CHEERS and JEERS - Meskwaki, October 2010
- Thread starter LeftNut
- Start date
In our endeavors to make BJTs as popular as poker (by the way, that will never happen) we often wonder why poker tournaments are popular while BJTs pale in comparison. So at times we should compare the two games and make BJT rules closer to poker where possible. The handling of no-shows is one of those areas.
Poker tournaments, be it comped or entry fee based, usually start right on time without regard to how many players are seated. If a seat is empty, the player position still gets the same starting bankroll. Then, as the dealer puck rotates, blinds and ante are taken from the position as if the player is present. Naturally, the absent player cannot win a hand while he is not seated. When and if the absent player finally arrives, he/she has less bankroll to play with.
BJTs should be handled the same way with one change. Since the rounds in a BJT is limited, the amount the absent player loses per hand needs to be increased beyond the minimum bet to insure the absent player will lose all of his starting bankroll before the end of the round. The Las Vegas Hilton is a great example of this. Starting bankroll is 5,000 with a minimum bet of 100. If a player is not present to make a bet, 500 (10% of starting bankroll) is removed from his bankroll in each hand. 10 hands and the bankroll is depleted. This seems to work well for them and should work well in other BJTs. Naturally, habitual complainers will object but "you can't satisfy all the people all the time".
Re-arranging seats because the casino screwed up in making original assignments is good because it corrects their error. But re-arranging seats because of no-shows is just plain wrong.
Poker tournaments, be it comped or entry fee based, usually start right on time without regard to how many players are seated. If a seat is empty, the player position still gets the same starting bankroll. Then, as the dealer puck rotates, blinds and ante are taken from the position as if the player is present. Naturally, the absent player cannot win a hand while he is not seated. When and if the absent player finally arrives, he/she has less bankroll to play with.
BJTs should be handled the same way with one change. Since the rounds in a BJT is limited, the amount the absent player loses per hand needs to be increased beyond the minimum bet to insure the absent player will lose all of his starting bankroll before the end of the round. The Las Vegas Hilton is a great example of this. Starting bankroll is 5,000 with a minimum bet of 100. If a player is not present to make a bet, 500 (10% of starting bankroll) is removed from his bankroll in each hand. 10 hands and the bankroll is depleted. This seems to work well for them and should work well in other BJTs. Naturally, habitual complainers will object but "you can't satisfy all the people all the time".
Re-arranging seats because the casino screwed up in making original assignments is good because it corrects their error. But re-arranging seats because of no-shows is just plain wrong.
Equal and fair?
I would think the objective here is an equal and fair chance for all entrants of the tournament.
In a two people advance round, "rough math" puts chances of advancing at 67% for a three player table and 29% for a seven player table. That isn't equal opportunity in my book.
Sure, I have the same chance as others to be on the three person table but when it is quite simple to balance them out, that is the fairest way to do it for ALL that are involved!
Billy C
I would think the objective here is an equal and fair chance for all entrants of the tournament.
In a two people advance round, "rough math" puts chances of advancing at 67% for a three player table and 29% for a seven player table. That isn't equal opportunity in my book.
Sure, I have the same chance as others to be on the three person table but when it is quite simple to balance them out, that is the fairest way to do it for ALL that are involved!
Billy C
toolman1 said:
Really? Are there really poker players out there saying to themselves: "I would play those blackjack events, but if I show up five minutes late they've racked my chips! I choose to play poker instead where I can show up half an hour late."
Fairness is indeed the goal here, but it's a bit of a red herring in this particular question. In truth both options are equally fair. After all, we all have the same probability to be at the one table with two no-shows. The problem is that unbalanced tables do create discontent, whether it is less fair or not. Since it is equally fair to balance the tables instead, why not do it? Besides, eliminating the possibility of drawing a short table takes one more luck factor out of the game which is something we generally strive for.
As I asked before, has anyone seen many players arrive in the 5-hand window usually accorded late arrivals? I know I have not.
Hmmm, I see one big headache that balancing the tables could cause. I think I'll post a second reply for that.
Putting the shoe on the other foot now, I'll point out one reason why TDs could reasonably be reluctant to balance the tables...
During the table balancing, what if one of the no-shows arrives? Now what? If the round hasn't begun, it's going to make for an unpleasant decision and probably an unpleasant scene. Maybe we're better off with the status quo.
As others have recommended though, at least put some bite into the penalty. I think losing 1/5th the bank each hand is reasonable, and it automatically incorporates the common "5 hands and you're out" rule.
During the table balancing, what if one of the no-shows arrives? Now what? If the round hasn't begun, it's going to make for an unpleasant decision and probably an unpleasant scene. Maybe we're better off with the status quo.
As others have recommended though, at least put some bite into the penalty. I think losing 1/5th the bank each hand is reasonable, and it automatically incorporates the common "5 hands and you're out" rule.
I recently made the following statement. The red letters are explained below.
. And I’m still wondering about that. I never, in this or any of my postings, said or implied that copying a rule (or group of rules) from Poker will convert any Poker player to become avid BJT players. On the contrary, besides the fact that BJTs are boring by comparison there are other considerations that make the conversion of an avid Poker Player to an avid BJTer just about impossible. Actually, it’s just the opposite. BJTers are almost flocking to Poker for reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.
The fact is that I wrote my post because of an actual recollection in my personal experience. Several years ago before the economy collapsed, I was invited to a Poker Tournament at Harrah’s Las Vegas because at the time I gave Harrah’s a goodly amount of side play when I attended their BJTs. Turns out the dates for this Poker tournament fit perfect with a BJT I was playing at a competing casino. The Poker tournament was a phenomenal success. They expected 1,000 players and ended up with over 2,500. Harrah’s then increased the prize pool to 250,000 – they don’t do that anymore as far as I know.
The day of the start of the Poker tournament was also the day of late registration (same as many BJTs). Things were chaotic to say the least. I registered at the normal time so the late registration was not my concern. I figured with this chaos, I had plenty of time to get to my table so I took a break outside of the room where all the chaos was occurring. When I returned to take my seat at my assigned table the game was already in process. Maybe 6 or 8 hands were already dealt. There were still chips at my seat (I only lost 1 small and 1 big blind) so I was allowed to play. I ended up placing 28th in a field of over 2,500 and collected $1,400.
So that’s my story. I say don’t eliminate me just because I’m a few minutes late. I deserve to be penalized if late but instant elimination is too severe of a penalty. By the way, to the best of my recollection, I have never been late for the start of a BJT round – but it can happen, Murphy’s Law.
To that statement I received the following comment. Note: Only the portion in red was quoted in the comment that follows. My original post was all in black.
I must say that I found myself scratching my head and I said to myself “How in the world can a conclusion like that be drawn from my statement?”Really? Are there really poker players out there saying to themselves: "I would play those blackjack events, but if I show up five minutes late they've racked my chips! I choose to play poker instead where I can show up half an hour late."
. And I’m still wondering about that. I never, in this or any of my postings, said or implied that copying a rule (or group of rules) from Poker will convert any Poker player to become avid BJT players. On the contrary, besides the fact that BJTs are boring by comparison there are other considerations that make the conversion of an avid Poker Player to an avid BJTer just about impossible. Actually, it’s just the opposite. BJTers are almost flocking to Poker for reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.The fact is that I wrote my post because of an actual recollection in my personal experience. Several years ago before the economy collapsed, I was invited to a Poker Tournament at Harrah’s Las Vegas because at the time I gave Harrah’s a goodly amount of side play when I attended their BJTs. Turns out the dates for this Poker tournament fit perfect with a BJT I was playing at a competing casino. The Poker tournament was a phenomenal success. They expected 1,000 players and ended up with over 2,500. Harrah’s then increased the prize pool to 250,000 – they don’t do that anymore as far as I know.
The day of the start of the Poker tournament was also the day of late registration (same as many BJTs). Things were chaotic to say the least. I registered at the normal time so the late registration was not my concern. I figured with this chaos, I had plenty of time to get to my table so I took a break outside of the room where all the chaos was occurring. When I returned to take my seat at my assigned table the game was already in process. Maybe 6 or 8 hands were already dealt. There were still chips at my seat (I only lost 1 small and 1 big blind) so I was allowed to play. I ended up placing 28th in a field of over 2,500 and collected $1,400.
So that’s my story. I say don’t eliminate me just because I’m a few minutes late. I deserve to be penalized if late but instant elimination is too severe of a penalty. By the way, to the best of my recollection, I have never been late for the start of a BJT round – but it can happen, Murphy’s Law.
Last edited:
Ah, now I see how you meant your comment above.
Something along the lines of "If people interested in poker tournaments find the late arrival rules to be helpful, then people interested in blackjack tournaments might also appreciate the ability to arrive a bit late."
While I understand your statement now, I'll stick to my opinion that the late-arrival rule contributes little. If the rule remains (which of course it will in most venues!), I think the penalty should be something like the 1/5 of the starting bank per hand I mentioned above.
Something along the lines of "If people interested in poker tournaments find the late arrival rules to be helpful, then people interested in blackjack tournaments might also appreciate the ability to arrive a bit late."
While I understand your statement now, I'll stick to my opinion that the late-arrival rule contributes little. If the rule remains (which of course it will in most venues!), I think the penalty should be something like the 1/5 of the starting bank per hand I mentioned above.
LeftNut
Top Member
:laugh:you ain't in your seat, you don't compete.
First of all, I'm not sure how this thread got hijacked into a discussion of only one or two of the original C & J points, and negative points at that. At least it got some activity going here!
Secondly, I only expressed an opinion about the tardy players. Ken's idea of taking 20% of their chips for each hand is an OK compromise but, like most others here, I still strongly feel that a player who cannot be bothered to be on time like everyone else should get the boot. Am I trying to change generally accepted rules? Nope, merely expressing an opinion. If I had the power to change things about how BJT's are run, that would not be the starting point at all.
By the way, shame on me for leaving this out of the original post:
CHEERS - for the positively excellent buffet-style spread laid out for us on Friday night before competition began, and also for breakfast on Saturday morning. Complimentary for all players, too! That had to be a pain for the waitstaff to constantly shuttle serving dishes back and forth from the kitchen, it was no small hike for them. Other than the hotel operation, Meskwaki truly tries hard to show their appreciation for the tournament players.
Last edited:
Move them
A couple years ago they had the problem of tables being short players due to no shows. They stopped and moved people around ending up with mostly six per table but some tables still had seven. So...even after the delay and extra effort it wasn't totally even at every table. People from the next round were allowed to sit in an empty seat if they wanted to (pick your own table). This is not the first time they have dealt with the challenge.
My question to all is this:
In the round with four players and three advance with only one eliminated, what happens if two people do not show up? Who advances in the absence of the third player? Nobody, someone from the next table or go back one round and take a loser back in to fill the seat or start with an empty seat at the next round (more disparity)???????
So far the only empty seats I've ever seen were the first rounds. Who says something can't happen in later rounds?
A couple years ago they had the problem of tables being short players due to no shows. They stopped and moved people around ending up with mostly six per table but some tables still had seven. So...even after the delay and extra effort it wasn't totally even at every table. People from the next round were allowed to sit in an empty seat if they wanted to (pick your own table). This is not the first time they have dealt with the challenge.
My question to all is this:
In the round with four players and three advance with only one eliminated, what happens if two people do not show up? Who advances in the absence of the third player? Nobody, someone from the next table or go back one round and take a loser back in to fill the seat or start with an empty seat at the next round (more disparity)???????
So far the only empty seats I've ever seen were the first rounds. Who says something can't happen in later rounds?
I believe that is ROUND 3 you are referring to - 3 advance out of 4. The answer depends on the policy set by the TD:
If the policy is to even the tables, as best as possible, because of no-shows:
In Round 3, one player from another table would have to be chosen to fill in the 3rd seat at the table having only 2 players. This, of course, means the TD gets to play God because that chosen player will automatically advance to Round 4. Also, the 3 remaining players from the table that the one player was removed from will also automatically advance. That means that a total of 4 players will automatically advance on the TD's decision. Now the 2 players originally at the short table will naturally automatically advance so a total of 6 players will automatically advance to Round 4.
The TD, in effect, gets to choose which table will advance all 4 players
If the policy is not to rearrange seating because of a no-show:OR - LOOK AT IT ANOTHER WAY
The TD, in effect, gets to choose which table will advance all 4 players
In round 3, the 2 players at the table of no-shows would automatically advance to Round 4. There would be one less player for Round 4. One table in Round 4 would contain one less player than the other tables.
Last edited:
TXtourplayer
Executive Member
Hopefully they will learn...
I'm sorry I assumed the minimum bet for the absent players was at least 20% of the starting bankroll. If they allowed only minimum bets for the absent players I'd be PISSED-OFF as well. I agree that the absent players should be penalized for their tardiness. In the TBJPA rules the starting bankroll is $500 (with the following bets min. $5/max. $200). However absent players are allowed 5 hands grace at 20% ($100) per hand and each hand is an automatic loser they are not seated at their assigned seats and complete forfeiture of any and all entry fees. They would however still be entitled to any wild card drawings since they were a paid participant in the event.
To just take minimum bets for the first three hands makes no sense at all. There is no penalty to the tardy player and as Leilahay pointed out that with a HOT dealer the tardy player(s) could arrive late and possible have a lead at the table. Again this comes from non-experienced personnel running the events and simply not understanding how or why rules are set or suppose to be set in place.
I'm sorry I assumed the minimum bet for the absent players was at least 20% of the starting bankroll. If they allowed only minimum bets for the absent players I'd be PISSED-OFF as well. I agree that the absent players should be penalized for their tardiness. In the TBJPA rules the starting bankroll is $500 (with the following bets min. $5/max. $200). However absent players are allowed 5 hands grace at 20% ($100) per hand and each hand is an automatic loser they are not seated at their assigned seats and complete forfeiture of any and all entry fees. They would however still be entitled to any wild card drawings since they were a paid participant in the event.
To just take minimum bets for the first three hands makes no sense at all. There is no penalty to the tardy player and as Leilahay pointed out that with a HOT dealer the tardy player(s) could arrive late and possible have a lead at the table. Again this comes from non-experienced personnel running the events and simply not understanding how or why rules are set or suppose to be set in place.