Another WSOB Update

[marichal]

tgun;

good to hear your ideas. do you really believe that tbj could be going by the way in stl.? that is not a good sign. heck, the buffet sounds like a great deal in itself!!!!!
as you stated, a skilled local player can and does get their fanny handed to them in majors. hopefully, that turns into a learning situation. i will be looking forward to seeing yourself and your bride in tulsa. have a safe trip.

 

[fgk42]

I'll probably find out sometime this year - as I plan on playing at least a couple of larger events - figure if I am going to get stomped - might as well be by Ken Smith

Hey I can testify first hand about that! Yes Ken Smith will stomp you - but he does it with a smile on his face and is a gentleman all the way. It's funny how he has a way of making you feel good when he "knocks" you out!

 

[Barney Stone]

tgun

<<We have many weekly players who will pay $30 to win $1,176(100% equity).
Who wont pay $100 in a 100% equity + a $16 buffet for 2, because the $100 tournament hasn't been filling up. This attitude is what hurts TBJ. Soon they will stop having TBJ at all in Stl.>>

This is a little off topic too but important in the puzzle we know as demand for BJT. Your observation is right on. The heart of BJT is in the low level buy ins and if the casino adjusts the buy in upward just a little the demand for the game tanks. The reason, I believe, is most of the players are using the cheap game to kill time and offer a low $ risk way of making $. The demographic is weighted to retired people who by no means are poor but instead frugal. There is a big separation from people willing to invest 50 to win 700 to those willing to invest 400 to win 6000. The risk reward ratio is the same but the demand falls off about 50%. The demographic isnt looking to get rich but continue along the frugal path. Now getting back on topic, I see the WSOB as being a key tool in the ramping of demand for BJT. Infusing it into the mini tourney markets breeds demand via the vision of sugar plums in players heads. This type of lure can break some of that I spoke of above. The players from these markets will not necessarily be of ploppy quality because there is a qualifying filter. Every little bit of demand that can be brought to this BJT market is good. At this point we have the WSOB and another "BJT" to show our game on TV. We can only hope they draw in more demand or as you say 100$ games may vanish because of no players.

 

[Barney Stone]

<Originally Posted by KenSmith
I agree that most any area that hosts regular weekly tournaments likely has a stronger field in every-day tournaments than the WSOB. This year, like last, the quality of play is pretty disappointing on most tables.>

Im guessing from this comment we will once again see the amateurs kicking arse. Remember way back I posted a poll on 1 Wong vs 6 wildcats? Never give a wildcat good cards! Growl.

 

[fgk42]

I also agree with you regarding the skill level of weekly players in certain locations. But I've seen many skilled local players choke in their first 2 or 3 majors(including me). I enjoy watching the pros beat up on the ploppies.

What you don't root for the underdog? I too enjoy watching the pro's beat the ploppies - except when it's me!

But the WSOB is not about the best players in all cases, it's mostly about entertainment. I love blackjack but on TV it's boring for regular folks.

I LOVE BJT's myself but to be honest with you actually watching some of the TBJ on TV is boring/snooze time.

While hold'em poker is fun to watch.

Why is that? Is it the nature of the game, the commentary, the players, etc... THIS is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

I'll let the expert promoters figure out what attracts the largest audiences. The more fans of the game the better for all of us.

We have many weekly players who will pay $30 to win $1,176(100% equity).
Who wont pay $100 in a 100% equity + a $16 buffet for 2, because the $100tournament hasn't been filling up. This attitude is what hurts TBJ. Soon they will stop having TBJ at all in Stl.

Darn right. From the casino point of view if the product you're offering isn't cost effective it WILL be removed. The problem isn't the $100 tourney, the problem is the lack of education to the people.

How many of those peopel who gamble there play green chips? Well four green chip bets = the entry fee for the $100 tourney! Heck even 10 red chip bets = the tourney entry fee.

Now the question becomes where is the best chance of "profit" or just to abide your time. Unless you're a counter you've got a better shot of turning a profit in the BJT than betting green chips. Why? We know that we only win 44% of the hands with BJ. It is a negative EV game. The tourney should be a positive EV game but people don't look at it that way.

I think that using satellites gives people the best chance for advancing from a lower to higher level. While most will disagree with me I think that we need less middle level and more higher level tourney's. This is my rationale. When people saw Chris Moneymaker will a million dollar pot in Poker the general public became infatuated and said hey I can do that too!

When people win a $30 tourney what is the payout? $500 WOW :yikes:
Now don't take this the wrong way because 500 is 500 but it doesn't get a lot of people excited. 5,000! much better. 15,000 - now you're building excitement! You want excitement - $50,000! NOW people are willing to try and put up that $200 entry fee.


tgun

.

 

[KenSmith]

While I understand you can’t give details about winners, etc. Could you please elaborate on WHY you weren’t impressed with the level of play during the WSOB? Was it due to “ploppy” play? Was it due to erratic play? I’m just curious as to how you, Ken Smith, define quality of play.

There were lots of examples of bad decision making. You'll see players surrender themselves into a guaranteed Knock-Out. You'll see players making bets that are too large and risk bad outcomes, and a couple of hands later they'll make bets that are too small and risk bad outcomes. You'll see players who split pairs with big bets out "just for fun", no matter what the dealer upcard happens to be. You'll see players heading into a knock-out hand and making a big bet, but not quite big enough to cover LB1's all-in.

There's nothing unusual about all this. You'll likely see it in every tournament you play. I only mention it because I know that many of you who would have loved to be on the show will be tearing your hair out while watching.

 

[Barney Stone]

Can anyone expose the commentary team for this years TV WSOB?

 

[fgk42]

There's nothing unusual about all this. You'll likely see it in every tournament you play. I only mention it because I know that many of you who would have loved to be on the show will be tearing your hair out while watching.

Figures it happens at the WSOB and not at the super-satellites! After my first exposure to the Power Chip (PC) I was pulling my hair out all the way home that day!

 

[fgk42]

Hairy Day

In fact it REALLY bothered me until I saw the infamous Joep.

Joep didn't do too well at the tables either.

After Joep lost the table to Hollywood Dave and realized that FGK42 had more chips then Joep did I saw Joep tearing at his hair too!

Only difference Joep didn't stop!

Imagine my surprise when I last saw him! :joker:

Oh Well!

 

[Lou 714]

do the math -

Avi: first round: one of 6 advance; semifinal:1 of 5 advance; Odds of reaching final table: 1 of 30

Edgewater: First round: 2 of 7 advance; semifinal: 1 of 7 advance; odds of reaching final table: 1 of 24.5

WSOBJ: first round: 1 of 5 advance; second round: 2 of 5 advance; odds of reaching final table: 1 of 12.5

A tough format does not make better players,actually it makes results more random.Now put a skilled player in a format that they can take different positions on crucial hands like finding a middle position in attempting to advance in these formats, then the skilled played will show up much more in the winners circle than these shootouts in Laughlin


and while I didn't see Hollywood play, or Ken E - I'll credit them as being solid players - so - that's 4 out of 40 - not exactly an awesome field

Thats strange you seem to take different positions to further your cause,here you are calling Hollywood a solid player but back on Jan 10 a mere 3 weeks ago in the Hollywood vs Kid Rock thread you called his play less than that. So which one is it?

a lot of the 'name' players - aren't as deserving of their 'fame' as they would like to think - anyone can win a tournament - we all know that .

Actually you are right anyone can win 1 tournament but never lose your focus on proven players who even though you don't want to accept it have won many tournaments for lots of money.I'm not even considering any TV tournaments.Some of these players won tournaments with over 400 players in them. Yes just a few years ago long before you were sharing your insight with us there were fields of 400 at almost every open tournament in Las Vegas and in other gaming venues.Instead of knocking their proven track record acknowledge it even if it hurts you to do such a thing.

even a history of several good final tables doesn't necessarily mean great skill - put anyone into 500 tourneys - they'll get to the final table a few times .

We all know players who have played in hundreds upon hundreds of tournaments and have either never won one or never won one with a prize pool of over 10,000. So your theory if you play enough you will win leaves some doubt to it


too many self-proclaimed pros have a skill set that is pretty much limited to Wong betting in the early hands - followed by chunk out the chips and trust to dumb luck at the end

You have said in a previous post that you like to play small bets in the early parts of a tournament and not bet much unless you have to.Need I remind you that is a WONG style.So you knock it but in a previous post you validate it.I'm confused.


and didn't the field in Aruba contain about 100 poker players free-rolled in?

The free roll that you speak about was open to all players. Blair Rodman was one of the players who came out of the freeroll.

The St Kitts UBT event which you failed to mention had a field of pros that if put together could open up a bank with their tournament winnings

you may be right that I am no expert on strong play - though I would argue that - but I can certainly recognize weak play, carnival game gimmicks, and easy formats when I see them -

Do you still feel qualified to judge other tournament play now?

 

[toolman1]

There's nothing unusual about all this. You'll likely see it in every tournament you play. I only mention it because I know that many of you who would have loved to be on the show will be tearing your hair out while watching.

If I had any hair to tear out I'd be doing it now instead of typing this. I gave it my best shot to get into the "final 40" but now I know for sure I did the right thing by trying.

 

[Barney Stone]

<<The St Kitts UBT event which you failed to mention had a field of pros that if put together could open up a bank with their tournament winnings
>>>

LMAO.

 

[fgk42]

There were lots of examples of bad decision making. You'll see players surrender themselves into a guaranteed Knock-Out. You'll see players making bets that are too large and risk bad outcomes, and a couple of hands later they'll make bets that are too small and risk bad outcomes. You'll see players who split pairs with big bets out "just for fun", no matter what the dealer upcard happens to be. You'll see players heading into a knock-out hand and making a big bet, but not quite big enough to cover LB1's all-in.

Just out of morbid curosity, these examples of poor play making decisions.....

Were these from the casino qualifiers, the invited guests or The King?

 

[TXtourplayer]

Saw some from both...

I witnessed both invited and qualifiers at the WSOB make horrible plays that knocked them out, while there were other bad plays that had no effect on the players still winning their table.

It really is no different then most tournaments, bottomline is, catch the cards you can win, don't and you won't, it is as simple as that.

 

[TXtourplayer]

On a cool note...

I did not comfirm this, but I was told the players "Green Room" was Elvis Presleys dressing room when he performed at the International (currently the LV Hilton).

This had nothing to do with blackjack, just thought it was interesting side note for the players.

 

[fgk42]

I did not comfirm this, but I was told the players "Green Room" was Elvis dressing room when he performed at the International (currently the LV Hilton).

This had nothing to do with blackjack, just thought it was interesting side note for the players.

Yeah Elivs performs all over the place

 

[fgk42]

I did not comfirm this, but I was told the players "Green Room" was Elvis Presleys dressing room when he performed at the International (currently the LV Hilton).

This had nothing to do with blackjack, just thought it was interesting side note for the players.

Oops ...my bad. THAT Elvis

Forgot the age difference there :joker:

Thank You,
Thank you very much

 

[Lou 714]

LMAO.

Another enlightening post by Barney, keep up the good work we all wait holding our breath to read your words of wisdom.

 

[elyssez]

ENLIGHTENING! Please don't encourage him......he might actually think you're serious!:laugh:

 

[tirle_bj]

necessary and sufficient conditions

I'd like to share my opinion about the continuing topic "luck vs. skill".
Let's start from the simple example: "what is the necessary and sufficient condition for someone to survive in the airplane accident?"
- necessary condition: to be in that particular airplane
- sufficient condition: to get really lucky to survive
As we can see, just being the lucky person does not mean to survive in the airplane crash (you should be in that particular airplane), as well as to be in that particular airplane does not mean to survive.
Now let's return to our topic...
To be a skillful tournament player is NOT a necessary condition to win any particular tournament. There are lots of evidences that less than average players win. Vice versa, in order to win any particular tournament we need to get lucky (or at least not to get unlucky). So LUCK is a necessary condition, but skill is NOT. Let's see now if the luck is sufficient condition. As we know, not always - we need some skill to utilize our luck. Skill is also not a sufficient condition to win a particular tournament, because we simply need to get good cards.
Finally we get the follows:
Luck is necessary but not a sufficient condition to win a tournament
Skill is not necessary and not a sufficient condition to win a tournament
As we can see in any given particular tournament luck factor is more important than a skill factor, but as S. Yama stated there's nothing we can do to improve our luck level, so let's work on our skill.