Dear all,
This time I would like to present my ideas about BJ tournament play, which is such a fascinating area. Before I go into details, just to let you know that my blackjack experience is only 9-month long and my BJ tournament playing history is only half a year. Having said that, I am very happy with the progress I’ve made so far.
I am very glad to have found this forum and would like to thank Ken Smith and every member who makes regular contributions to it. Although having debated with various long-standing members here and even been labeled as a “troll”, my enthusiasm has never been changed.
The purpose of writing this article is to give my sincere comments on Ken’s ebook, namely How to win more blackjack tournaments. I bought this ebook about 2 months ago and have carefully read it quite a number of times. It is no doubt a wonderful read which greatly broadens my view on this subject. Most arguments are well presented and informative, from which I have learnt a lot.
However, after careful reading and pondering, I also found quite a number of problems or ambiguities in this book. My discoveries may not be all accurate, but I believe Ken will be glad to see them and hopefully make his works even better.
I have divided this article into 14 individual discussions based on a variety of points made by Ken in his book, in the order of page numbers.
I welcome your opinions and/or debates.
---------------------------------------------------------
Discussion 1
(Page 12) Once a few hands are complete, the bankrolls at the table will have spread out a little, and now your relative position can help you make a decision on how best to proceed. If you’ve drifted toward the lead, whether by small bets or medium bets, you’ll probably want to consider roughly matching the bets of the other players. If you started out betting small and the dealer has taken more chips from your opponents, it’s probably time to start making slightly larger bets in an attempt to mirror the results of the rest of the table. Similarly, if you’ve drifted upward by virtue of some successful medium-size bets, you will probably want to start reducing your bet size if the rest of the table is mostly conservative. This is a classic application of the concept of correlation betting.
My comments
It might be better for this part to be rephrased into just one sentence: when you are in the lead, the best play is matching most of your opponents’ bets (taking both the high and the low).
Also, this claim is problematic: “If you started out betting small and the dealer has taken more chips from your opponents, it’s probably time to start making slightly larger bets in an attempt to mirror the results of the rest of the table.” Again, here you should simply match their bets because you are in the lead.
Discussion 2
(Page 13) Using the same logic, if you’ve drifted to the back of the pack, you’ll want to do what the other players are not doing. If they’re all betting conservatively, you should be making medium sized bets in an effort to get back into at least the middle of the pack. If you can make small bets while they are making medium bets, do that instead, and hope the dealer makes good hands to close the gap.
My comments
It might be better for this part to be rephrased into just one sentence: when your opponents are in the lead, do not let them match your bet (don’t let them take both the high and the low against you). It is simply the reverse of the previous idea.
Discussion 3
(Page 15) If you’re able to choose your seat in an event like that, it’s well worth the effort to figure out the most likely final button position, and ask for the seat to the immediate right of it.
In events where you can choose your seat, it’s useful to know something about your opponents. If you have a particularly strong tournament player at your table, it would be best to have them seated on your right, where they have less of an advantage over you.
My comments
If that particularly strong player is positioned at seat 2, but the final button position is also seat 2, which seat will you choose? Seat 3 or seat 1? In another word, which factor is more important, final button position or a particular strong opponent?
Discussion 4
(Page 19) Let’s start by looking at the simplest possible situation, a two-man race on the final hand. For our example, we’re on the final hand in a $5-$500 betting tournament. You have $1,500, your opponent has $1,400 and you’re on the button, forced to bet and act first. Many players in this seat will push out a $5 bet, in effect saying "Come and get me if you can." And, honestly, any reasonable bet you make in this position offers your opponent the same shot at taking the high by making a large bet.
By betting only $5, you guarantee that the only possible way you can advance is if your opponent pushes or loses the hand. He’s guaranteed to make a bet large enough to cover a possible win by you, and he’ll probably cover your doubles as well without even thinking about it. If he bets $200, or $500, or in fact anything over $140, your $5 bet is absolutely meaningless.
Now, consider what happens if you bet almost your lead instead, with a bet of $95. If your opponent makes a max bet, you’re in nearly the same situation as before. But, sometimes your opponent may make a mistake here, betting just enough to cover your win. For example, he may see your $95 bet, add the $100 deficit, and assume he needs to win more than $195. If he bets only $200, you just got an extra way to win.
My comments
When you bet $5, your opponent can still make the same “mistake” by betting just enough ($110) to cover your win so you can still double down to win. When you bet $95, your opponent can still do the correct thing by covering your double/split. What is the difference between a $5 bet and a $95 bet in his eyes?
In this situation, if you bet less than $200, your opponent can always cover your double with a single bet or simply bet maximum to secure a high against you.
If you bet over $200, on the other hand, you opponent can instead take a pure low by betting less than $100.
In this example (a two-man race), there is no better bet because you are betting first. Your opponent can always choose to take the high or take the low. Your chance of advancing hinges on pure luck or your opponent’s mistake (e.g. he bets behind you and simply matches your bet, allowing you to have both the high and the low!)
Discussion 5
(Page 21) My advice for tournament novices is actually a mix of the two styles. Until you’re pretty comfortable with endplay, a solid approach is to start conservative but switch gears in mid-round with aggressive bets designed to take the lead. Why wait? Because an early lead isn’t really worth that much since it gives all your opponents too many hands to catch up.
My comments
In the preceding article, you said: “If the entire table is making small bets, it’s often wise to make an early large bet.” But now you are saying we should wait because “an early lead isn’t really worth that much since it gives all your opponents too many hands to catch up.”
All cards are random. Can you predict precisely at what hand you will win? No. So trying to bet big to take the lead at any point is valid, because the outcome will be the same: you either take the lead or lose your large bet, which purely hinges on luck. Whether you win the lead in the beginning, the middle or the end, and opponents are trying to catch up, the odds are the same for everyone (therefore the statement “By postponing your attempts to take the lead, you’re more likely to be able to hang onto the lead until the end if you are successful with your large bets” is invalid, because no matter when you attempt to take the lead, odds remain exactly the same).
Discussion 6
(Page 22) Things aren’t quite as easy if you must bet ahead of your opponents, even with the lead. No matter whether you bet big or small, your opponents will likely be able to exploit your bet in one direction or the other. If your lead is large enough, you may be able to make a sizeable bet without over-betting your chip lead. That’s often the best choice in these situations, so it’s a good rule of thumb. For example, if you lead by $1,000, you may find that a bet of $900 is quite effective. With smaller leads, that can become a dangerous choice, particularly when many opponents are close to you. In those cases, you may have to make a large bet ahead of your opponents, and just hope you get good cards.
My comments
It depends. For example, if the bet range is $5-$200, you are leading by $1000 with $2000 and your opponent is trailing with $1000, you can simply bet minimum to become a lock. If you bet $900, you will be risking a single bet win swing.
If the bet range is $5-$2000, you are leading by $1000 with $6000 and your opponent is trailing with $5000, how much should you bet? If you bet less than the deficit (say $900), your opponent can bet max to take the high. If you bet more than $1010, your opponent can bet min to take the low. Your best bet here should be $1000 or $1005 to take the full advantage of the deficit.
In a word, when you are leading by $1000, you should place your bet based on specific situations (table limit, bankrolls, etc.)
Discussion 7
(Page 23) Another rich area for increasing your advantage is considering the possible bets of the trailing players, in fourth or fifth place. As the chip leader, even if you need to make a large bet, you might want to consider the worst-case scenarios and try to avoid a "swing" by the players with the lowest chip totals (meaning your opponent wins the hand, while you lose your hand). For example, if the fourth-place chip count has only $2,000 compared to several players with around $5,000, you may want to keep at least $4,000 unbet since it’s likely that the player with $2,000 might go all-in this hand. If he wins the hand while you lose it, you’d hate to let him pass you on this hand if a small change in your bet amount could have avoided it.
My comments
Absolutely no. If you need to make a large bet, do it without considering anything else, because that large bet is your optimal bet. Say, you are the chip leader and most people are betting big, then you should bet big (match their bet) to have both the high and the low. If most people are betting small behind you, then you should match their small bets. Simply match most players’ bets without considering one single player’s move (the fourth-place in the example above).
Let’s have a look at an example, if you have $5500 and most players have around $5400 and they bet $2000 (max), you should match their bet by betting at least $2000, even if the fourth-place has only $2000 and goes all-in. If you hold at least $4000 unbet chips, you will give up the high to all the other competitors. If any one of them wins, you are no longer the chip leader.
Discussion 8
(Page 27) Let’s imagine our tournament allows betting limits of $5 to $1,000, and we’re trailing the leader with $2,000 in chips compared to his $2,050. The good news is that we’re only $50 out of the lead. The bad news is that the leader can margin our bet easily, since we’re "on the button" and must bet first. The dealer is waiting for your betting decision, and time is running out. How can you decide the best bet size? If there are several hands yet to go in the round, it would be nice to take the lead here, but we don’t want to risk any more chips than are necessary to help the cause.
…
So, when in doubt, try to bet five-times the deficit. If a bet that large endangers your position to other players at the table, consider betting four-times or two-times the deficit instead. Worst case, drop back to 1x plus a chip.
My comments
For a two-man race this is true. But when multiple players are in the game it is quite another story. Consider this situation: 2 players will advance, you are BR2 and must bet first, and multiple players are trailing you by a small margin. What is your best bet? Still follow the 2, 4, and 5 rule? I think the answer is no. You’d better bet high enough to ensure you win if all win (taking the high), regardless what the deficit between BR1 and you is. If other players are trailing you by a large margin (say over two max bets), just bet the minimum to be a lock, again, regardless what the deficit between BR1 and you is. If you are betting ahead of BR1, but behind other players, then simply place a correlation bet based on their bets.
Simply put, in a multiple-player situation as described above, you should not worry about BR1 by following the 2, 4 and 5 rule, but focus on those trailing opponents.
Discussion 9
(Page 30) If I'm trailing by $100 and bet $105, BR1 betting after me will often make a small bet. After all, if they bet a mere $10, they'll have the high, right? Well, that's true, but I can then double for as little as $10 to steal the high back. Depending, of course, on the status of other bankrolls at the table, BR1 is usually better off with a larger bet here. BR1's single bet win covers a double win by his opponent as long as he bets $115 or more here.
Perhaps you've noticed one problem with a $115 bet. Yes, you might lose while your opponent pushes, giving him a $15 lead over you. If both players use basic strategy, that happens about 5% of the time. Your opponent will win a double down a lot more often than that 5%, so you should cover the double instead of worrying about the "push loss swing". (If surrender is available in this tournament, the larger bet play gets even stronger, as you can surrender your way out of some situations where there is a high probability of the push-loss.)
My comments
The key issue here is that BR1 is not capable of preventing a sing bet win-loss swing (not push-loss swing), because BR2 has bet more than the deficit ($105). In this situation, the best play for BR1 is always covering BR2’s double/split win if he can afford it, while taking both the high and the low.
However, whenever BR1 can prevent a single bet swing while still keeping the high and the low, then probably he should do it even at the cost of not being able to cover your opponent’s double/split win, which is less probable.
Using the same example, if BR2 bets only $90 (less than the deficit), you should only bet the minimum $5 to take both the high and the low, meanwhile prevent a win-loss swing. If you worry about a double/split win by BR2 and bet $85 to cover it, then you will risk a single win-loss swing (BR2 wins his $90 while you lose your $85).
If you will give up your low when covering your opponent’s double win, then you should only choose to keep both the high and the low. This is all about most probable outcomes / highest percentage play.
Of course if there are many other players in the game and you don’t have to bet big to be the leader, you should make a decision based on specific situations. That’s another story.
Discussion 10
(Page 35) By doubling for less, BR2 has forced BR1 to let him have the high. BR1 can't afford to split, because then BR2 advances if they both lose.
My comments
Yes doubling for less here is the best play for BR2. However, I think BR1 should still split his pair. If he does, he will win if both win (remember he splits his 9s against dealer’s 8 upcard, which basic strategy prefers), and he will also win if he only loses one hand (which is quite common) while BR2 loses. Of course by splitting he is giving up the low, that is when he loses both hands and BR2 also loses, he will be out. But how likely is that?
Also, if BR1 does a free double (for less) with his high pair, it is most likely for him to bust which renders this effort almost meaningless, while it is more likely for him to win if he splits his 9s.
Discussion 11
(Page 38) Let’s turn up the heat on Player B a bit. Player A has $1,800 and Player B has $1,100. Player A should bet at least $305 here, to cover a double-down max-bet win by B. In fact, since $405 covers a three-bet all-in win by B, I’d advise that amount. Unfortunately, either of those two bets opens a small window of opportunity for Player B. Still, it’s worth the risk. Besides, it gives us a chance to illustrate playing for a swing.
My comments
Player A should only bet $55 here to lock player B out. If he bets $305, or $405 or something like that, he will risk a sing bet win swing (if he loses while player B wins his all-in bet). A sing bet win swing should be considered before a double/split max win by player B.
The bet of $55 has two major benefits: 1) covering player B’s possible Blackjack win while taking both the high and the low and 2) preventing player A’s loss by a swing (if player B wins by a single max bet while player A loses, player A still wins). In this situation, player B must win a double or split to advance, which is less likely.
Discussion 12
(Page 45) In fact, knowledgeable players have for years relied on a one-sentence strategy from Stanford Wong’s book “Casino Tournament Strategy.” When discussing situations where you must win two bets, he says, "When you do split a pair, you should stand on any stiff because your best chance of winning both bets is by the dealer busting."
My comments
Perhaps you should explain a bit further the reason why you should stand on any stiff contrary to the basic strategy. Is it because that it will be very unlikely you can make a hand without busting on two stiffs? Also, if basic strategy means highest percentage play, why should we go against it just because we must win two bets? Personally I think if you stand on both stiffs against dealer’s picture card, you will be more likely to lose than you follow basic strategy and hit.
Discussion 13
(Page 45) The dealer shows an 8. Wong’s strategy says stand on the stiff, and hopes the dealer busts. But in this case, my first hand is so strong, it’s a very likely winner. Shouldn’t I now play the second hand more like basic strategy says, by hitting to 17 or better?
Almost. It turns out in this situation, with the first hand of 21 and a dealer 8 showing, you should hit to at least 16. I should hit my 15 once, and stand even if I draw an Ace on it.
My comments
You say “by hitting to 17 or better”, but immediately after that you say “I should hit my 15 once, and stand even if I draw an Ace on it”. A bug here? Why do you stand on hard 16 instead of hitting to 17, as basic strategy says?
Discussion 14
(Page 45) The exact strategy in each situation depends on two factors: Your first hand total, and the dealer upcard. The following table shows the correct total at which to stand based on the situation. As an example, if your first hand is 20 and the dealer shows a 9 up, you should stand at 15 or higher.
(Page 46) There’s one "exception that proves the rule." If you happen to draw a 12 vs. 7, you should hit it once more. That’s the only time you should risk busting your first hand.
…
Let’s say you split 7s against a dealer 7. If we draw a 5 on the first hand, we should hit it again. (The single exception, 12 vs. 7, remember?) If we then draw an 8 for 20 on the first hand, our strategy on the second hand should be “stand at 16 or higher.”
My comments
I think it is better to explain the reasoning behind it instead of simply offering the conclusion, which is essential for readers to learn.
This time I would like to present my ideas about BJ tournament play, which is such a fascinating area. Before I go into details, just to let you know that my blackjack experience is only 9-month long and my BJ tournament playing history is only half a year. Having said that, I am very happy with the progress I’ve made so far.
I am very glad to have found this forum and would like to thank Ken Smith and every member who makes regular contributions to it. Although having debated with various long-standing members here and even been labeled as a “troll”, my enthusiasm has never been changed.
The purpose of writing this article is to give my sincere comments on Ken’s ebook, namely How to win more blackjack tournaments. I bought this ebook about 2 months ago and have carefully read it quite a number of times. It is no doubt a wonderful read which greatly broadens my view on this subject. Most arguments are well presented and informative, from which I have learnt a lot.
However, after careful reading and pondering, I also found quite a number of problems or ambiguities in this book. My discoveries may not be all accurate, but I believe Ken will be glad to see them and hopefully make his works even better.
I have divided this article into 14 individual discussions based on a variety of points made by Ken in his book, in the order of page numbers.
I welcome your opinions and/or debates.
---------------------------------------------------------
Discussion 1
(Page 12) Once a few hands are complete, the bankrolls at the table will have spread out a little, and now your relative position can help you make a decision on how best to proceed. If you’ve drifted toward the lead, whether by small bets or medium bets, you’ll probably want to consider roughly matching the bets of the other players. If you started out betting small and the dealer has taken more chips from your opponents, it’s probably time to start making slightly larger bets in an attempt to mirror the results of the rest of the table. Similarly, if you’ve drifted upward by virtue of some successful medium-size bets, you will probably want to start reducing your bet size if the rest of the table is mostly conservative. This is a classic application of the concept of correlation betting.
My comments
It might be better for this part to be rephrased into just one sentence: when you are in the lead, the best play is matching most of your opponents’ bets (taking both the high and the low).
Also, this claim is problematic: “If you started out betting small and the dealer has taken more chips from your opponents, it’s probably time to start making slightly larger bets in an attempt to mirror the results of the rest of the table.” Again, here you should simply match their bets because you are in the lead.
Discussion 2
(Page 13) Using the same logic, if you’ve drifted to the back of the pack, you’ll want to do what the other players are not doing. If they’re all betting conservatively, you should be making medium sized bets in an effort to get back into at least the middle of the pack. If you can make small bets while they are making medium bets, do that instead, and hope the dealer makes good hands to close the gap.
My comments
It might be better for this part to be rephrased into just one sentence: when your opponents are in the lead, do not let them match your bet (don’t let them take both the high and the low against you). It is simply the reverse of the previous idea.
Discussion 3
(Page 15) If you’re able to choose your seat in an event like that, it’s well worth the effort to figure out the most likely final button position, and ask for the seat to the immediate right of it.
In events where you can choose your seat, it’s useful to know something about your opponents. If you have a particularly strong tournament player at your table, it would be best to have them seated on your right, where they have less of an advantage over you.
My comments
If that particularly strong player is positioned at seat 2, but the final button position is also seat 2, which seat will you choose? Seat 3 or seat 1? In another word, which factor is more important, final button position or a particular strong opponent?
Discussion 4
(Page 19) Let’s start by looking at the simplest possible situation, a two-man race on the final hand. For our example, we’re on the final hand in a $5-$500 betting tournament. You have $1,500, your opponent has $1,400 and you’re on the button, forced to bet and act first. Many players in this seat will push out a $5 bet, in effect saying "Come and get me if you can." And, honestly, any reasonable bet you make in this position offers your opponent the same shot at taking the high by making a large bet.
By betting only $5, you guarantee that the only possible way you can advance is if your opponent pushes or loses the hand. He’s guaranteed to make a bet large enough to cover a possible win by you, and he’ll probably cover your doubles as well without even thinking about it. If he bets $200, or $500, or in fact anything over $140, your $5 bet is absolutely meaningless.
Now, consider what happens if you bet almost your lead instead, with a bet of $95. If your opponent makes a max bet, you’re in nearly the same situation as before. But, sometimes your opponent may make a mistake here, betting just enough to cover your win. For example, he may see your $95 bet, add the $100 deficit, and assume he needs to win more than $195. If he bets only $200, you just got an extra way to win.
My comments
When you bet $5, your opponent can still make the same “mistake” by betting just enough ($110) to cover your win so you can still double down to win. When you bet $95, your opponent can still do the correct thing by covering your double/split. What is the difference between a $5 bet and a $95 bet in his eyes?
In this situation, if you bet less than $200, your opponent can always cover your double with a single bet or simply bet maximum to secure a high against you.
If you bet over $200, on the other hand, you opponent can instead take a pure low by betting less than $100.
In this example (a two-man race), there is no better bet because you are betting first. Your opponent can always choose to take the high or take the low. Your chance of advancing hinges on pure luck or your opponent’s mistake (e.g. he bets behind you and simply matches your bet, allowing you to have both the high and the low!)
Discussion 5
(Page 21) My advice for tournament novices is actually a mix of the two styles. Until you’re pretty comfortable with endplay, a solid approach is to start conservative but switch gears in mid-round with aggressive bets designed to take the lead. Why wait? Because an early lead isn’t really worth that much since it gives all your opponents too many hands to catch up.
My comments
In the preceding article, you said: “If the entire table is making small bets, it’s often wise to make an early large bet.” But now you are saying we should wait because “an early lead isn’t really worth that much since it gives all your opponents too many hands to catch up.”
All cards are random. Can you predict precisely at what hand you will win? No. So trying to bet big to take the lead at any point is valid, because the outcome will be the same: you either take the lead or lose your large bet, which purely hinges on luck. Whether you win the lead in the beginning, the middle or the end, and opponents are trying to catch up, the odds are the same for everyone (therefore the statement “By postponing your attempts to take the lead, you’re more likely to be able to hang onto the lead until the end if you are successful with your large bets” is invalid, because no matter when you attempt to take the lead, odds remain exactly the same).
Discussion 6
(Page 22) Things aren’t quite as easy if you must bet ahead of your opponents, even with the lead. No matter whether you bet big or small, your opponents will likely be able to exploit your bet in one direction or the other. If your lead is large enough, you may be able to make a sizeable bet without over-betting your chip lead. That’s often the best choice in these situations, so it’s a good rule of thumb. For example, if you lead by $1,000, you may find that a bet of $900 is quite effective. With smaller leads, that can become a dangerous choice, particularly when many opponents are close to you. In those cases, you may have to make a large bet ahead of your opponents, and just hope you get good cards.
My comments
It depends. For example, if the bet range is $5-$200, you are leading by $1000 with $2000 and your opponent is trailing with $1000, you can simply bet minimum to become a lock. If you bet $900, you will be risking a single bet win swing.
If the bet range is $5-$2000, you are leading by $1000 with $6000 and your opponent is trailing with $5000, how much should you bet? If you bet less than the deficit (say $900), your opponent can bet max to take the high. If you bet more than $1010, your opponent can bet min to take the low. Your best bet here should be $1000 or $1005 to take the full advantage of the deficit.
In a word, when you are leading by $1000, you should place your bet based on specific situations (table limit, bankrolls, etc.)
Discussion 7
(Page 23) Another rich area for increasing your advantage is considering the possible bets of the trailing players, in fourth or fifth place. As the chip leader, even if you need to make a large bet, you might want to consider the worst-case scenarios and try to avoid a "swing" by the players with the lowest chip totals (meaning your opponent wins the hand, while you lose your hand). For example, if the fourth-place chip count has only $2,000 compared to several players with around $5,000, you may want to keep at least $4,000 unbet since it’s likely that the player with $2,000 might go all-in this hand. If he wins the hand while you lose it, you’d hate to let him pass you on this hand if a small change in your bet amount could have avoided it.
My comments
Absolutely no. If you need to make a large bet, do it without considering anything else, because that large bet is your optimal bet. Say, you are the chip leader and most people are betting big, then you should bet big (match their bet) to have both the high and the low. If most people are betting small behind you, then you should match their small bets. Simply match most players’ bets without considering one single player’s move (the fourth-place in the example above).
Let’s have a look at an example, if you have $5500 and most players have around $5400 and they bet $2000 (max), you should match their bet by betting at least $2000, even if the fourth-place has only $2000 and goes all-in. If you hold at least $4000 unbet chips, you will give up the high to all the other competitors. If any one of them wins, you are no longer the chip leader.
Discussion 8
(Page 27) Let’s imagine our tournament allows betting limits of $5 to $1,000, and we’re trailing the leader with $2,000 in chips compared to his $2,050. The good news is that we’re only $50 out of the lead. The bad news is that the leader can margin our bet easily, since we’re "on the button" and must bet first. The dealer is waiting for your betting decision, and time is running out. How can you decide the best bet size? If there are several hands yet to go in the round, it would be nice to take the lead here, but we don’t want to risk any more chips than are necessary to help the cause.
…
So, when in doubt, try to bet five-times the deficit. If a bet that large endangers your position to other players at the table, consider betting four-times or two-times the deficit instead. Worst case, drop back to 1x plus a chip.
My comments
For a two-man race this is true. But when multiple players are in the game it is quite another story. Consider this situation: 2 players will advance, you are BR2 and must bet first, and multiple players are trailing you by a small margin. What is your best bet? Still follow the 2, 4, and 5 rule? I think the answer is no. You’d better bet high enough to ensure you win if all win (taking the high), regardless what the deficit between BR1 and you is. If other players are trailing you by a large margin (say over two max bets), just bet the minimum to be a lock, again, regardless what the deficit between BR1 and you is. If you are betting ahead of BR1, but behind other players, then simply place a correlation bet based on their bets.
Simply put, in a multiple-player situation as described above, you should not worry about BR1 by following the 2, 4 and 5 rule, but focus on those trailing opponents.
Discussion 9
(Page 30) If I'm trailing by $100 and bet $105, BR1 betting after me will often make a small bet. After all, if they bet a mere $10, they'll have the high, right? Well, that's true, but I can then double for as little as $10 to steal the high back. Depending, of course, on the status of other bankrolls at the table, BR1 is usually better off with a larger bet here. BR1's single bet win covers a double win by his opponent as long as he bets $115 or more here.
Perhaps you've noticed one problem with a $115 bet. Yes, you might lose while your opponent pushes, giving him a $15 lead over you. If both players use basic strategy, that happens about 5% of the time. Your opponent will win a double down a lot more often than that 5%, so you should cover the double instead of worrying about the "push loss swing". (If surrender is available in this tournament, the larger bet play gets even stronger, as you can surrender your way out of some situations where there is a high probability of the push-loss.)
My comments
The key issue here is that BR1 is not capable of preventing a sing bet win-loss swing (not push-loss swing), because BR2 has bet more than the deficit ($105). In this situation, the best play for BR1 is always covering BR2’s double/split win if he can afford it, while taking both the high and the low.
However, whenever BR1 can prevent a single bet swing while still keeping the high and the low, then probably he should do it even at the cost of not being able to cover your opponent’s double/split win, which is less probable.
Using the same example, if BR2 bets only $90 (less than the deficit), you should only bet the minimum $5 to take both the high and the low, meanwhile prevent a win-loss swing. If you worry about a double/split win by BR2 and bet $85 to cover it, then you will risk a single win-loss swing (BR2 wins his $90 while you lose your $85).
If you will give up your low when covering your opponent’s double win, then you should only choose to keep both the high and the low. This is all about most probable outcomes / highest percentage play.
Of course if there are many other players in the game and you don’t have to bet big to be the leader, you should make a decision based on specific situations. That’s another story.
Discussion 10
(Page 35) By doubling for less, BR2 has forced BR1 to let him have the high. BR1 can't afford to split, because then BR2 advances if they both lose.
My comments
Yes doubling for less here is the best play for BR2. However, I think BR1 should still split his pair. If he does, he will win if both win (remember he splits his 9s against dealer’s 8 upcard, which basic strategy prefers), and he will also win if he only loses one hand (which is quite common) while BR2 loses. Of course by splitting he is giving up the low, that is when he loses both hands and BR2 also loses, he will be out. But how likely is that?
Also, if BR1 does a free double (for less) with his high pair, it is most likely for him to bust which renders this effort almost meaningless, while it is more likely for him to win if he splits his 9s.
Discussion 11
(Page 38) Let’s turn up the heat on Player B a bit. Player A has $1,800 and Player B has $1,100. Player A should bet at least $305 here, to cover a double-down max-bet win by B. In fact, since $405 covers a three-bet all-in win by B, I’d advise that amount. Unfortunately, either of those two bets opens a small window of opportunity for Player B. Still, it’s worth the risk. Besides, it gives us a chance to illustrate playing for a swing.
My comments
Player A should only bet $55 here to lock player B out. If he bets $305, or $405 or something like that, he will risk a sing bet win swing (if he loses while player B wins his all-in bet). A sing bet win swing should be considered before a double/split max win by player B.
The bet of $55 has two major benefits: 1) covering player B’s possible Blackjack win while taking both the high and the low and 2) preventing player A’s loss by a swing (if player B wins by a single max bet while player A loses, player A still wins). In this situation, player B must win a double or split to advance, which is less likely.
Discussion 12
(Page 45) In fact, knowledgeable players have for years relied on a one-sentence strategy from Stanford Wong’s book “Casino Tournament Strategy.” When discussing situations where you must win two bets, he says, "When you do split a pair, you should stand on any stiff because your best chance of winning both bets is by the dealer busting."
My comments
Perhaps you should explain a bit further the reason why you should stand on any stiff contrary to the basic strategy. Is it because that it will be very unlikely you can make a hand without busting on two stiffs? Also, if basic strategy means highest percentage play, why should we go against it just because we must win two bets? Personally I think if you stand on both stiffs against dealer’s picture card, you will be more likely to lose than you follow basic strategy and hit.
Discussion 13
(Page 45) The dealer shows an 8. Wong’s strategy says stand on the stiff, and hopes the dealer busts. But in this case, my first hand is so strong, it’s a very likely winner. Shouldn’t I now play the second hand more like basic strategy says, by hitting to 17 or better?
Almost. It turns out in this situation, with the first hand of 21 and a dealer 8 showing, you should hit to at least 16. I should hit my 15 once, and stand even if I draw an Ace on it.
My comments
You say “by hitting to 17 or better”, but immediately after that you say “I should hit my 15 once, and stand even if I draw an Ace on it”. A bug here? Why do you stand on hard 16 instead of hitting to 17, as basic strategy says?
Discussion 14
(Page 45) The exact strategy in each situation depends on two factors: Your first hand total, and the dealer upcard. The following table shows the correct total at which to stand based on the situation. As an example, if your first hand is 20 and the dealer shows a 9 up, you should stand at 15 or higher.
(Page 46) There’s one "exception that proves the rule." If you happen to draw a 12 vs. 7, you should hit it once more. That’s the only time you should risk busting your first hand.
…
Let’s say you split 7s against a dealer 7. If we draw a 5 on the first hand, we should hit it again. (The single exception, 12 vs. 7, remember?) If we then draw an 8 for 20 on the first hand, our strategy on the second hand should be “stand at 16 or higher.”
My comments
I think it is better to explain the reasoning behind it instead of simply offering the conclusion, which is essential for readers to learn.
Last edited:
