Lots of players, few entries...

[RKuczek]

comments

good comments pokernut and fgk42 -

first - like I said - in poker tournaments, effectively half the table advances - and most players - even those who don't advance - get some reasonable amount of playing time - the equivalent in tbj would be 45 hand tables with 3 of 6 advance - this would definitely strechout playing time - but then - poker tournaments are marathons for this very reason - for some reason - people think tbj should be 'quick' - wrong - give the players playing time - and a lot of time for skill to overcome short term luck - go for 45 hand tables and 3 of 6 advance each round - then tbj players won't be so gung ho for the rebuys - if you are looking at only a 1 of 7 odds to advance and playing only 15 hands at most - yeah - I want an opportunity to beat the luck and more playing time - so - duplicate the poker turnament conditions - long rounds and 1/2 advance - that would work I think

second - I think min-events for very reasonable buyins - would be a draw for local/small market players - whenb I started playting tbj I would never have considered paying $300 for an entry - after winning some money - $300 seemed prety reasonable - not always simply a matter of what you can afford - but may be what you are willing to gamble - I don't play $300 a hand bj - above my comfort level - but comfort levels change with experience and familiarity - give small BR players a shot at a decent tourney - that will eventually produce more players willing to pay more later -

third - I think what Rick needs is a 'base' - either a single casino or a group of casinos or a circuit of casinos- that will run TBJPA styled tourneys on a regular basis - building to a climax tourney - with reasonable ev and consistant rules - that can draw in regular/local comped players and 'traveling pros' - and involve other casinos in satelite events - that would give a base to build and expand on - occassional tourneys in odd locations with no local casino support - just isn't making it -

 

[London Colin]

for some reason - people think tbj should be 'quick' - wrong - give the players playing time - and a lot of time for skill to overcome short term luck - go for 45 hand tables and 3 of 6 advance each round - then tbj players won't be so gung ho for the rebuys - if you are looking at only a 1 of 7 odds to advance and playing only 15 hands at most - yeah - I want an opportunity to beat the luck and more playing time - so - duplicate the poker turnament conditions - long rounds and 1/2 advance - that would work I think

I think I disagree with you there. Unless you go for a real marathon, with several hundred rounds and a very deeply dealt deck for the card counters, I don't see that there can be much impact on the role of luck. I think I read somewhere that there used to be such tournaments in the early days.

Having dabbled with poker, one of things I prefer about BJT is that it's over so much more quickly. Of course that's an online player's perspective. Seated at my compter, I have no travel costs and can often jump staight into another game after I get knocked out.

So, in the physical world, I think rebuys and/or other mechanisms to allow players to quickly get into another game, once they've been knocked out, are an important feature.

I do agree that allowing half the table to advance is a good idea; it helps the skillful players as well as increasing everyone's chances to experience more than just one round of the action.

 

[Monkeysystem]

Two Cents' Worth

I think the best way to mitigate the dumb luck factor in blackjack tournaments is to avoid one-winner tables. One-winner tables usually either turn into max bet double down lotteries on the last two or three hands, or lotteries in which one lucky aggressive player gets an insurmountable lead. You seldom get to use your bankroll tracking skill and endgame knowledge in this format.

I like three-winner tables best because they're so complex, with the multiple calculations you have to perform to optimize your chances.

I like two-winner tables because the situations can be complex and they give you an out if that one lucky big bettor gets the insurmountable lead.

I like rebuys because they give me more bang for the bucks I spend travelling.

 

[fgk42]

first - like I said - in poker tournaments, effectively half the table advances - and most players - even those who don't advance - get some reasonable amount of playing time - the equivalent in tbj would be 45 hand tables with 3 of 6 advance - this would definitely strechout playing time - but then - poker tournaments are marathons for this very reason - for some reason - people think tbj should be 'quick' - wrong - give the players playing time - and a lot of time for skill to overcome short term luck - go for 45 hand tables and 3 of 6 advance each round - then tbj players won't be so gung ho for the rebuys - if you are looking at only a 1 of 7 odds to advance and playing only 15 hands at most - yeah - I want an opportunity to beat the luck and more playing time - so - duplicate the poker turnament conditions - long rounds and 1/2 advance - that would work I think

I’ll agree with you ½ way on this point. Having a MINIMUM of 2 players advance – 3 is better. However more hands? No way. I recently played in a tournament that had 30 hands. Most of my live events have been 20 hands or EBJ. It seemed like the 30 hand event dragged on FOREVER. More hands means this – people just min bet for longer. Sorry but its true.

second - I think min-events for very reasonable buyins - would be a draw for local/small market players - when I started playing tbj I would never have considered paying $300 for an entry - after winning some money - $300 seemed pretty reasonable - not always simply a matter of what you can afford - but may be what you are willing to gamble - I don't play $300 a hand bj - above my comfort level - but comfort levels change with experience and familiarity - give small BR players a shot at a decent tourney - that will eventually produce more players willing to pay more later –

Once again I’ll go ½ way with you. My experience with TBJ and entry fees mirrors yours exactly. But having a national tour (what the TBJPA is about) is about 2 things: 1. Making money for the tour and 2. Having events that attract high rollers who can pay the bills.

Let me explain: 1. Making money for the tour – heck it’s a business and isn’t that the purpose of a business – unless you’re a non-profit or governmental entity. 2. In order to pay the overhead you’ve either got to have A–little to no overhead or B-have high enough entry fees to minimize the effect of the overhead as a percentage of the fees. Now a $40 TBJPA fee is a 40% vig on a 100 buy in. That decreases to a 4% fee on a $1,000 buy in.

third - I think what Rick needs is a 'base' - either a single casino or a group of casinos or a circuit of casinos- that will run TBJPA styled tourneys on a regular basis - building to a climax tourney - with reasonable ev and consistant rules - that can draw in regular/local comped players and 'traveling pros' - and involve other casinos in satelite events - that would give a base to build and expand on - occassional tourneys in odd locations with no local casino support - just isn't making it –

Now I’ll agree with you 100%. What the ideal set-up would be is this:

Have 6 casinos holding monthly TBJPA events with moderate buy-in’s (let’s say 100-200). The winner and 2nd place gets an automatic entry into the TBJPA tour stop. There would be bi-monthly TBJPA tour stops with $500-$1500 buy-ins and guaranteed prize pools of 100,000. That’s it. No million dollar event – just hold 6 100K events a year. Hold 12 (monthly) x 6 (hosting casinos) 72 feeder events.

Now if you got a sponsor like GSN’s WSOB then the top 3 of the final tables (plus invites and comp’d guests) could come together for the WSOB in Vegas. In this case the WSOB would have onsite crews at each TBJPA stop (6) filming preliminary matches. That way the home audience could see the journey of the players from the tour stops to the final event. It would be a way to connect with home audience and the players. It would also, hopefully, get the players to come out of their shells before making it to the studio. Let’s face it folks a televised match needs personality to sell it. HD is a perfect example of that – you like him or you hate him. If you hate him you tune it and root for him to get his ass kicked. If you like him – well then you tune in to cheer for him. Either way you tune it and for a TV program it’s ALL about ratings.

Oh wait – what I’ve described above. Isn’t that what UBT tried to do? With limited success. Could it be a success in the long-term? I hope so but with no more BJT scheduled after their season finale…

So there you have it – sounds good on paper but in reality.