Blackjack Tournament Questions

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a good lead, you probably don't want to hit any bustable hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain why this point would be true?

[cardcounter0]

An example of tournament strategy. Say you are in the lead, and another player has to win and you lose in order to take the lead. You have a stiff hand against a dealer's ten that basic strategy says to hit. Stand. Now the other player has to take a chance of busting to beat the dealer. Even if the other player doesn't bust and wins, if the dealer busts, you still have the lead.

Similar to having AA when on the bubble with some short stacked players in a tourney. Fold.

The point being, you don't want to stick to a "strategy". Basic strategy to play a hand, or a martingale betting strategy, or anything like that. In a tournament, and especially in blackjack tourny, the way you play your hand and you bet amounts is all dictated by the size of the other players stacks and their actions.

[Dan87]

Similar to having AA when on the bubble with some short stacked players in a tourney. Fold.

err...or raise?

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

An example of tournament strategy. Say you are in the lead, and another player has to win and you lose in order to take the lead. You have a stiff hand against a dealer's ten that basic strategy says to hit. Stand. Now the other player has to take a chance of busting to beat the dealer. Even if the other player doesn't bust and wins, if the dealer busts, you still have the lead.

Similar to having AA when on the bubble with some short stacked players in a tourney. Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe I'm being dense but this seems wrong. standing instead of hitting a stiff hand vs a dealers ten lowers your EV while not having any effect on variance, right? this is totally different than your poker AA strategy, because you havent already put out your bet - you are sacrificing EV while eliminating variance.

I can understand how refusing to split would possibly be a good idea in situations like this though.

[cgwahl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An example of tournament strategy. Say you are in the lead, and another player has to win and you lose in order to take the lead. You have a stiff hand against a dealer's ten that basic strategy says to hit. Stand. Now the other player has to take a chance of busting to beat the dealer. Even if the other player doesn't bust and wins, if the dealer busts, you still have the lead.

Similar to having AA when on the bubble with some short stacked players in a tourney. Fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe I'm being dense but this seems wrong. standing instead of hitting a stiff hand vs a dealers ten lowers your EV while not having any effect on variance, right? this is totally different than your poker AA strategy, because you havent already put out your bet - you are sacrificing EV while eliminating variance.

I can understand how refusing to split would possibly be a good idea in situations like this though.

[/ QUOTE ]


I won't be able to explain it as well as cardcounter, this is mostly based on the few times I would watch that World Seried Blackjack stuff on TV...

Its basically sacrificing your hand to cause the other guy to lose.

You don't care that much if you win or lose, you only care if the other guy does.

Say you got a 13 and the dealer has a 9 or 10. You're supposed to hit (so says the book), but the guy you're playing against has a 13 or 16 or something. He has to hit (or possibly even double down) because his winning is more important than yours is. By him hitting or doubling, this will hopefully cause him to bust...

[jba]

"Its basically sacrificing your hand to cause the other guy to lose.

You don't care that much if you win or lose, you only care if the other guy does."

whether I hit or not has zero impact one whether or not the other guy wins or loses. why not go with the play with higher EV?

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
"Its basically sacrificing your hand to cause the other guy to lose.

You don't care that much if you win or lose, you only care if the other guy does."

whether I hit or not has zero impact one whether or not the other guy wins or loses. why not go with the play with higher EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because maximizing EV isn't the goal of a tourney, it's maxing your odds of winning.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
"Its basically sacrificing your hand to cause the other guy to lose.

You don't care that much if you win or lose, you only care if the other guy does."

whether I hit or not has zero impact one whether or not the other guy wins or loses. why not go with the play with higher EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does. Worst case is you lose and he wins.

If you have 13 and he has 16. You can stand pat and he is forced to hit to win otherwise you both win or lose togerher.

Abs worst case is you hit a 12 and bust, he stands on a 14 and dealer busts and now you lose.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Its basically sacrificing your hand to cause the other guy to lose.

You don't care that much if you win or lose, you only care if the other guy does."

[/ QUOTE ]

whether I hit or not has zero impact one whether or not the other guy wins or loses. why not go with the play with higher EV?

[/ QUOTE ]
This comes up in situations where if you and he both win the hand, you win the tournament. If you and he both lose the hand, you win the tournament. If you lose the hand + he wins it, he wins the touranment. So, if you stand, he no longer can (because if he does, you both either win or lose together, depending on if the dealer busts or not). He now has to take extra risks, to set up a scenario where the dealer does not bust and beats you but loses to your opponent's better hand. From what I understand, tournament blackjack is primarily about playing to beat the other players, not beat the house.

[jba]

Thremp and Whitewolf,

"So, if you stand, he no longer can (because if he does, you both either win or lose together, depending on if the dealer busts or not)"

thanks, that makes sense