BJT Falls View Casino, Jan.11 2012

I would bet 145 and keep the low. In this scenario, you can assume that player A will bet max, what ever you bet, but player B will take the low on you if you give him a chance. With 145 you can possibly get a split hand and get a lot more money on the table if you need it for high.

If you bet the max even though you may get a winning hand. I am sure at least player player B will take the low on you. With both A and B able to do wierd things behind you, I believe your ultimate advance % will be lower than 42%.

Larry

 

Assuming the max bet is 500 per Gronbog's tournament, I can think of one other bet scenario. If you bet 430, then assuming A bets 500 and B takes the low with 275, then if A gets a BJ or a good DD hand, you can DD for a chance at the high. If B gets a BJ, then you only have to win your hand.

However, I still don't believe this would be better than keeping the low to start with.

 

Larry brings up a good point, and shame on me... this was essentially a no-max bet situation, different than Gronbog's 500 limit at Niagara.

 

Well, with nomax I would just bet 5000 and let the chips fall where they may.

Larry

 

here comes bj

Let’s keep in mind that in Leftnut situation when both opponents bet at least 2,700 (almost certainty) one or the other opponent gets a blackjack 9% of the time.
BR1 advancement rate from winning big bet drops to below 35% and the total chance if just one of the opponents keeps more unbet chips is below 39%.
Betting a minimum is the best bet.
Except, when we guess that chance of both of them going all-in is better than about 10% where we gain advancement when all three players (including us) lose.

S. Yama

Ooops! Corrected couple hours later.
I jumped to the conclusions too quickly. I should have considered blackjack only when BR1 wins, so it applies less than half the times. That makes value of either bet (min or 5,000) almost identical but big bet slightly better.
S. Yama

 

Will post results tomorrow

Anyone else? Remember, 2nd player to act is clueless bomber and 3rd (last) to act is very smart player.

Still feel like a complete ass for neglecting to point out the no-max situation, thereby screwing up Larry's & Gronbog's considerable analyzations. :sad:

 

I have only one thing more to say about it. A and B have the same number of chips. If you take the low, then there is no reason for them to hold back. I believe they will both bet 5000 and your hand becomes superfluous.

Suppose dealer has a 4 and both A and B have 13. Normally they would stand. You would have about 60% advance rate. However A and B will tie and be in a playoff if dealer busts. Assuming they have 50% chance of winning a playoff, then their individual advance rate would be 20%. It would not surprise me for at least B to hit his hand at least once if A stands. This does not help you at all and hurts your chances if B catches 5-8. I believe these are some of the wierd plays that can go on and increases the chance that one of them will win a hand. Who knows they may be friends and have some kind of agreement. After all only one can advance.

At least if I bet the 5000 and get a BJ or win the hand I advance.

OOPs, if I win the hand and A or B does not have a BJ.

Larry

 

Here's what happened

I took the absolute low. Thought process was caused by having 1 Bomber and 1 SmartGuy after me. If I bomb in and Bomber does as expected, then SmartGuy is going to take the low on me - he'll never be so dense as to bomb in as well. He will bet enough so that his BJ will blow past my win but still have the low. I cannot do anything about preventing a lockout if either of them BJ's. By taking this route, I've given up my own lock if I get a BJ but have also eliminated the lose-push against both opponents.

Had I been facing two bombers or two smart guys, my play would have been different. Situations like this are why getting a read on your opponents can be quite useful.

By the way, it worked.