Fear Factor: 1 outcome, 1 big overbet

Here was the scenario:

Fear Factor winner had to make a forced bet of $45,000 on a single hand of blackjack. He only gets 1 outcome, win or lose.

The hand: player 9,6 vs dealer 9. He hits and draws an Ace, bringing him to a 16 vs. 9. His dilemna? Hit or Stand?

What would you have done, and why?

I took heat elsewhere for suggesting a risk-averse strategy as opposed to the long-term strategy of hitting the hand.

I know BS says to hit this hand. However, since this is essentially a 1 time wager (unless he bets $45k all the time), and the result is either 100% loss or 100% win, I suggested the stand was the better option. If the guy was betting within his means and had more than one outcome, BS would have been the best play. With BS, over several outcomes, the few wins produced on this majority losing hand will offset the overall losses sustained. IOW, that occasional 4 or 5 drawn makes the hit the better option to reduce losses in the long-term. The ROR was extremely high for this hand. He would not have been able to sustain the loss in terms of extended play. I think when ROR increases, you must avoid risk. That is why we downsize our betting scheme when an extended losing streak has had disastrous tolls on our bankroll. We know it is more profitable to continue our betting scheme, but avoiding risk becomes key to half-sizing when our bankroll is halved. This guy's bankroll would essentially be completely wiped out on 1 loss.

To put it in AP perspective, this situation can be likened to having your entire card-counting bankroll bet against a single outcome, with no repeated outcomes to reduce overall losses.

I don't feel I am wrong to be risk-averse in the case of an overbet with an extreme possibility of RoR. That is why I would avoid the 62% chance of loss by busting. (2 decks, 9,6,A, vs. 9)

Oh, and here was the outcome: He stood on 9,6,A vs. 9 and the dealer turned over a 3, giving her a 9,3 for a total of 12. Drawing a 10 on the hand resulted in the dealer bust, and a player win of $45k. Had he hit, he would have totaled 26 and busted.

on his first two cards. Then he could have made 90 grands more! Wow. Hindsight is twentyone-twentyone!

Short-term or long-term, risk-averse or risk-avid, brave or cowardly, ... hitting on H16 against the dealer's 9 is a "higher-probability move". I don't know the exact numbers, but probably hitting has 3 or 4 percent better chance of winning than standing.

Having said that, is 3 or 4 percent that significant for ONE HAND deal? It's a subjective question, but I don't think it is. I really think you can go either way. I personally would have stayed myself after the first hit. (But, let's face it, he was just lucky to win.)

Your "risk-averse" argument applies, for example, when you have (8,8) against dealer's 10. Even though splitting has a better EV over long runs, you should *not* split eight's in this kind of situation (e.g. one shot).

~BJ in the Box.

I agree that BS is the way to play to reduce losses and maximize winnings.

However, BS is formulated on a multitude of outcomes. If you lose one bet, the EV for that bet is -1 unit. If on the next outcome, a win is produced, then the EV over 2 outcomes is 0 (1 + (-1)). As you continue to play this hand out and see the several outcomes, you eventually reach a true EV for this hand. The website www.wizardofodds.com shows the EV of a hit 16 vs. 9 (infinite deck) to be -.5093 unit lost per unit wagered. More than one outcome is needed to produce this EV. The player had a 62% chance of busting, reducing his EV if he hits to -.62 for this one-time wager. Keep in mind that BS has a higher EV because of the addition of winning outcomes to the total sum of all outcomes. However, there will be no other outcomes for this one time bet.

Therefore, since the EV of a bust for 1 hand of 16 vs. 9 costs more than the EV of BS, the correct play for a 1 wager bet is to stand. If he plays $45k more often, then he should assume a long-term strategy such as BS. However, since he won't benefit from additional winning outcomes to reduce the overall -EV to that of BS, he should stand.

I know that he will most likely lose anyway to a dealer pat hand, but he has to face 2 challenges to win, the first being not to lose by busting, and the second not to lose to a higher total. Not busting means he can go to the next part of the challenge without losing on the first part. Those of us who bet within our means (no overbets) have the luxury of being able to bet for a long time with minimal ROR so that we can see the benefits of the long-term strategies we employ. However, his ROR was so high, that bankroll protection should be weighed more heavily as opposed to BS. Hitting produces a 62% chance of ROR on that hand. No card counter in their right mind would want to attempt to make money with that kind of ROR. So, in a gross overbet with that high of an ROR, money-making and increasing EV takes a backseat to risk-aversion.

By no means should anyone interpret this as an endorsement of any strategy other than BS for extended play. Those who bet regularly should employ BS. Those who are facing an unique situation such as this, should employ a more risk-averse strategy.

On the other hand, having a bankroll of $90k now gives him the chance to learn AP ways and make up for that $1521 mistake.

1) never accept to play with a forced bet, the spread is the third way to get the advantage after BS and counting

2)RC=0 TC=0 the BS say card
staying is the wrong play for a counter and only counter can beat the dealer in a "LONG RUN".

3) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0929712137/ref=lib_dp_TFCV/002-7679471-5560038?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader#reader-link

Theory of Blackjack, 6th Edition
by Peter A. Griffin
10$36----------------> everybody playing BJ must read it

Good question. I had to think about it for a while but I think you're wrong. Here's why:

You have a roughly 62% chance of busting (and therefore losing) if you hit.

If you stand on 16 your ONLY chance of winning is if the dealer busts. Therefore, if the dealer with a 9 showing busts more than 38% of the time you're better off standing. If this dealer makes a hand more than 62% of the time then you're obviously worse off standing.

According to Michael Shackleford, a dealer with a 9 up busts about 23% of the time: http://www.wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/bjapx2.html. That means the dealer is going to make a hand about 77% of the time.

Hit: 62% chance of losing on the first hit.
Stand: 77% chance of losing.

Which one looks more risk-averse now? It appears that you're better off taking a hit, even with your entire bankroll on the line. He got lucky this time.

-Dug