No limit on the last hand

[The_Professional]

Hi I am playing in a BJ tournament in a local casino. The limit is 25-1000 but on the last hand there is no limit. Only one person advance, except for final round where everyone gets paid something. I am trying to figure out optimal strategy. Any quick advice is appreciated, as I am playing in a few hours

 

[gronbog]

Hmmm, looks like this may come too late for you, but I'll throw out a few thoughts anyway.

Regardless of the limit on the final hand, you still want to use the usual techniques (progressions, correlation, opposition, etc.) to put yourself in position before the final hand. At a 1 advance table, you generally want to be BR1 on the final hand. If you succeed, then the no limit bet on the final hand isn't much of a factor. You can still use the normal methods of protecting your lead, but with the lack of limits factored in.

If things don't go your way, for whatever reason, and you are not BR1, sometimes the no limit bet on the final hand can be a blessing. It makes it less likely that your opponents are completely out of reach on that final hand. For this reason, I generally play a more conservative game in the early going. Once again, you can try some of the usual strategies, but with the strength of your entire bankroll behind you. Sometimes being more than a max bet down on the second to last hand suddenly becomes a within 1/2 a bet situation on the final hand and you can take the high. Or you suddenly have enough chips to try Curt's Revenge or to bet according to the rules of 2, 4 and 5.

One property of no limit final hands that you can also consider is the tendency for players to go all-in without thinking. This is especially true of players who are behind, but is done more often than you might expect by players in the lead. This gives you the opportunity to beat these players low by holding back some chips. If players who bet before you do this, then all you need is a single chip. For players who bet after you, it will be a judgment call but, in general, on a a no limit final hand they will often bet more than usual and sometimes enough to give you an opportunity.

 

[The_Professional]

Thank- very insightful. I played less aggressive than usual because of this rule. I came BR2 in the final hand. BR1 had 7600, I had 4600 and BR3 had 3400. BR1 bets first, me second and then BR3. BR1 went all way in. I kept 100 more than BR3 and played 1100. BR1 got 9, I get two 6s and BR3 got a stiff. The dealer showed and Ace (no insurance allowed). I was hoping the dealer will get a blackjack but did not. BR1 hit got 5 and now he has 14 and I am thinking this is good, as I am the only one on the table with unbet chips. BR1 hit and gets 6 for total of 20. I hit and get 9 for total of 21. I think Br3 busted. The dealer hole card was a 7 for a total of 18. BR1 wins. I am not sure my bet was a good one, as I realized later than I gave an opportunity for BR3 to beat me if she won. I was afraid that if bet more she might bet minimum and takes the low.

 

[gronbog]

I like your bet. There was some discussion here a while back about how, with 3 in contention, it's slightly better to go for the first high than the first low, but you didn't have that option. If you had a read on BR3 that he might also go all-in, then yes, you could have covered that. Without that kind of read, I think that going for the first low (which you did) was your next best option. It just didn't work out this time.

BR1's bet is a classic example of what I was talking about in my initial response. He could have virtually locked out BR3 and retained the low against you with a small bet. Instead, he went all-in. It's also an example of how being almost out of it without the no-limit final hand turned into a reasonable opportunity with it.

 

[Monkeysystem]

Generally when three or more are still in close contention for one spot and everyone can go all in, BR1 should take the high from early position. If BR1 is in late position there might be a little more flexibility.

But in the situation in this thread, the players were not in close contention. From any position (early or late) BR1 can get a commanding advantage with a bet of 2975. It gets the high, and covers a push by BR2 even with a loss. It also gets a virtual lock on BR3.

The Professional's bet was pretty good. When BR2 has position on BR1, BR2 should take what (if anything) is offered by BR1. BR1 offered BR2 first low, and BR2 took it. In addition to getting first low BR2 also covered BR3's push in the event he and BR1 both lost. A bet of 1125 to 1175 would have been a very, very tiny bit better because it keeps all these benefits and adds an extra, albeit unlikely, way to win. The double down covers BR3 while BR1 loses. The bet of 1100 puts BR2 in a tiebreaker with BR3 in the event he doubles down and wins, BR3 wins, and BR1 loses.

 

[BughouseMaster]

Good post monkeysystem, but wouldn't a bet of 1625 (or 2000 to cover a BR2 BJ) by BR1 simply be enough? That bet not only gets the high, covers a BR2 push even with a loss, but also if BR2 goes all in BR1 could simply double and still be able to end up with more chips (10825) than him. I just dont see the need to throw out more chips out there when 1625 adequately does the job unless BR2 gets a BJ (unless you were figuring that BR2 would BJ but even then your 2925 bet would still not be enough). It seems that BR1 is a 96% favorite in that situation with 1625 as his bet since the ONLY way he'd not advance is if dealer beats BR1 but not BR2.