No Set Number of Hands

[gronbog]

I received the official rules for an upcoming event in the mail (https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/oldtourn/viewtourn.php?infoID=1984). They were a translation from French into English and, as such, there were some awkwardly worded portions. In particular, the bad translation left the number of hands to be played on the final table unspecified. The rules simply stated that "The first player eliminated will receive $X, the 2nd will receive $Y, ...".

One interpretation of this could be that there would be no set number of hands, but that play would continue indefinitely until only one player remained. It turns out that this is not the case (I called and found out that the final round will be 21 hands), but it got me thinking about how I would approach things if it were true.

The starting bankroll is $10,000, $25 minimum and no maximum. There would be 7 players at the beginning of the round. Prizes and rules are as described in the calendar entry.

How would you approach this?

 

[London Colin]

I'm not sure I'd enter it in the first place. There is no guarantee it would ever end!

I suppose proportional betting would be the obvious way to approach it, but maybe betting a very conservative fraction of the full Kelly bet, since survival seems to be more important than growing your BR (at least to begin with).

 

[Monkeysystem]

Minimum

I'd bet the minimum nonstop and play basic strategy. May the best ploppie win.

 

[gronbog]

I was also thinking about some bet spread according to bankroll and the count, but I was thinking that a spread more aggressive than Kelly might be in order.

Kelly is designed to protect a real money bankroll from ruin over the course of one's AP career. This situation is a little bit different. The number of hands played, while indefinite, will still be small. We can achieve the same risk of ruin with larger bets over the course of a smaller number of hands. Just how much larger we can afford to spread? That I don't know.

Another approach might simply to be the highest bettor during good counts and bet minimum otherwise. That way you would ride the roller coaster of variance together with your biggest competition but with a slight overall edge. I suppose that some limit (see above) would be in order so as not to follow those who are clearly over betting into the abyss.

Is there any reason to abandon standard correlation techniques should one find oneself in the lead?

 

[leilahay]

If it were player banked with a rotating button such as London described recently, then no set hands would work more like a poker tournament. Coiuld be interesting.

 

[gronbog]

If it were player banked with a rotating button such as London described recently, then no set hands would work more like a poker tournament. Coiuld be interesting.

The problem of two possibly stubborn minimum bettors could be addressed by having the minimum increase as plays progresses, similar to how the blinds increase in poker.

 

[leilahay]

I think that there was a tournament in Tulsa that worked that way 5-6 years ago. Even with increasing minimum bets every 30 minutes, it took forever. I believe it was the early hours of the morning before there was a winner. It's been a while and I don't clearly remember all the details. I do know I finished in the money.

 

[PlayHunter]

It can increase/double the minimum betting level each 5 or 10 hands, it would be better. Also another idea to make sure it will not take forever to finish, is if a dealer/first base button is used, then after a table tour the minimum bet is doubled. For example if there are 7 players at the table, then the minimum bet will be doubled each 7 hands. If some players bust out of chips by being too aggressive, and only 4 players remain at a table, then the minimum bet level will be doubled each 4 hands.. and so on.. this way when only two players will remain at a table, it will be really quick since the minimum bet level is doubled every two hands.