Value of DD to cover DD if you play first

Monkeysystem

Monkeysystem

Top Member
Staff member
I recently witnessed a bad beat in a semifinal. Here was the situation:

Last hand, 1 advance, bets 5-200, no surrender

=> BR1 1,565 bet 135 A,5 hit, then stood stiff (135) total 1,430
BR3 1,092.50 bet 200 T,7 DD 3 20 400 total 1,492.50
BR2 1,427.50 bet 200 T,6 DD 7 bust (400) total 1,027.50
Dealer T,8

BR1 could've bet 65 to lock out BR3, but that would've traded off the chance to cover BR2's DD with his own DD. I'm defining a lock here as forcing BR3 to win three bets. Here's the question:

Just how valuable is a bet to cover BR2's DD with your own DD if you're playing first? Is it worth not getting a lock on BR3?

I'm just glad I wasn't the poor guy who took that horrible bad beat! :eek:
 
Bad Beat

Good Question, Monkeysystem! I would like the definitive answer to that one, too. I can tell you that it makes a big difference if the cards are exposed or hidden. My gut tells me that BR1 made the best possible bet from the first position; not to negate Ken Smith's, "There's always a better bet" theory. If you can see your opponents cards, it can tell you if your opponent will have much of an opportunity to win his potential double, and this will make it an easier decision to take a double risk of your own from position one.
With the cards in this example, the risk would not be taken in any case, and BR1 loses; however, if my opponent has a pat 10 or 11, I may be tempted to double worse hands than the A-5. Suppose BR1 made the $65 bet you suggest. BR3 is locked out and stands on his 17. BR2 will double and catch that same 3. BR1 still loses. Sometimes the cards are ugly!
 
one step at the time

The most important aspect of blackjack tournaments is to properly frame the situation you found yourself in. Then coming up with the right questions of what is needed, and finally assessing what are the chances.

Monkeysystem, you want to find out answer to the question what is a better bet for BR1, 135 or 65?

Let’s go one step at the time.
Please post how would you describe the situation, using typical configurations e.g. one wins (pushes) a single (double, blackjack) bet while the opponent can/have to win (push, lose) single/double bet, can lose if...?
Think if it is easier to formulate questions by asking whether BR1 advances, or whether BR1 does not advance?

S. Yama
 
Clarification of the Situation

Okay, here's the situation in more detail:

Last hand. One winner of seven players. Only three were still in contention on the last hand. No surrender was allowed. All players' cards face up including DD card. Of the three still in contention, BR1 had to lead off, then BR3, then BR2. Allowed bets were 5-200 in increments of 5.

BR1 1,565 bet 135 cards A,5 hit, then stood stiff
BR3 1,092.50 bet 200 cards T,7, DD 3
BR2 1,427.50 bet 200 cards T,6, DD 7 bust
Dealer T,8

If BR1 bet 135 he/she can DD to cover BR2's DD, but at the cost of risking a swing by BR3 winning a DD while he/she loses a single bet. This is, in fact, what happened.

If BR1 bet 65 he/she forces BR3 to win three bets, virtually a lockout, but doesn't have the ability to cover BR2's DD with his/her own DD.

BR1 had a choice here - either lock out BR3 with a bet of 65 or cover BR2's DD with his/her own DD. Either bet covers high/low over BR2.

My question was: If you're BR1 in this situation leading off with a bet, should you big enough to cover BR2's DD with your own DD and risk being swung by BR3, or should you lock out BR3 at the risk of not being able to cover BR2's DD?

What I'm trying to learn here is how valuable is being able to cover DD with DD when you play first? Let's disregard the cards I saw and discuss the situation hypothetically with the bankrolls I saw, before any cards are dealt. If BR1 bets enough to cover BR2's DD with his/her own DD, then DD's on the subsequent hand, BR2's DD has become irrelevant. BR2 can now just take free hits. The only time BR1 would ever get any benefit from the bigger bet that covers DD with DD is when BR1 and BR2 both are dealt strong DD hands. Even in this latter case if BR1 had made the lower bet, BR2 wouldn't always successfully cover BR1.

In other words, if you play first you'll seldom actually DD to cover BR2's potential DD, and then you'll only win about half of those few times. Such a bet may not yield a tremendous amount of benefits - it may not even be worth it if it jeopardizes a lock over BR3. Do simulation numbers exist to cover this point?

Norm21 made an important point about the effects of concealed cards here. In a face down pitch tournament, BR1 wouldn't know for sure whether to DD if he/she had made the larger bet. In this face down tournament if BR1 had made the smaller bet, BR2 wouldn't know for sure whether to DD to cover BR1's single bet. The smaller bet that locks out BR3 would seem to be the bet of choice in this case. It puts the onus of a hard decision on BR2 instead of BR1.
 
DD to cover DD when you play first, vs. lockout of BR3

I just ran the scenario in question on Stanford Wong's Tournament Blackjack software in a simulation. A bet that trades off a lock of BR3 for enough to cover BR2's DD with your own, when you play first, beats the smaller bet that locks BR3 by two percentage points. The bet of 135 gave BR1 a 69% expectation. The bet of 65 gave BR1 a 67% expectation. I had to run two separate simulations because if you make BR1 bet 135, the program causes BR2 to bet 5 automatically, skewing the simulation results.
 
First things first

As Yama says, take it one step at a time. The first situation is you are chip leader and must bet first. If your lead is such that you can have both the high and the low going in (i.e., vs BR2’s single bet) then do it. Forget about double downs at this point. As Yogi Berra says, “If you come to a fork in the road, take it.” :D

In this case, I believe 135 is the best bet as it assures the low and also covers a push by BR2. He can also cover a max bet DD by either opponent with a DD of his own.

The second step is the play of the hand. Now you consider the opponents’ possible double down. With a 16 and 17 they are definitely not in good shape. Standing does them no good as they must swing BR1 in order to advance. Therefore BR1 should double down to keep the high as a swing ending with 1295 is no worse than a swing ending with 1430.

--jr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top