Proper play of big ace

Hi--Just posted an introduction, and am looking for some insight on a topic that I haven't seen discussed in past threads.

I've started playing in a weekly hybrid tournament that gives every player at the final table a "Big Ace"--an ace that can be played once during any of the 15 hands as your first card. The tournament itself has a $500 initial stake, $5/500 bet limits, BJ pays 2:1, 6 decks, dealer must hit soft 17, double on anything, split and re-split (except aces) and double allowed, insurance, and no surrender.

It seems like virtually everyone waits to play their Big Ace until the last or second to last hand. In the five finals I've reached, I've instead played my Big Ace anytime after the 7th hand as soon as the button has passed me and I can make a maximum bet. Here's my thinking:

1. Everything I've read emphasizes how important it is to be the BR leader going into the last two hands--using the Big Ace sometime during the middle hands maximizes that chance.
2. By using it early, I achieve the biggest swing against the other players who are typically betting near minimum amounts; holding it until the last hand leads to 3 or 4 players correlating.
3. Because the ace is so advantageous, I always want to make a max $500 bet with it, and if I wait until the last hand or two, my bankroll might have been reduced to less than a maximum bet.

I realize these are all kind of squishy points, but can't really imagine how number-crunching could help guide toward optimal play. Any thoughts?

Thanks--Acercher

 

I think this is an interesting topic to discuss. Thanks for bringing it up. My initial reaction would be to use it in the last hand. The points you made are all good points and it shows that you did some reading already. I agree with you that if making a big bet it is probably better not to wait till the last 2 hands and to make it while others are making a small bet. In the case of an ace, it usually gives you a big advantage (52%) when BJ pays 3:2. It is higher of course in this case as BJ pays 2:1. You need this the most in the last hand. The main reason that it is better to get ahead towards the end rather than the middle, is that there will be less rounds left for others to catch up with you.

 

As you've probably guessed, one of the advantages of the Big Ace is that it can be used to turn any hand containing a face card into a natural. Roughly speaking, after playing the big ace as the first card, we will then be dealt a natural 4/13=30.76% of the time. This is huge, especially if a natural pays 2 to 1. The big Ace is also very valuable because we are guaranteed to be dealt a soft hand when we use it. This guarantees that you will be able to get two bets working via a double or a split without busting. Lastly, as The Professional has pointed out, you are more likely than normal to simply win your hand. Anywhere from 43.39% vs the dealer's Ace to 56.82% vs his 6.

The answer to the question of when to play it is, as always --- it depends. It depends on

• whether you are in the lead (save it for later)
• whether the leaders are betting wildly (save it for later)
• whether you can catch the leaders without it (save it for later)
• whether the tournament is no max bet (probably save it for later)
• whether you really and truly need the lead NOW (use it NOW)

I think that you are best to save it for the last hand, if possible, or for one of the last few hands at the very least. Your thinking about keeping it until the button has passed for the final time is good. If you use it as early as the 7th hand however, your opponents have plenty of time to adjust their strategy and catch you. Once they do, you have wasted your most powerful weapon, while they probably still have it. The key to advancing/winning in table game tournaments is to not only get the lead, but to keep it. This is best done as late in the round as possible. Doing so on the final hand gives you a lock. This is a good reason to use the Big Ace to get the lead as late in the round as possible.

The other reason for you to keep your Big Ace until near the end in your particular tournament is simply because, according to you, virtually everyone else does. If you begin the final hand without your Big Ace while other players still have it, you better have at least a 2 x max bet lead, or minimally be able to cover 2 x max bet wins by your opponents. Otherwise you will find yourself getting beat on the final hand over and over again. On the other hand, If you still have it, and you have the lead, then you can effectively neutralize the Big Aces held by your opponents.

This all leads to a question. You have mentioned that, while you have made the final table regularly, you have yet to win the tournament. How many times did you get beat by the Big Ace on the final two hands, after using yours early? I'm betting that it's happened a few times. Watch the other tables and count the percentage of times the table advancers are the ones who held on to their Big Aces until near the end (or conversely, how many times did someone who used it early manage to advance/win).

So to summarize, you want to use the Big Ace to get the lead as late in the round as possible. If you can get the lead without it, then you are a huge favorite on the final hand. Otherwise you need to use it to get at least 1 max bet lead going into the final hand so that you can cover 2 x max bet wins by your opponents who still have it.

 

On a similar topic, I have seen a similar weapon which was called the Hot Ace. This allowed you to replace any card in your hand at any time with an Ace. This is even more powerful than what you describe and opens up all kinds of possibilities for creating naturals and for winning multiple bets. Definitely something to hold onto until near the end of the round.

 

In partial compensation for my rudeness in not thanking The Professional and (Mr.) Gronbog for their kind replies to my question, I thought I would post a follow-up now that almost a year has passed. I have followed the advice to wait to play the Big Ace until the last or second-to-last hand, and have finished first five times, second once, and third once. (I confess I still don't really understand why that approach has been so comparatively successful given that it leads to a lot of correlation on the last bet, as opposed to a big swing if played in the late middle of the round, but I'm not going to argue with success and the guru who sparked it). So a belated thank you!

My current question is, I think, more complicated. When, and how, is it advantageous to deviate from the optimum basic strategy for a particular set of blackjack rules?

The two deviations I am familiar with are: (1) "when a push is as bad as a loss," leading to standing rather than hitting certain marginal hands to lessen the chance of busting, and (2) when behind at the end of the round, doubling or splitting when you wouldn't normally so as to make more than the maximum bet. There doesn't seem to be any logic connecting these two deviant strategies, which makes me wonder if there is any method for figuring out other possible situations favoring deviations from optimum basic strategy. (Actually, I guess a third deviation could arise on the final hand, based on the results of prior players' hands, leading to non-typical standing/hitting decisions. But again, all three circumstances supporting deviations seem almost random, so there could be no other, or thirty other, situations).

So, any thoughts on when and how it would be advantageous to deviate from optimum strategy in other situations?

Thanks--Acercher

 

You are very welcome. We all learn from each other here. May be you could clarify what do you mean by "optimum strategy" first. Do you mean BJ basic strategy or tournament optimum play?

 

Well, I'm going to open my kimono here and admit that I didn't realize there was a difference between BJ basic strategy and tournament optimum play. I knew there were small variations in basic strategy depending upon what set of rules a casino chose to apply, but didn't realize there were (other than the three "deviations" I referenced above) a recognized set of differences between basic strategy and optimum tournament play. I feel like the grasshopper.

 

Have a look through the rest of the tournament strategy threads and you will see examples of extreme departures from the normal basic strategy. Each arrived at using logic, math, intuition and/or simulation. It's not always a case of there being a modified strategy chart for different situations. Think of it more like "I need to make something happen" and then think about which of the actions available to you is most likely to make that happen. I once doubled a hard 19 because it was the only play which gave me a chance to advance on the final hand.

You mentioned one such simple situation -- Push is as bad as a loss. In this case you are trying to minimize the probability of losing or pushing your hand. A related situation is Push is as good as a win. There is also a good discussion about how to play in order to maximize your odds of winning 2 bets, i.e. which pairs to split and which ones to double and how to play the splits. There are also free hit situations, which are situations in which you can hit stiff hands in order to improve them with no risk and, as you mentioned, situations where standing can give you a lock. You'll find them all in the threads here as well as in Ken Smiths books.

While those are common categories of strategy deviations, there are an infinite number of individual situations which depend on the exact bets, cards, actions already chosen by players on your right, the skill level of the players on your left, etc. Each may have an optimal strategy departure which is unique to the situation. With a bit of experience and some general principles, you can become good at figuring them out, even in the heat of battle, with the aid of logic.

You mentioned that the departures you have seen seem random, and this may indeed have been the case. Many players see what look to be crazy plays made in tournaments and think that that's what you're supposed to do. So they make random crazy plays. In reality, for the skilled player, each basic strategy departure is carefully considered and chosen for a specific reason related to the goal for that hand.

 

Thank you. I will order Ken Smith's books, and re-look at the strategy threads. I think I was trying to fill in a map, rather than wandering around the territory itself.

I understand when "I need to make something happen," such as needing to double the maximum bet, it may be smart to split face cards against a dealer's 6, while doubling down on two face cards remains a "random crazy play." One is a somewhat small deviation from basic strategy, and the other is a large and stupid deviation. However, that does raise the possibility that someone with the right mathematical background could create a very helpful chart. Specifically, basic strategy presents us with a set of rules regarding when to hit, double, or split. But (as far as I know) it doesn't give us any guidance regarding when stepping over the border of one of those rules is risking the equivalent of a mosquito bite rather than a gator bite. So wouldn't it be helpful if someone could create a chart ranking the deviations from basic strategy from relatively minor (and thus useful tactics to put in your tool chest) to relatively major (and thus so ineffectual as to used only in desperate times)? I have no idea if that is feasible, but it might make an interesting project for someone so inclined....

Best regards--Acercher

 

For some common situations, this has already been done. As you point out, there are existing charts for push is as bad as a loss, push is as good as a win, need to win 2 max bets and others. However, there are an infinite number of unique specific situations, all requiring different departures, so it would not be possible to even catalogue them all, let alone rank them.

 

There are situations when it is useful to have a sense of the cost of deviating from BS. (in terms of the probability of winning/pushing/losing the hand)

For example, if you are BR1 and have sized your bet to correlate with BR2, you may find yourself faced with the dilemma of either sticking with that idea and standing to guarantee that you stay ahead of BR2, or making a BS hit (worrying more about the gains the other players may make on you if you lose the hand).

 

Monkeysystem--Thank you. Most people (including me, nowadays) do save the Big Ace until the last hand. The primary exception I've seen in other people is when their bankroll slips to about 50-75% of the max bet-- then they tend to play their Big Ace, presumably to try to get back in contention and for fear that their bankroll may continue to decline, rendering the Big Ace ever less valuable. But I'm now such a convert to holding the Big Ace until the last hand that I'd rather continue counter-betting, or go all-in with my diminished bankroll without the Big Ace, and hoping for my bankroll to recover enough to use the Big Ace effectively at the final hand.

London Colin--your first sentence is exactly what I was trying to get at, but couldn't quite articulate. You did trigger another thought, which I've just posted in another thread. Thanks.