Wagering practice – “Do you even WANT to win?”
Some wagers are really bad – like betting everything if you’re in first.
But at least that person has a chance to win. What happened in this scenario was a far greater sin – and it took place in the first game of the new millennium.
What should Mike have wagered?
Click here for the analysis!
(Thanks to the J! Archive)
Answers to Tuesday’s scenario:
(click to view as a slideshow)
-
- (1/9) Babu’s got a small lead in a tight game: David and Laura are nipping at his heels. Let’s calculate the proper wagers for each.
-
- (2/9) Rule #1, first vs. second: Babu should wager at least 7,800 to cover David.
-
- (3/9) Rule #2, first vs. second: David will need to stay above Babu should they both get it wrong.
-
- (4/9) Rule #3, first vs. second: A wager of 700 will put David at Babu’s total …
-
- (5/9) Rule #1, second vs. third: … however, this is trumped by the 4,500 he’ll need to wager to stay ahead of Laura under any circumstance.
-
- (6/9) Rule #2, second vs. third: Laura can wager at most 2,500 …
-
- (7/9) Rule #3, second vs. third: … and she should wager at least 2,000 to cover David’s zero wager.
-
- (8/9) Rule #3, first vs. third: Note that she can’t cover a zero wager by Babu – but this is fine, as Babu has really no reason to do that.
-
- (9/9) Here are the results.
Since Mike needs to win to have any hope of winning, an all-in bet is actually acceptable here…
…but I’d consider wagering no more than 700 to ensure second place if he gets it wrong. 700 is still above where we expect Richard to be if he gets it wrong.
To expand on the above point: no more than $700, but at least $300–$300 still locks out Sherry if he’s wrong, but if the leader misses and if he gets it right, he wins.