noman
Top Member
Practitioners of egregious hits may put this under the "Strategy" forum. I'm not so sure. Kind of like others thoughts.
If the conventional thought, when playing a session of BJ is, that it doesn't matter what another player does, it's to your benefit the more cards you see and to play your hand by the "book" using your various indices how does one reconcile that in a tournament situation when an opponent intentionally busts a stiff or intentionally stays on a "hit" hand trying to influence the outcome.
Popular myth of course of third base, hitting or not hitting "to give the dealer a bust card."
It's been a while since I've seen the practice in tourney play but recently it occurred at two tables I was on in a tourney.
The first in a preliminary round, third base with 100 bet hit a 19 to a dealer four while I had 1,600 and a six and others had large bets and played "book." Third base caught a 9. Dealer made 19.
Second in semi final. One advance Three in contention on last hand. One completely out of running. BR 1 has me by 1200. I have BR3 by 2000. Max bet 10000. Im last to bet. BR1 bets 100. Br3 bets 10,000. Out of contention all in for five hundered. I bet 9,000. Dealer shows a four. BR3 gets 19 with no money back.
Out of contention hits a 12 catches a nine. I stay on my15. BR1 stays on 14. Dealer hits a 7 for 21.
BR3 is all mad about "out of contention taking the hit when "out of contention" has no shot, believing the 9 he caught would have busted the dealer and erroneously believing he would have won.
I saw nothing to indicate BR1 and "out of contention were collaborating, but then again?
If the conventional thought, when playing a session of BJ is, that it doesn't matter what another player does, it's to your benefit the more cards you see and to play your hand by the "book" using your various indices how does one reconcile that in a tournament situation when an opponent intentionally busts a stiff or intentionally stays on a "hit" hand trying to influence the outcome.
Popular myth of course of third base, hitting or not hitting "to give the dealer a bust card."
It's been a while since I've seen the practice in tourney play but recently it occurred at two tables I was on in a tourney.
The first in a preliminary round, third base with 100 bet hit a 19 to a dealer four while I had 1,600 and a six and others had large bets and played "book." Third base caught a 9. Dealer made 19.
Second in semi final. One advance Three in contention on last hand. One completely out of running. BR 1 has me by 1200. I have BR3 by 2000. Max bet 10000. Im last to bet. BR1 bets 100. Br3 bets 10,000. Out of contention all in for five hundered. I bet 9,000. Dealer shows a four. BR3 gets 19 with no money back.
Out of contention hits a 12 catches a nine. I stay on my15. BR1 stays on 14. Dealer hits a 7 for 21.
BR3 is all mad about "out of contention taking the hit when "out of contention" has no shot, believing the 9 he caught would have busted the dealer and erroneously believing he would have won.
I saw nothing to indicate BR1 and "out of contention were collaborating, but then again?