First BJ Tournament Ever - A Couple of Questions

[LovinItAll]

First, I never said I was great,,,but rather very dangerous. With my AP Skillz I could swing another player, players, lightining fast.

Clearly when you are about to lose a, move on position, near the end of the round you have to act out of desperation, a situation you never want to be in,,,you also never want a pissing contest in the last 2 hands, you need patience and skillz and a complete immersion,,zoning in that game. Know the other players if possible and their play, habits. Knowing how to bet once in the lead is important. But you must use the AP skills you have to your advantage,,because no one on that table may be as good as you,,probably not even close in AP skills.

I do have good friends that are great players, and they have huge losing streaks that has them ready to give up the tourney game, so luck and getting the cards play a large part,,but AP SKILLZ negate that to a great degree.

Enjoy the tourney, they are high drama with great adrenalin rushes:grin:

CP

Ah, I wasn't being facetious or sarcastic about your greatness! I meant what you meant - if you say you have solid expereince and are a threat, I have no reason to doubt you and appreciate the advice

I really really like this post, too. Since I'm a complete noob in tournament play, every piece of good advice I can get is important.

You're right about rounds 1 & 2 of course, and given that entry into this tourney is based on table play (including non-BJ) at Station Casinos and no direct buy-in is available, I wonder if the overall skill level of players will be slightly less? At any rate, three advancing the first two rounds is good for me, as hopefully it will give me time to settle in and get a feel for the game.

I have no ego as far as winning the entire table in those rounds, so the strategy of just trying to lock up a top three is where my mind is. There are a couple of things that will also help me in this particular tournament (I think), like No Surrender, so no screw up getting baited by that trap.

Read a good article by Ken about doubling for less, and on the flip side, an example of splitting T's in a last hand situation against a double where the T splitter has position. Not sure I would have been sharp enough to figure that out on my own the first time it came up, but both are good examples of the different strategies required in tourney play.

As I said earlier, just having the mindset that it's a betting game played with cards instead of a card game that one bets helps tons with my perspective, especially having experience separating the two in the past in other games.

Once again, I really appreciate everyone taking the time to reply. I know it may be naive, but I'd like to make a good showing. At the very least I'd like to walk away knowing that I wasn't a complete bone head if I bust out, you know?

Best ~ LIA

 

[tthree]

Good luck

Good lucK Lia. Feel free to ask more questions. It sounds like you are a lot more prepared than most . With no initial buy in you are more likely to see fewer skilled players just a cross section of those who gamble at that casino.

 

[LovinItAll]

Hand 23 (of 24)
1 Merritt $700.00 $200 9 5 14 $200.00
2 Swanson $550.00 $50 6 8 14 $50.00
3 Barnard $875.00 $50 5 4 4 13 $50.00
4 ==> Townsend$907.50 $5 8 A 19 $5.00
5 Edney $312.50 $200 T 4 14 $200.00
6 Eric L $680.00 $200 + $200 + $200 + $80 6 3 Dbl 6 / 6 3 Dbl T 15 / 19 $680.00
Dealer Upcard 2 2 T 2 8 Bust

I wanted to go through some hand analysis and get some opinions. This hand is from BJT.com. This is the last round, Hand 23 of 24.

Townsend (OTB): With the $5 bet, he can easily be overtaken by a small bet by Barnard. What do you think of the $5 bet?

Edney: Running out of time here. During this hand history, doubling opportunities occur about 33% of the time (don’t know the real percentages). If he loses this bet, he’s left with $112.50 and probably out of the running. Do you like this bet or a larger bet here?

Eric: $200 seems like a good bet. The result was obviously stupendous.

Merritt: Another seemingly good bet here.

Swanson: With $550 left and having position, the $50 seems light after seeing the leader bet $5. What do you think?

Barnard: In it with his bet unless something crazy happens (like a quad double).

I could be way off the mark, but if y’all have time, I’d like opinions.

Best ~ LIA

Edit: I'm not implying that these aren't good players. I'm just trying to get into their brains. Swanson went deep in two events (and won one of the two I've looked at so far), so I'm not questioning their ability.

 

[tthree]

Townsend knows he has position on the last hand. He wants to have as much ammunition as possible.

Edney bet his split option away. Dont like it. All in or half bet that can be split.

Eric bet just small enough to have a shot if he losses this hand. He knows Townsend has position. Looking for a middle on the last hand. Tough with this position good players behind would take high and low. Middle may be out of reach. But Townsend's bet probably will keep middle within reach. Probably needs more money on the table but hoping a middle will win.

Merritt bet just small enough to give him a shot if he losses. He has enough on the table to be in the hunt with a win but Townsend with position will likely take the high or low. Too many people behind him to be sure Townsend and Barnard dont take high and low. He should be in good position for the middle.

Swanson wants to still have a shot if he losses. With his position a more aggressive bet may be the move. With enough chips he should be able to take either the high , middle or low and would put more pressure on Barnard on this hand and both Townsend and Barnard on the last hand. His bet doesnt give him much of a chance but insures he has a chance.

Barnard is betting enough to be in the lead going into the last hand even if Townsend gets triple his bet in play as long as nothing crazy happens. It is a conservative play but with his position he should be in good shape heading into the last hand win or lose.

With the conservative play of all the players an aggressive move on this hand may have won the tournament. Swanson is the only one with enough information to take advantage of this when he bet. Barnard played it smart he didnt need an aggressive move.

 

[LovinItAll]

@tthree: I appreciate your analysis. I understand your logic re: their logic. I hope you can overcome the urge to look and tell me what you think you would do in the following situation if you were each player (obviously using flow-through logic based on whatever you think the button should bet):

Hand 23 of 24 (max bet = T-2500)

1 ==> Popovich $6900
2 Gonzales $7900
3 Kimbrell $5850

I'll post the results and the final hand after someone answers. I think one of the players made a betting potentially costly error during the last two hands - I'll be interested to see what everyone else thinks.

I really want to try and post key hands from the event I'm playing in to get feedback from the good folks here (especially if I get very lucky and advance), but I'm not sure I'll be able to remember the details. Funny how after one has played a particular game for a long time that the details are easy to recall, but seem harder to remember if the game is new. I've never spent any time trying to recall other people's BJ hands (some are memorable, of course), but I'll see what I can do.

Take care ~ LIA

 

[tthree]

@tthree: I appreciate your analysis. I understand your logic re: their logic. I hope you can overcome the urge to look and tell me what you think you would do in the following situation if you were each player (obviously using flow-through logic based on whatever you think the button should bet):

Hand 23 of 24 (max bet = T-2500)

1 ==> Popovich $6900
2 Gonzales $7900
3 Kimbrell $5850


Take care ~ LIA

Popovich will have position on the last hand. He may have some idea how the others will bet by now from the way they have played so far. The others are likely to base their bets on how he bets this round. If he bets big Gonzales is likely to mimic to protect his lead. He wants to save his ammunition anyway if he can. If Kimbrell bets max and doesnt get BJ or double or split a win will give him 8350. A bet large enough to cover a max bet win would be 1450. With his position he probably doesnt want to bet that big. A bet of 600 or 750 probably is best considering position. It manages Kimbrell just fine for the last hand and may is enough to keep Gonzales within reach on a max bet win. A swing on a mimic bet by Gonzales would give him the lead. But they are likely to have the same decision other than push. With his position and enough ammunition he can possibly win before he even has to decide how to play his hand on the final hand. I really think this size bet will get Gonzales to max bet being worried about his position. Hopefully he losses. Paradoxically I probably wouldnt max bet if I were Gonzales. Im conservative by style.

Gonzales would really like to be ahead by more than a max bet going into the last hand. His bet will be determined by how Popovich bets. He wants to both protect his lead and get more than 2500 ahead of Popovich. Unfortunately he has to choose one unless they have opposite decisions. He is 1000 ahead of Popovich. His best chance at this point given position and the current chip counts is to protect his lead play for a low on the last hand. He needs to be more than 1 min bet ahead of Popovich preferably 5. He should mimic Popovich. In the unlikely event that Popovich bets big his lead allows him to shave up to 800 off of that bet. His other option max bet. Im not really sure whats better. Given worst position on the last hand he could max bet here and hope for a win.

Kimbrell being 1000 and 2000 behind needs a swing here. If the other people in front bet big he should bet small and vise versa. Basicly bet the opposite of Gonzales.


To the professionals at tournament blackjack they will quickly know the odds of a dealer getting any hand totals given his upcard combine with the other player totals and position to determine how to grab the highest probability of winning be it hi, lo and/or middle when playing his hand. There is a strategy table on blackjacktournaments.com with all that information. It is invaluable in playing the last hand.

 

[creeping panther]

tthree

Popovich will have position on the last hand. He may have some idea how the others will bet by now from the way they have played so far. The others are likely to base their bets on how he bets this round. If he bets big Gonzales is likely to mimic to protect his lead. He wants to save his ammunition anyway if he can. If Kimbrell bets max and doesnt get BJ or double or split a win will give him 8350. A bet large enough to cover a max bet win would be 1450. With his position he probably doesnt want to bet that big. A bet of 600 or 750 probably is best considering position. It manages Kimbrell just fine for the last hand and may is enough to keep Gonzales within reach on a max bet win. A swing on a mimic bet by Gonzales would give him the lead. But they are likely to have the same decision other than push. With his position and enough ammunition he can possibly win before he even has to decide how to play his hand on the final hand. I really think this size bet will get Gonzales to max bet being worried about his position. Hopefully he losses. Paradoxically I probably wouldnt max bet if I were Gonzales. Im conservative by style.

Gonzales would really like to be ahead by more than a max bet going into the last hand. His bet will be determined by how Popovich bets. He wants to both protect his lead and get more than 2500 ahead of Popovich. Unfortunately he has to choose one unless they have opposite decisions. He is 1000 ahead of Popovich. His best chance at this point given position and the current chip counts is to protect his lead play for a low on the last hand. He needs to be more than 1 min bet ahead of Popovich preferably 5. He should mimic Popovich. In the unlikely event that Popovich bets big his lead allows him to shave up to 800 off of that bet. His other option max bet. Im not really sure whats better. Given worst position on the last hand he could max bet here and hope for a win.

Kimbrell being 1000 and 2000 behind needs a swing here. If the other people in front bet big he should bet small and vise versa. Basicly bet the opposite of Gonzales.


To the professionals at tournament blackjack they will quickly know the odds of a dealer getting any hand totals given his upcard combine with the other player totals and position to determine how to grab the highest probability of winning be it hi, lo and/or middle when playing his hand. There is a strategy table on blackjacktournaments.com with all that information. It is invaluable in playing the last hand.

Nice analysis tthree!

CP

 

[tthree]

How much do you risk for for a big return

I want to make sure you understand the importance of the low particularly in worst position. A high or middle are usually subject to crazy events like a string of doubles and/or splits. Thats the need for the rule of 2,4,5. If you are in a position to take the low, you own it. No crazy events can take it from you. If Gonzales bets max on hand 23 with the expected play by Popovich he probably will give up the low if he loses. But if he wins he can own the low and probably pick up the middle and maybe the high. I am risk averse and would prefer not to risk it. It would be betting a sure chance at winning from the low for almost a lock on winning the tournament. Betting max may be the right move but I would probably not do it. If he loses he would need to be lucky to win.

 

[LovinItAll]

I want to make sure you understand the importance of the low particularly in worst position. A high or middle are usually subject to crazy events like a string of doubles and/or splits. Thats the need for the rule of 2,4,5. If you are in a position to take the low, you own it. No crazy events can take it from you. If Gonzales bets max on hand 23 with the expected play by Popovich he probably will give up the low if he loses. But if he wins he can own the low and probably pick up the middle and maybe the high. I am risk averse and would prefer not to risk it. It would be betting a sure chance at winning from the low for almost a lock on winning the tournament. Betting max may be the right move but I would probably not do it. If he loses he would need to be lucky to win.

I understand the importance of being able to take the low if available. The more I read, the less I realize I know, though, but that seems to be true of most things, right? One of the first things I read was the rule of 2,4,5, so I get that, too. All of your input has been very helpful - I just hope I can take a good part of what I'm learning to the table and not draw a blank when I sit down. Does the casino allow people to bring notes? I would think not, but unless I ask......

The actual betting from Hand 23:

1 ==> Popovich $6900 $600 8 6 T Bust -$600
2 Gonzales $7900 $2500 T 2 T Bust -$2500
3 Kimbrell $5850 $800 2 3 T T Bust -$800
Dealer Upcard 8 8 A 19

My thoughts (just my honest thoughts that I wrote down before I asked the question):

Popovich - Though I understand the logic behind the $600 bet, $1050 seems like a viable option, too. If Gonzales mimics the bet - which he looks to do I think - then fine if they get the same result. If they don't, though, Popovich will either be in the lead or very close to it if Kimbrell max bets and wins.

Gonzales - After seeing Popovich bet $600, this $2500 bet seems large to me. If he wins, he should win the event, but if he loses, he's going to need some luck. It looks like he was trying to win the tournament in this hand.

Kimbrell - What are his options after seeing the other two bets? He can bet max and hope Gonzales loses. If Popovich wins and Gonzales loses here, Kimbrell is in much better shape than he was ging into this hand. His $800 bet seems to be saying the same thing: He needs Gonzales to lose this hand. If one of the players is going to gamble on this hand, I would have thought Kimbrell should be the guy. I understand better about going for the swing now with the bet that's opposite of Gonzales's.

Not nearly as good of an analysis as tthree, but those were my thoughts.


And the stacks for the final hand:

Hand 24
1 Popovich $6300
2 ==> Gonzales $5400
3 Kimbrell $5050

Any thoughts?

Thanks ~ L.I.A.

 

[LovinItAll]

And an additional question about the rebuy:

I agree that a rebuy should only be used as a last resort, I have no idea at what point a player must make the decision (if it can ba made after the final hand, then I have no question). If, though, one must decide whether to take a shot prior to the final hand, would you wait until the last available rebuy opportunity, or would you take your shot when you were x times behind the leader?

Sorry if the question shows my ignorance, but I'm ignorant to the rules re: when a player can rebuy and the rules don't say anything other than "during the first round". There may be some common rule that everyone (but me) knows.

 

[tthree]

And the stacks for the final hand:

Hand 24
1 Popovich $6300
2 ==> Gonzales $5400
3 Kimbrell $5050

Any thoughts?

My first thought Kimbrell wasted his best opportunity. Gonzales bold move probably cost him the tournament.

Gonzales bet the low away. I think max bet is in order here. He has no idea what the others will do. Their decisions are based on his and will take away any plans he may make. Put the pressure on.

Kimbrell probably needs to follow suit with a max bet. He could pass Gonzales with a smaller bet and a swing but the big stack has position. If Popovich is smart that probably wont be enough. Max bet.

Popovich's play is so obvious its laughable. He bets 850 or even 899. This gives him the low and position. Everyone else is going to act first. He can either let the dealer beat them or them beat themselves or double anything(or split) depending upon the odds of each outcome. With the low and a strong dealer card he will probably stand but that depends on what happens in front of him. Notice a double bet win now gives him 8200 with an 850 bet. 98 more if he maximizes his advantage. The others need to put more money out to block that option. Gonzales can only make it to 7900 with a flat max bet. Kimbrell is likely to double anything if Gonzales ends up in a strong situation. Gonzales may bust before he plays though.

Note if the game offers surrender he should bet twice that!!!!!

 

[zengrifter]

Thank you for your opinion as well. I think I have 'rudimentary tournament strategy' down pretty well. As far as counting goes, it seems there are varying opinions regarding its value.

Here is an opinion - Ken Smith says "no [meaningful] value". zg

 

[zengrifter]

With 2:1 blackjack tracking aces might be a good idea even if you use an ace reckoned count.

Disagree, but I would say yes to KEYING Aces. (maybe) zg

 

[LovinItAll]

Here is an opinion - Ken Smith says "no [meaningful] value". zg

From Anthony Curtis (article on BlackJackTournaments.com), ostensibly a Wong tournament team member:

"If you know how to count, you'll do it while you play, and there's nothing wrong with that in the early stages. In fact, in one-advance formats where it's almost certain that you'll have to make at least one (preferably uncorrelated) big bet sometime during the round, making that bet early and according to the count will improve your results over the table. But in the last five to ten hands, you're out of your mind if you maintain the count at the expense of all the more important things there are to be aware of, like an accurate accounting of the threatening bankrolls."

I'm not takling sides on the count debate - I have enough to learn that has nothing to do with counting. As I said, there seems to be mixed opinions as to the value of counting during tournaments.

Take care ~ L.I.A.

 

[LovinItAll]

And the stacks for the final hand:

Hand 24
1 Popovich $6300
2 ==> Gonzales $5400
3 Kimbrell $5050

Any thoughts?

My first thought Kimbrell wasted his best opportunity. Gonzales bold move probably cost him the tournament.

Gonzales bet the low away. Hand 24
1 Samad $50 $ $0
2 Popovich $6300 $2200 + $2200 7 4 Dbl 2 13 -$4400
3 ==> Gonzales $5400 $2500 T 9 19 $0
4 Kimbrell $5050 $2500 + $2500 T 2 Dbl 7 19 $0
Dealer Upcard T T 9 19
. He has no idea what the others will do. Their decisions are based on his and will take away any plans he may make. Put the pressure on.

Kimbrell probably needs to follow suit with a max bet. He could pass Gonzales with a smaller bet and a swing but the big stack has position. If Popovich is smart that probably wont be enough. Max bet.

Popovich's play is so obvious its laughable. He bets 850 or even 899. This gives him the low and position. Everyone else is going to act first. He can either let the dealer beat them or them beat themselves or double anything(or split) depending upon the odds of each outcome. With the low and a strong dealer card he will probably stand but that depends on what happens in front of him. Notice a double bet win now gives him 8200 with an 850 bet. 98 more if he maximizes his advantage. The others need to put more money out to block that option. Gonzales can only make it to 7900 with a flat max bet. Kimbrell is likely to double anything if Gonzales ends up in a strong situation. Gonzales may bust before he plays though.

Note if the game offers surrender he should bet twice that!!!!!

Here are the results of Hand #24:

Hand 24
1 Popovich $6300 $2200 + $2200 7 4 Dbl 2 13 -$4400
2 ==> Gonzales $5400 $2500 T 9 19 $0
3 Kimbrell $5050 $2500 + $2500 T 2 Dbl 7 19 $0
Dealer Upcard T T 9 19

Final results:

Player Final Bankroll Place Prize Money
Tom Gonzales $5400 1st $6000
Larry Kimbrell $5050 2nd $3000
Steve Popovich $1900 3rd $1500

tthree:
Re: Gonzales - "...put the pressure on."
Re: Kimbrell - "Max bet."
Re: Popovich - "He bets 850 or even 899"


Okay, I guess Popovich's logic on the $2200 bet was, "If Kimbrell gets a double, I can double and still win." I don't really get the $850 recommended by tthree.

@tthree: Will you run the 850/899 logic by me again? Sorry for being so dense. I would have thought, discounting doubles, that Popovich's only other option would have been to bet $1650, which loses to a successful double by either of the other players.

Thanks.....

 

[tthree]

Here are the results of Hand #24:

Hand 24
1 Popovich $6300 $2200 + $2200 7 4 Dbl 2 13 -$4400
2 ==> Gonzales $5400 $2500 T 9 19 $0
3 Kimbrell $5050 $2500 + $2500 T 2 Dbl 7 19 $0
Dealer Upcard T T 9 19

Final results:

Player Final Bankroll Place Prize Money
Tom Gonzales $5400 1st $6000
Larry Kimbrell $5050 2nd $3000
Steve Popovich $1900 3rd $1500

tthree:
Re: Gonzales - "...put the pressure on."
Re: Kimbrell - "Max bet."
Re: Popovich - "He bets 850 or even 899"


Okay, I guess Popovich's logic on the $2200 bet was, "If Kimbrell gets a double, I can double and still win." I don't really get the $850 recommended by tthree.

@tthree: Will you run the 850/899 logic by me again? Sorry for being so dense. I would have thought, discounting doubles, that Popovich's only other option would have been to bet $1650, which loses to a successful double by either of the other players.

Thanks.....

As a preface to this I want to point out a few things. The professionals at tournament blackjack have the dealer outcome committed to memory. And no doubt have the player outcome for their starting hands committed to memory. For them the correct play is determined by a quick decision tree. If I do option A I have a 46% chance of winning. Option B gives me a 48% chance of winning. Option C gives me a 30% chance of winning. I will do option B because that gives me the best chance of winning. It is very cut and dry math they have trained themselves to do quickly. They dont like counting at this point because it muddies the water. It puts to many undeterminable variables in the equation. They want definitely do this option that can quickly determined with certainty. There is only 1 answer. It doesnt matter how the cards fall the correct answer is the one that gives you the highest probability of winning. Obviously if you photographic memory that could remember a different outcome tables for each true count, counting would be a tremendous advantage.

My second point which has to do with my betting decisions rather than the general playing decisions is this. I am risk averse by nature. My decisions will reflect that. Stay in the hunt and grab as much of the winning percentage as you can. They are not necessarily the best decisions but do tend to allow you to have a shot going down the stretch.

By owning the low you know you have a certain percent(not sure how much) of the possible outcomes. When the cards are dealt you may regret or like how much that is. The actual chance that you would choose the double option is very low. The only scenario I could think of was dealer stiff versus both opponent stiffs and you have a unbustable double hand. Gonzales would stand. Kimbrell doubles and busts. Now with a double you can take the high which now may be more likely to win than your low.

Your way may be more desirable. It leaves you with position a better chance to adjust your decision to the cards. You technically may still have the low but you are vulnerable to player pushes. If the player hits to 19 v T as in this case winning the push by your opponent makes the usually less risky stand or hit with no chance of busting more than 50% win rate. If the count is negative it is higher than that.

My bet was risk averse including the push by Gonzales in the low. It made me more likely not to follow a low percentage play because it was now the best option. In this case with an 11 doubling obviously wouldnt be low percentage but would not be done because Kimbrell still has you covered with his double. As you can see the risk averse approach would have won the tournament for every player had they been the only one to change their play that was done. That doesnt mean that that will always be the case. Or is even the best choice.

 

[LovinItAll]

@tthree: Thank you. I thought when you were making the $850 bet recomendation you were saying that any other bet was certainly wrong, but I understand much better now. I, too, am risk averse, and I would prefer a more conservative playing style that has less 'gamble' in it, though there are obviously times when one must take a shot.

I also understand how dealer outcome based on up card can potentially influence a tournament decision. For whatever reason, I geeked it up once and memorized that table. Maybe it'll come in handy during the event.

I'm really bummed now that I discovered that my original thought that three players from the first two rounds advanced from each table was incorrect. That's only during the main event. Seems I'll have to be a luck box to a much larger degree to get through the satellite. On the flip side, I had never investigated tournament blackjack before, so I'll probably check out other events in Vegas after this freeroll. Even if equity may not be there in some events for a seasoned player, it's enough of a novelty for me that diminished equity will be less of a consideration. I haven't looked yet, but I'm sure there's a listing of BJ tournaments somewhere on the web.

Again, I really can't tell you how much I've appreciated your responses. Thank you for taking the time to post your analysis and the lengthy explanations. I'll pay it forward when there's a post I know something about, like:

- "What do you do when you find a boy in your daughter's bedroom at 3 A.M.?" (Can't answer that yet - statute of limitations isn't quite up)
- "If x = y, then why does z always seem to lose"? (Just because...)
- "How to win big at sports betting." (Bet opposite of me)

...or other important questions.

Thanks again ~ LIA

 

[tthree]

I was glad to help.

Please note in the first example it would have been the aggressive move on hand 23 that would have won the day. Everyone seemed to be playing fairly risk averse. It was only by luck that caution turned into a big move. When its time to make your move throw caution to the wind and take your best shot (position). I like it when a small bet is my move but that choice is decided by the other persons wager. Risk aversion gets you far but when it wont be far enough go for it.

Sometimes it is the contrarian who covers the most ground.

 

[LovinItAll]

Results:

My first round didn't go very well. Still, on Hand 19 (of 20) I had a chance, but I lost my big bet. Rebuy.

During my 'rebuy' round, I never bet more than T300 through 19 hands. I calculated that I would have position on the 20th hand, but one player busted out on Hand 18, so I had the button on Hand 20.

(I'm not saying I played this round - or the final hand correctly, but...)

Chip count after Hand #19: (2 Players Advance)

Player #1: Billions of chips...maybe more.
====>Me: T-3300
Player #3: T-2000

I probably thought about this longer than I should have, but I finally bet 800. Player #3 bet the ranch.

I swear, as soon as I saw Player #3's 1st card, the Jc, I already knew the result. To add insult to injury, it was the As that made his blackjack, which paid 2:1.

IDK, maybe there was a better bet on the end. T-2800 (or T-1400 and hope for a double opportunity) was the only bet that would have covered a BJ, but that surely couldn't have been correct. More aggression earlier in the round was probably the answer, but I was so card dead through both heats that I thought the uber-conservative approach was fine. Player #3 had to double up on Hand 19 to even get within striking distance. ~20:1 against my opponent on the last hand, right? He could have bet T-600 and hoped for a win against a loss for me, and I guess I could have bet the minimum and made him beat me.

Aside from possibly poor play earlier in the round, if I made a betting error on the end, I'd appreciate some feedback. On Hand 19, I thought about betting large enough to lock it up, but as it was, I lost my small bet (19 v. 20) anyway.

And on another note, I took the ML on the Dodgers only to see Billingsley pitch a one-hit game....and lose. Game tied for the lowest hit total of the season (5), though the sluggers for both teams had a true shot at mediocrity going into the bottom of the 9th with just 4 hits between both teams.

WTF ever.....

Best ~ LIA

 

[tthree]

Good play

I think you played it right. He had position on you. He had to play for a swing. If he bet large enough a blackjack beat you unless you bet 2701 or more. If you did that with you having to play your hand first you make it possible for him to beat you without winning his hand. The way you played it he needed the swing or blackjack. Had he not gotten a blackjack he would have had to hit to at least 20 to get the swing. If the dealer flipped a 20 rather than hit to 20 he needed a 21. Not that the cards that fell had anything to do with which play was correct but it just helped to illustrate what pressure you were putting on him.