Maybe I'm over thinking this and I should just play basic strategy and vary my bets when I need to, but tell me what you think about this (anyone). At the tourney table where 1 advances out of 6 and youre all playing the dealer, would it make sense to deviate from the basic strategy if it means you get to do the opposite of everyone else? Since youre all playing the same dealer, just as in blackjack, you will all have similar results. Let me give an example... One of the simplest strategies to play, which is almost as effective as the optimal strategy for losing as little as possible in this house game, is to raise if you have A, K, J, 8, 3 or better. Lets say you are last to make your move and all of your opponents have folded. You dont have a hand that is A, K, J, 8, 3 or better, but maybe you should raise anyway. Here's my thinking. Even though youre not playing exactly correct, the house edge you will be giving up will be worth the return if you win and all 5 others lose because they folded? Meaning if you fold too, you know you just lost around the same amount as the rest of the table (depending in what you bet), which means youre still a long shot of advancing (1 in 6). If you lose, you will be even farther behind, but you will have other chances to oppose and correlate if you get ahead, hey its a long shot to advance anyway. It seems like if you do the opposite, and the game goes your way, you will have no one else to battle it out with at the end and you have a great shot of advancing. If you play like everyone else, youre chances are still about 1 in 6. I dont know. If you make a play that gives up some more house edge, but will put you way ahead of the pack if you win, should you make the play? I've thought of this in BJ tourneys for insurance situations, but decided against it... Has anyone else thought of this, and if so what do you think would be a good rule of thumb, or am I just over thinking things? thanks, Rounder21
