The BlackJack Society is conducting a study of the possibility of starting a league or sports organization dedicated to BlackJack Tournaments much like what WSOP is about. We are determine wether this will be feasible, profitable or viable. But we want input. Our first question to all the BlackJack players is would you compete in a league or federation that own and operate BlackJack tournaments and what would you like too see. We're hoping to publish the results in September.
Have a look at this old forum (under "Archives" here) for information on an attempt which was made to form a "Tournament Blackjack Players Association", complete with events and standardized rules, designed by the players for the players. https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/forums/tournament-blackjack-players-association.29/ It was ultimately unsuccessful, but you will find some good ideas there.
I was a member of the TBPA and participated in several tournaments sponsored by the Association. It was lots of fun but we never got to the point of big crowds. I would be very interested in taking part in such an organization. I still have my TBPA membership card.
The answer to your question is, yes, I would compete, provided the events represented a potential profitable situation for me. In particular, prize pools and other incentives would have to be large enough to justify travel. I understand that your organization would be in it to make a profit, but that doesn't mean that the skilled players cannot also do so. I would think that obtaining some kind of sponsorship would go a long way toward meeting the goals of both the organization and the players. Other than that, please do have a look at the TBPA forum mentioned above for some very good ideas.
Yes. TBPA was short lived, ill fated. Partly because of rake. Unlike poker players, BJ players don't like the 10%. Personally, with large enough purses, interesting venues, discounts on accommodations and other "Comps" 10% of buy in to "House" would not bother me. Some where in the archives are the TBJA by laws. That would be a good starting point. Rotating events, regionally as WSOP and WPT would be a plus. Multiple day, multiple events in one location would also be a plus.
And then, of course, was the UBT (Ultimate Blackjack Tour) of 10-12 years ago. Aruba/St. Kitts/Las Vegas.... It was fun, but too expensive. It was therefore too exclusive and never attained general/broad acceptance for sustainability. There were other problems. Ken is more familiar with the UBT.
I second what was said earlier. I would be in if it made sense. I really hope this can be a well thought out productive venture. More (good) blackjack opportunities vs less is always a welcome change.
Thank you everyone for all your post, advice and information. This weekend in Atlantic City I got to see first hand a WSOP(World Series Of Poker) tournament and we said this is how a BlackJack tournament should be done. More info to come
I echo Grongbog's response, with the addition that it be held in Vegas (I live in MD, by the way). Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
I just discovered this thread or would have chimed in earlier. TBPA was short-lived due to the rake and some other issues that I won't get into here. The UBT got hit hard by the cancellation of the CBS Sports show, then collapsed when online poker was scuttled by the Feds (as well as allegations against the site operators). The rules used by those organizations were outstanding, you'd be well served by emulating them as they remove a great deal of the luckbox lottery rules we see in far too many of today's BJT's. I also have no problem with at 10% rake. A tournament promoter and the host house must make a buck or they have no reason to take on such a monumental task - but the rake cannot be so large that no players have a decent chance of turning a profit in the long run. Sure hope you can make it work, I'd be highly interested in regular attendance at those events.
Suggested good rules: 1. The more hands in a round the better. 30 would be good. 40 even better. 60 even better. This puts a premium on bankroll management and reduces luck as a factor governing differences in player outcomes. 2. Two advance from no more than six. Three advance from six or seven. No one-advance tables at all. 3. 3:2 payments on blackjacks. 4. Allow doubling down on blackjacks. 5. Late surrender. 6. Insurance offered, including on blackjacks. No even money unless bankroll has enough chips for full insurance bet. 7. Maximum bet no more than one-third of starting bankroll. Minimum bet no more than 1% of maximum bet. This prevents lucky all-in blackjacks from winning a table after the player was behind. 8. Players' Chips must be colored up and stacked in stacks that are too small to be colored up. No more than four $5 chips, three $25 chips, etc. This is to benefit visually impaired players. 9. Face up orientation. 10. Secret bets on last hand of a round. This eliminates the decisive advantage or disadvantage of button position on the last hand, which is almost entirely based on luck. 11. Any player can call a one-minute clock on someone who is stalling. The last two hands of a round have a three-minute clock instead of a one-minute clock. Ten-second warning before expiration of clock. 12. Note taking with pencil and paper allowed, but not when the action is on the player. This allows players to take accurate notes for sharing on blackjacktournaments.com.
I like these suggestions. Not sure about 12 though as it might create a messy table. I would also add that the colors of the different denomination chips should be obvious. In some places, it is very hard to tell the difference.
I too am not keen on note taking allowed. Being able to mentally handle the bankrolls and bets is one of the skills which separate us from the rest. UBT had a 10 chips per stack rule that I liked. I think that counting chip stacks is also one of the skills that separate us from the rest. Let's not make it too easy!
I'm not sure about going as high as 60. Too many rounds is certainly preferable to too few, but when all the players at the table are knowledgeable, you do tend to get several rounds of rather boring min-betting before people start making their moves as the button passes them. There is, of course, the option to liven things up with UBT-style elimination rounds along the way. But I'm not sure what I think about that, as I never did very well at that format. That being said, if the goal really is to produce something modelled on the success of big poker tournaments like the WSOP, then I guess the problem of finding a way to make it engaging and entertaining to watch also needs to be addressed. UBT's elimination rounds and secret bets were, I believe, an attempt in that direction. Not that that worked out very well.
