but is unlikely to be desparate enough to hit it.)
If, rather than stand, you choose to hit and then stand on any hard total above 11, avoiding all risk of busting, there's the small chance that you end up on a stiff total and the dealer makes 17, giving your opponent a push.
It's not to mess up the flow of the cards and I would only do some of these things on high negative or positive counts. I do agree with you on all other points though. But like I also stated, in 15 hands how much can you accomplish other than pure gambling and hunch betting or betting to stay ahead of the competition?