World Series of Blackjack on GSN, Episode 1

I think it may be beneficial to look at the table with most of the possible outcomes.
Note that $Kept is the same as losing a single bet. D (doubled) loss/win is not that significant as doubling for less is often a better play. I omitted tripled bets for lack of horizontal space.
Looking at this table allows us to find ranges of bets that “James” could have made.

Dealer: 7 .. BRL .. CARDS .. BET .. $KEPT ... WIN .... BJ ...... SURR .. D WIN .. D LOST
Connie .. 10,750 .. 16 .. 5,000 .. 5,750 .. 15,750 .. 18,250 .. 8,250 .. 20,750 .... 750
Regina .. 10,400 .. 17 .. 5,000 .. 5,400 .. 15,400 .. 17,900 .. 7,900 .. 20,400 .... 400
Michael . 11,800 .. 15 .. 4,000 .. 7,800 .. 15,800 .. 17,800 .. 9,800 .. 19,800 .. 3,800
James ..... 8,400 .. 19 .. 1,000 .. 7,400 ... 9,400 ... 9,900 ... 7,900 ...10,400 .. 6,400

LamarB wrote: "The other issue with this hand is whether he should have taken the low or bet half his bankroll."
Betting half the bankroll (4,200) is not a good idea if winning that bet doesn’t get you to a specific place. James’s winning 4,200 would bring him to 12,600 which is no better than having 11,900 -enough to overcome all other players pushing, surrendering or losing.
Blackjack would make him 14,700 – not enough to cover single wins by any other player.
Now, compare being paid for blackjack on 5K bet. That would get him to 15,900 - more than any other player winning single bet. Uncontested bj (by one or two players and the dealer) happens slightly more than four percent of times, nevertheless, it is a slightly better bet.
Counter argument could be made that betting half bankroll allows splitting pairs. That would apply only to situations where splitting is better than doubling. However, winning both split hands happens mostly when dealer breaks, which would be of no help if any of the opponents made a double or got a blackjack.

A big bet made by a player in James’s seat would swing all other players less than seven percent of times in normal game. But here, thanks to tendency of other players to make more extreme plays, either by surrendering or doubling more often, it may jump up toward ten percent.

A mid range bets (1,500 to 3,700) have a lot of possibilities but its effectiveness is limited for a few reasons. Usually, three players acting before the last bettor would cover opposite types of play. It may be a hit, dd and surrender, or two doubles and surrender, or surrender, hit or stand on pat and surrender - which actually happened. This kind of play, in effect, gives the last bettor slightly better chance for second place – but not for the more coveted first place.
The key factor in estimating success of this bet depends mainly on knowing opponents’ playing tendencies but I think it is less than ten percent.

Small bets- they carry danger of Michael surrendering and locking James out. Unless James bets and wins 1,500, or gets blackjack on bet of 1,000, or wins doubled bet of 800. If James accepts risk of Michael not surrendering then everybody else has to lose or surrender and James can bet and lose only 100. Even better play is to bet 200 and surrender anything but twenty-one, this way Connie may be lulled into false thinking that her surrender will keep her ahead of James if he loses. Let’s keep in mind that BR2’s (Connie) surrender may force BR1 (Michael) to surrender almost anything if BR3 (Regina) doesn’t have a strong hand.
Chances? You tell me. Another ten percent?

Bad cards to your opponents,
S. Yama

PS
You guys are picky, okay Tirle bj, if I include 17 hitting 21 and dealer making 20 it is 3.9%. Do you want me quit my beloved california cabs?

 

Last Hand analysis

Well, S.Yama, great analysis, global approach to James' bet, based on actual bets of Connie, Regina and Michael.

Here I'll try to find out what would be the right way for each of players.

Actually we have:

Connie Regina Michael James

10,750 10,400 11,800 8,400


It seems to me that Connie's max bet is pretty resonable, since it is less than a half of her bankroll, she is not a leader and betting first.

Same for Regina because she cannot take "low" over Michael.

Michael, however, has to protect himself from Connie's double, which means his right bet should be at least 4,500 (let's consider 4,500).

Now the situation for James is to take "straight" low over Michael - bet 1,000 or take "low by surrender" - bet 2,000.
With four players involved in the game it seems to be better to bet 2,000 to tie with Regina (win-push), to overcome Connie's or Michael's push by double, to beat Michael's surrender. Of course, he loses on dealers BJ (T-up), but as you can see, the gain is more.

Now about the playing strategy:
Connie has to double for full amount (in case of success she outlines Regina). Stand is unresonable, SR is dangerous (Mike can SR as well), HIT is worse than double.

Regina's turn:
1) If Connie busts or get an A for total of 16, then probably stand is still the best decision.
2) If Connie makes a point then Regina has to Hit 'til one point over since double doesn't help.

Michael's turn:
1) if Connie didn't bust, his right play is double
2) if she busted out then SR probably doesn't work because of James' hand with 2,000 bet. He has to try to avoid "swing" with James, which means to Hit 'til 17.
3) if Regina Hit successfully 'til one point better than Connie and it is 20 or 21 (better than James' hand) then still Hit 'til 17

James' turn:
He has to pick the best point among "alive" players and, if necessary, hit to get two points over. If not possible, then double.

Since nobody took the card we don't know what would happened, but thanks to toonces, we had a busy week - hope he'll keep this good tradition. Thank you all for interesting conversations.

Best regards and lucky strakes.
Tirle_bj

 

Don't worry...I plan to make it a weekly endeavor.

As for Regina's strategy, I still think she is better off taking the low than a max bet. By making a max bet, She allows Michael to make a max bet and get the best of both worlds, betting 4500 and locking in 1st if all win, and 1st if all lose (assuming he surenders). If Regina goes low, Michael has to choose between high and low, and given that James would likely go high in this scenario, so would Michael, giving Regina sole access to and surrender protection with the low.

Also, by making a max bet, Regina was still behind Connie, so she would have to make up the difference during the play. Of course, Connie's ill-fated surrender made that easy.