Blackjack Tournament Training

Blackjack Tournament Training - Part 6

As I often say around here, I really don't know everything, I just act like I know everything. But I'm always up for learning something new. When dealing with any complicated subject or process or task, I think it's fair to say that most of us go through three stages of understanding:

We don't know and we know we don't know. This isn't a play on words, so please read it again. What this refers to is our level of understanding. For example, if you were asked to pilot the Space Shuttle, you might say something like, "Gee, thanks, but I don't know how to do it." This is as honest as you can get and, while it may hurt a bit to admit your lack of knowledge, at least you won't crash the Space Shuttle. If you don't know and you're willing to admit it, you open yourself to learning something new.

We don't know, but think we know. This stage of learning comes with a little bit of experience and, to recycle a phrase, "A little bit of experience can be a dangerous thing." Most of the people who play Blackjack at casinos are in this stage of understanding. Because they've played quite a bit - perhaps for years - they genuinely think they have mastered the game. But most haven't and consequently they play only an approximation of Basic Strategy. Instead of the casino having an edge over them of 0.50% or so, the casino's advantage is closer to 1 or 1.5%, due to the player's mistakes. Most people never get out of this stage of learning, be it Blackjack, the stock market or any other intellectual activity. People who win at Blackjack aren't inclined to test themselves to see if they really, truly are playing correctly, because the proof is in their hands in the form of $$$ and, after all, isn't that what it's about? Hell, some of them even write books about the experience and tout their method of play as the long-sought "Holy Grail" of Blackjack. If you think I'm kidding, go to the "Progressions" page of www.bj21.com/ and you'll see the proof for yourself!

We know and we know we know. You don't have to be a perfectionist or a fanatic to get to this stage, but it doesn't hurt. To really know something well does take a certain amount of dedication and usually a fair amount of work, but it is possible to get to this stage of learning. For most people, it's just too much trouble to get this far, so many settle for "good enough" or "close enough". I really do understand that line of thinking, because I'm not great at everything I do, either. It's really a matter of priorities, I suppose. I play Double Bonus Poker occasionally, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't play it perfectly. I'm certainly capable of hitting the level of "perfect" play, but I don't play the game often enough to warrant the time it would take, so I'm willing to settle for "close enough."

Admittedly, this has been a rather lengthy introduction to my discussion of the final hand of play in the "GameMaster Blackjack Challenge, Number 7", but what good is it to co-own a Website if you can't spout a little philosophy now and then?

I'm sure that you'll agree you can never be sure you know something unless you're tested on it from time-to-time. The nice thing about being tested is that, if you pass the test, your confidence level goes up a notch and that's what happened to me. In the match held at Global Player Casino on Friday, January 25, 2002, I was playing against "AdamB", who is a savvy and somewhat-experienced tournament Blackjack player. We were both conservative in our betting, so as we approached the last hand of play, the difference between our chip totals was less than $50. When we got to the final hand, AdamB had $532.50 and I had $570.00. The minimum bet limit was $5 and the maximum bet limit was $200. I had to bet first, so I put out $40.00. That left me with $530.00 in unbet chips and I knew AdamB would have to bet at least $5, so he'd be left with no more than $527.50 in unbet chips. He chose to bet $80.00 and the stage was set.

So, what could happen now? If we both lost the hand, AdamB would have $452.50 and I would have $530.00, a win for me. If AdamB lost and I pushed, I'd still win. If I won and AdamB pushed, I'd also win. The only way AdamB could beat me was to win this hand. The approximate probability of a player winning any one hand is 44%, so I had a 56% probability of winning the match with the bet I made. (To give credit where it's due, Stanford Wong covers this exact same play in his book, "Casino Tournament Strategy", so I didn't make up this strategy.) On the deal, I got 10,9 and AdamB got 8,3. The dealer was showing a 4. I stood with 19 and AdamB wisely chose to just hit the hand, rather than double it. As it turned out, the dealer busted, so both of us won the hand. The final chip tally was AdamB, $612.50, GameMaster, $610.00.

At first, I started blaming myself for making a stupid bet, but that was 20-20 hindsight. Had I known I was going to win the hand, I could have bet $200, thus effectively "locking out" AdamB. But who can say, with any certainty, that they are going to win the next hand of Blackjack? As I reviewed this hand, I came to realize that I had played it correctly, so I knew, but didn't know I knew!

Being a fairly competitive person, I hate to lose but not as much as I hate to win by making the wrong bet. Sure, winning is fine, but I can't count it as a win if I made the wrong bet (It's all about the "long-term" with me, I guess). Discovering that I had instinctively played the hand correctly was almost as good as winning. Now I know and I know I know.

In the next installment, I'll explore how to play a tournament where the main object is to accumulate as many chips as possible in a limited number of hands of play. This is the tournament that I entered at Bally's in Tunica, Mississippi in January. While I didn't get "in the money", I learned a lot and I'll share with you some interesting studies and simulations I've done.

See you then.

Blackjack Tournament Training - Part 6

2007 Articles

2006 Articles

2005 Articles

2004 Articles

2003 Articles

2002 Articles

2001 Articles

2000 Articles

1999 Articles

1998 Articles

1997 Articles