I played in the first freeroll at 7 p.m. EDT last night online at UBT for the newly announced Dec. L.A. TV tourney . I finished first out of 406, which was nice (especially since now I won't have to play a million more tourneys this week just to get a seat for next Saturday...)
But the reason I bring up these numbers is not to brag (OK, maybe a little) but rather because of something I found unusual. This was a typical-for-its-total player-#, five-round game, with a progression that went:
R1--2 advance
R2--3 advance
R3--2 advance
R4--1 advances
Final Table: All 6 seated receive Oct. 14 online tourney invites for one L.A. trip winner (final table is played for braggin' rights only, in effect).
Note that in my case last night, however, one had to win the R4 table outright in order to advance. That is the first time I've encountered that. I just checked out a 291 entry group (2 p.m. EDT game) and see that it was five rounds as well, but at least one table I observed in R4 was the more typical "3 advance." As we all know, being top 3 of 7 is a whole lot easier than fighting one's way to be 1 of 7 (or 6)!
So, it has me thinking--amongst those of us who spend time, thought and a ridiculous amount of energy on this confounded game: Is there a table advance formula that knowledgeable players could use to any advantage here?
For example:
In other words, it would behoove the smart player to look for games where the entry size was in a range that guarantees a better chance of advancing.
I'm guessing that Reachy or LC probably already have some algorithm-driven, supercomputer-generated analysis of this situation, which they could share. If not, maybe someone has some knowledge on the UBT site tourney methodology or other thoughts that could help improve the "Freeroll Tourneys Entered vs. Success" %.
Thoughts anyone?
Best--Sabrejack
P.S. On an unrelated but hot-of-late topic, I'm fine reading about politics on this site if the politicians in question are making decisions that affect anything related to tournament blackjack in any format, which they most certainly are at the moment. Wail away--and let freedom (of speech) ring!
But the reason I bring up these numbers is not to brag (OK, maybe a little) but rather because of something I found unusual. This was a typical-for-its-total player-#, five-round game, with a progression that went:
R1--2 advance
R2--3 advance
R3--2 advance
R4--1 advances
Final Table: All 6 seated receive Oct. 14 online tourney invites for one L.A. trip winner (final table is played for braggin' rights only, in effect).
Note that in my case last night, however, one had to win the R4 table outright in order to advance. That is the first time I've encountered that. I just checked out a 291 entry group (2 p.m. EDT game) and see that it was five rounds as well, but at least one table I observed in R4 was the more typical "3 advance." As we all know, being top 3 of 7 is a whole lot easier than fighting one's way to be 1 of 7 (or 6)!
So, it has me thinking--amongst those of us who spend time, thought and a ridiculous amount of energy on this confounded game: Is there a table advance formula that knowledgeable players could use to any advantage here?
For example:
- Entry range is 200-250 players means that 2 or 3 advance in R4=ENTER
- 400-450 range guarantees a brutal winner-take-all R4=DON'T BOTHER
etc.
In other words, it would behoove the smart player to look for games where the entry size was in a range that guarantees a better chance of advancing.
I'm guessing that Reachy or LC probably already have some algorithm-driven, supercomputer-generated analysis of this situation, which they could share. If not, maybe someone has some knowledge on the UBT site tourney methodology or other thoughts that could help improve the "Freeroll Tourneys Entered vs. Success" %.
Thoughts anyone?
Best--Sabrejack
P.S. On an unrelated but hot-of-late topic, I'm fine reading about politics on this site if the politicians in question are making decisions that affect anything related to tournament blackjack in any format, which they most certainly are at the moment. Wail away--and let freedom (of speech) ring!
Last edited: