I've been reading All In and the Poker Articles are very informative. I do have a question about the events listed. For example at the Rio they have M-S - noon poker tourney. The ENTRY FEE: $45 + $15 % of Fees Returned: 75% Lets say they have 100 players put up $60 each ($45 entry & $15 buy-in) It is my understanding that the "vig" for this event is 25% ($15). Is that correct? If so, by looking at the LV Poker Tournament Listings there are MANY with 20% and greater vig? So why do we in the BJ community bitch about anything greater than 10%
33.33%, surely. (Since 10+1 is considered to be 10%, not 9.1%. i.e 1/10, not 1/11.) I've never really been sure if each of the terms 'vig', 'rake' and 'fee' have specific, well-defined meanings as far as this distinction is concerned, or if it's one of those ambiguous things you just have to get clarified whenever someone quotes a figure at you.
vig because there is more luck in tbj than in poker - and even the expert tbj players only enjoy a 20% to 60% advantage over the average player - so that 10% plus vig can cut greatly into your edge - and when you figure travel expenses and such into it - with the smaller prize pools - you just can't get a positive expectation with a sizable vig - also - tbj players are smarter than poker players
The real answer is that it's what the market will bear, and that blackjack tournaments are usually designed to promote a casino, while poker tournaments are supposed to support themselves. Typically a blackjack "mini" has little to no house vig. The goal is to get blackjack players to hang around your casino for 5 or so hours. there's a lot of downtime in blackjack tournaments, so the casinos are probably figuring in side action from many players. So the tournament can be run as a promotional loss leader. And when people are used to playing BJ tournaments without a large house vig, they will be resistant to large vigs. On the other hand, a poker tournament is played continuously, without downtime to play other games. After the tournament ends, the best the casino can hope for is that you will sit down in their ring games and play more, which isn't a big moneymaker anyway for the casino. Also, the demand for low-stakes poker tournaments are so high that tournaments with 30% vigorishes still have lots of people that will play in them, especially when those tournaments have slower blind structures. Finally, most card rooms don't have lots of empty tables to support large tournaments. Therefore, the demand for seats is higher than the supply, which makes the cost of a seat more expensive. I think the big issue with the vigs of BJ tournaments is that the cost of a tournament is fixed and really not a function of the buy-in. Therefore, as the entry fees get large, the fees should be a lot smaller percentage of the buy-in. I think the
Good point Toonces. your statement about the blind structures is intriguing. Should higher/quicker escalating have lower vigs? The cost of any tournament is "fixed" to a point. I understand the concept of quantity. For example buying 50 rolls of toilet paper at Sams Club is cheaper than buying 5 rolls at the supermarket. The larger the event then the easier it is to spread the overhead among more players. However at what point does it become a negative expectation? I mean in an ideal world we'd all love to play in BJT's/Poker tournies where extra money is added to the pot but the reality is those events are few and far between. If you have a choice between two events - event A returns 80% and event B retuns 75% it seems obvious to choose A (the higher percentage of return) However what if there are 200 players in event A and only 20 players in event B? Is it worth it to conceeed a 5% return for a better shot of finishing in the $? Are there any formulas or guidelines related to this?
Why do you guys care so much? If you don't like the rules, don't play! But it doesn't make those who set the rules wrong, evil, terrible, horrible, ne'er-do-wells. It's supply and demand. If too few people show up for a tournament, it'll go away. If a lot do, then it'll succeed. Some of the people complaining the most are supportive of UBT tournaments that get 35 people to show up and half of them get their entry paid by the sponsor! Tournament blackjack will never be as successful as most of us want it to be until the players unite to show support for the game in its many forms. But too many are looking for any opportunity for someone else to fail.
