What needs to change for tournament improvements

Discussion in 'Ideas to Promote or Improve Tournaments' started by TXtourplayer, Jul 20, 2009.

  1. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Below quote is from my Winstar tournament post.

    The point I'm trying to make is no matter how good an event sounds it is important that a tournament has a good format and rules for having success.

    As I've mentioned in the past Skill vs. Luck has a lot to do with tournament success and the format and rules has even more to do with how much skill and luck there is. A weak format and rules can change the luck factor to an even higher level. The Winstar event is a perfect example; look at how many ploppies have advanced to the finals over quality players. Not only can it increase the luck factor but also it can end up killing the events turnout and prize pool.

    I guarantee if Winstar would have had a maximum bet and offered surrender players from around the world would have come in to play the "Split" last year. They didn't come close to selling out one of the five qualifiers they hosted for the "Split". After all how many players want to travel for a coin toss?

    Now Winstar is a little different from most casinos, they actually payout what they offer, even when only half of the players showed up they expected last year Winstar still paid the full amount for every qualifier and their final event so they could get away with not as player friendly rules.

    If other casinos would offer guarantee prize money (regardless of the numbers of players) plus offer a good format and rules where players felt they had a fighting chance to succeed I’m sure these events would be drawing in a lot more players.

    Now before someone replies back about the LV Hilton hosting 600 plus players in their BJ tournament, I am talking about tournaments with paid entries, not “Freebies” or “VIP” events, although several of those could be improved themselves.

    I wish some upper casino management would realize that hosting events with better formats and rules would actually increase player turnout for their events in return increasing the prize money for even higher turnouts in later events instead of trying to cater to just their high rollers and regulars they could draw 300 plus entries instead 75 – 125.

    Even their VIP events could use a shot in the arm. By just opening their tournaments they could easily increase their turnouts by about double and by doing so increase their payouts, which would be more attractive to draw in their preferred guest.
  2. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    The problem with events like Winstar (and most of the invitationals as mentioned by Tx above) is that they don't want the traveling player at all. Winstar specifically designed the new eligibility rules to severely discourage non-locals from entering. Sure, the playing rules at Winstar also have a role but they were there last year and it didn't discourage us enough. Out of $100,000 in the May qualifier last year, $50,000 went to Michigan, $15,000 went to the Seattle area, and $10,000 went to Arkansas.

    This was most certainly not what they wanted to see, so this year they eliminated the paid entry fees and instituted the onerous and annoying 20-hour qualifying rule on top of the ploppy-friendly playing rules. They don't want us because they want the money to stay local. Actually, I am impressed by Winstar's BJT management because they did an astoundingly thorough job of imaginatively changing the rules to discourage those of us who would need airline tickets to attend.
  3. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Not completely correct

    It isn't that Winstar doesn't want traveling players; all their business is from traveling players (the casino is out in no where). Swog and I are an hour and half away and considered regulars or locals. However I understand where leftnut is coming from, but players need to realize that it isn't players from out of town that Winstar (and other casino) are up set about, but the lack of play given the casino when players only come in for a tournament.

    To be fair I doubt any of us would do or feel any different then the casino's if we were in their place. The 20 hours required for entry into this year’s event came into place after last years open "Split" tournament, which produced very little side action on tables and or machines.

    Playing 20 hours to get a free entry into a "GUARANTEED" prize pool isn't that bad of a deal. Sure those players who have to travel a farther distance it is more inconvenient, but what about traveling to Vegas or Tunica only to find out the advertised prize pool has been dropped by over 50%.

    So you can see there is some give and take here. You may give up having to come in earlier and stay more days and even put in time on the regular tables for the Win star event, but you'll know the prize pool is set and no entry fee (if your one of the first 90 with 20 hours).

    When you think about the required 20 hours it isn't that bad of a deal. All tournaments are put on with hopes of drawing in players to give the host casino more action (tables and machines). So what Winstar has done was basicly forced the issue by making the players earn their entry before hand and not leaving it to chance that the players give the casino side action. Actually good business on their part if you want to be fair about it.

    Do I like it? No, I'd love to just get to go play the tournament without required side play, but that isn't how and why they offer tournaments. If we don't get out of this mindset we're going to end up with no tournaments at all except for the VIP events. What’s so funny about that is to get a VIP invite you have to give the casino side action and normally a lot more then minimum bets.

    Actually other then some of the rules, Winstar and the LV Hilton put on the fairest events in terms of earning free entry into their guaranteed events.

    What a lot of tournament blackjack players have got to learn is that there is no such thing as a "FREE" tournament. Every player that gets VIP invites have play and put in several hours at each of those casino's before getting their so call freebie entries.

    Casinos are a business and even though we want these great deals if the edge is not with the casino it isn't going to happen. BJ players bitch about taking out for tips (even 3% - 5%), and want to play for the kind of money they play for in poker tournaments where they take (15% - 30% out off the top). BJ players would have a heart attack if that kind of money were taken out of one of our events.

    I can tell everyone that they probably won't have to worry about Winstar after this tournament. What I am hearing is that they are just going to go to VIP tournaments after this year anyway to avoid the hassles and players bitching, can you blame them? Again a huge guaranteed over lay tournament killed by the players so we have no one to blame but ourselves.

    Hopefully they may give us another chance and offer the "Split" next year as well.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2009
  4. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    LeftNut more right than Tx

    I think LeftNut has it more right than Tx. Except it is not 'local' players that casinos want, it is 'unskilled players'. Why on earth would a casino want to attract traveling, skilled players to tournaments which they intend as a promotion? It is not just an issue of 'side play', but establishing an image and encouraging unskilled high rollers to visit and donate their money to the casino. Maybe they won't play this time, but if they come back next month and play, the casino is happy. To encourage this, the casinos WANT their tournaments to be luck fests. They want the less skilled players to have a great chance of winning/cashing. The bad rules aren't accidental, they are actually good marketing.

    As for 'all tournaments being promotions', as Tx himself points out, poker tourneys are raked, and sometimes heavily. Casinos can make a profit off of poker tourneys. As this is the case, and, as poker rules are well established and standardized, unlike tbj formats/rules, the casinos can offer tourneys which set up for the skilled poker players.

    IF you want tbj set up with skill friendly rules and formats, then accept and play in raked tourneys, and depend on your skill to get you through and into the money. If you want 'positive ev' and plentiful comps, etc. - then you are looking for a 'promotional tournament' with the other unskilled players, who need luck and luck friendly rules to have a shot at the money.
  5. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Until a casino listens, it's just good ideas on the blackboard

    I have to disagree on this, only because bad rules turn players away from traveling to the event unless it is just such a high posivtive EV. I believe the better marketing approach would be to offer good rules to draw in players and their comp-ed players will come in anyway. The only difference is now the field is larger and the casino can offer a bigger prize pool. Even better marketing would be to "OPEN" the events up to all players and create an even bigger prize pool.

    Do I believe that just a good format and rules will make for a great event? No my TBJPA events were proof of that. Players who played in them loved the format and rules. But without the casino's guaranteed prize money and comp-ed players only a hand full of hard core tournament players attended them. We can't succeed without the guaranteed prize money that draws in 1/3 or better and the comp-ed players the casino add out of that guaranteed prize money.

    I still say standardize BJ tournaments formats and rules and the tournament players pool would increase dramaticly, which would increase demand and prize money. Which if done properly would be better for the casinos and players both.

    Playing in ranked tournaments with good rules is the problem, where are they? And if you can find them are they open?

    If I could just get some casino's willing to offer good quality tournaments with no more guarantees then they offer for their current events, only change their format slightly and add a few rules I think they would be surprized how many player they could be drawing in to their tournaments.

    Players are out there, but they are a lot more selective about the tournaments they are playing in now days with the current ecconomy. You give me a $20,000 guarantee offer a good format (at least 2 advance), good rules and offer at least 1 re-buy and I can draw in the players. Allow me to host multiple events (3 to 6) back to back and I can almost guarantee you a full field for the last few for sure.

    That is all the players want, value for they buck and the more events offered the longer and more play the casino gets from the players, kind of a no brainer.

    I'll still say if given a chance my Airline format will be the future of BJ tournaments. It gives everyone a chance to play for a big prize pool. And with my multiple entry formula it like playing multiple tournaments for each one. Plus needing few players to build that larger prize pool.
  6. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member

    You are wrong

    Point of my post, as I have said on this site before, is that casinos consider bj tournaments as promotions, no different than a slot tournament. They have no interest in filling up a promotional tournament with skilled players traveling into town to suck the money away from their comped high rolling losers. That would be even too stupid for a casino exec. It is us who want tourneys which are skilled based competitions, not the casinos. They don't make money from tourneys.

    Casinos want luck to be as much a factor as possible, as that gives all of their invited high rollers a shot at winning some money. That's what they want, every comped player having a shot at the money, through mindless luck. They do not want players having an advantage through skilled play. That would hurt the promotional purpose of the tourney. So casinos love muligans, 2-1 bjs, 3-1 payoff for suited bjs, secret bets, 5-1 payoffs for 5-card charlies, no max bet, and any other silly carnival game rule that decreases the skillfulness of the game. And the only people who complain are the skilled players, whom they don't care about anyway.

    That will not change, ever, unless bj tournaments can become a profit center for the casinos, as poker tournaments are. That means large field, raked tournaments; and that is very unlikely to ever happen for two reasons. 1. many regular players won't play unless the casino pushes extra money into the pot to make the tourney positive EV. I think this says something about the actual skill level of many players, or, at least, their own assessment of their skills. They just aren't willing to put their money on the line, betting they are good enough to overcome a rake. TBJ just doesn't have the skill component that poker does, is much more luck dependent. Very few players really have enough of an edge to over come travel expenses plus entry fees plus rake. For most players, tournaments would be a losing proposition if they couldn't get a boost from positive ev. I am not trying to put down anyone here, just acknowledging that the skill component in tbj is very small compared to the luck component, and edges are minimal. A player may be good enough to win in the very long run, in an even ev setting, or even overcome a small rake, in a local tourney, but, add in travel expenses and the edge is not there except for, maybe, a very few players. 2. There is only a very small market for tbj, much fewer people than for poker. We will never match the sizes of poker tournaments. So large raked tourneys are unlikely to occur, becaue the market for them is not there.

    Add it up, and we get what we got.
  7. LeftNut

    LeftNut Top Member

    I simply wish to clarify one point from my earlier post. Winstar's 20-hour rule was diabolically designed to discourage the long-distance BJT assassin because they limited it to the first 90 qualifying players even though it would seem to be beneficial for them to allow all players in who got their 20 hours. Think about it - 50 cent per hand commission, let's say 30 hands per hour minimum, that's $15 per hour X 20 hours, or at least $300 per player from the commission alone. On the surface, it would seem to be a good idea to allow as many qualifying players as possible into the BJT, right? But they limited it to the first 90 players! Why? Because this severely discourages the traveling player from flying in two or three days before the BJT to get the 20 hours completed since they might be too late to be one of the first 90. So now those players would be looking at three round-trips - one to qualify, one to play the first level tournament, and one to play the finals. Using myself as an example, I'd likely be looking at about $700-$800 in total airfares, plus "X" motel room nights, plus whatever I won/lost during the initial 20 hours. Not a good gamble at all.

    The "first 90" rule was very intelligently designed to keep the traveling players away.
  8. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Your missing my point

    Richard I understand your point about the current way tournaments are being run and your right. The point I was trying to make is that if casinos would host BJ tournaments more like Poker and allow skilled players in the events they would be more profitable for them and better for the players as well.

    Again I'm going to use poker as the example: just look back ten years ago, most Vegas casinos that still had poker rooms were getting rid of them because they weren't making money off them, at least as much as they could be with other games in the same space.

    Now with the popularity of poker and known skilled players, poker has become one of the casinos major draws. The chance to play and compete against skilled players is is an attraction to many players. Plus by allowing "ALL" players to participate in these events has increased the prize pools as well.

    It doesn't matter if it is a poker or blackjack tournament the prize money isn't going to be high unless one of two things happen; 1) you draw in a large field of players (2) you charge a large entry fee.

    For a BJ tournament I don't see number 2 above happening for more then $1,000 to $2,000 and even then for a limited amount of players. However number 1 above, I believe can be a reality as long as "All" players are allowed to play.

    Most players now days have never seen more then 250 to 300 players at a BJ tournament unless it was comp-ed out or you could win your seat like the LV Hilton offers. Back when I first started playing in the mid 80's it was normal to have 500 to 600 plus players not only playing the tournaments, but all paid entries and playing "LIVE" money of $600 buy-in's each round.

    What was the draw back then? BIG PRIZE MONEY and how did they get it? From having lots of players and how did they get so many players? By allowing everybody in the tournaments. Banning "Skilled players" is a crock!

    The myth that skilled players run all over the tournaments is wrong. Just look at the results from most tournaments. Every few weeks to few months we see or hear of a member making a final table or even winning an event. If skilled players had that much advantage in tournaments we would be winning all the time. Another point is the playing fields are not even that large, actually small for most events.

    I agree that a skilled player has an edge in certain situations, but if they don't catch the cards or have some luck on their side their not going go where.

    Lets take a look at "what if" a casino hosted an open BJ tournament with a guaranteed prize pool, good format, and rules which would allow skilled players a chance to use their skills/knowledge. Wouldn't this be a huge drawing card for you to travel and play in this event? Now that you have the seasoned tournament players interested, plus the casino will always have their comp-ed or invited guests, the event is getting larger and drawing more interest from the newer tournament players and ploppies.

    If hosted properly BJ tournaments could have over 300 players consistently even in todays economy, which would make for a better bottom line for the casinos profit anyway. Why keep pulling in basically the same 75 to 125 players for a tournament that always cuts their prize pool down at least by 25 to 50% of the advertised payouts. If they have the players the prize pool can be what is advertised and players will stop getting burned out and disappointed.

    I also believe that if the casino really marketed the events correctly they could push certain players as the top tournament BJ players as well. Players like to play against the best just like in poker it is a draw.

    I know some think my idea is crazy, but I believe it would work if given a chance. That's my opinion anyway.
  9. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    In addition

    First off I agree with RKuczek and Leftnut in the casino's mind set for our current tournaments. My point and hopes is that we can change the mind set of the casinos, but the only way that is ever going to happen is if the tournament players start giving side action to the casinos.

    Winstar doesn't mind traveling players coming in to play as long as they give the casino some action. This is why they added the 20 hours of side action to get an entry.

    Do casinos like most season tournament players? About as much as having cockroaches, why because they give the casinos the same amount of side action!

    I was told point blank by Winstar personel they don't mine seasoned players coming in for the tournament as long as they get their 20 hours in, otherwise they could care less about having them come in because they get no side play from them.

    The reason the prize pool is so large at Winstar is because their regulars build up the players pool over months and months of play so do you blame them for asking for 20 hours from traveling players? That isn't that big of a deal when you compare what they are offering compared to most other tournaments around the country.

    I hate to say it but I can see it coming to the point where tournaments are all VIP invites or paid entries with set hours of side action require within a certain time span or the players will be disqualified.
  10. Fredguy

    Fredguy New Member



    Does the Winstar recognize the difference in side action between a 5$ player at a full table, vs a $50 player head to head with the dealer?

    The latter would seem to give an order of magnitude more action than the former over any period of time.

    That's one of the things that seem illogical about the 20 hour parameter.

    For you guys in Dallas, the 20 hours should not be a problem. I would like to play in this event, but look at it this way....
    I would have to arrive 3 days early...I cannot play more than 6-7 hours a day with going bonkers. Then 2 days for the tourny. Then 2 days for travel, and all of a sudden you have invested 7 days. And you still may not get to play.

    I agree that the casinos need side action. The side action by players at tournaments I have been to has been pathetic at best. But if they want non-local players, the 20 hour rule is not the way to go.
  11. RKuczek

    RKuczek Member


    OK, a little reality here. Think about poker tournaments; yes, there are differences between tournament play and cash games, but the essential feature of the games, direct player to player competition, and the formats and rules (except for blinds increasing) are the same. That means any cash game player can transition easily and quickly to the tournament game. It is the same game, only in a tournament format. That makes the market for poker tournaments every one who has ever played a cash game.

    Now look at tbj and blackjack. They are not even remotely the same game. Blackjack is a game played against the house, emphasizing analysis and knowledge of probabilities and mathematically correct play. Players do not compete against each other, the game is to overcome a fixed odds situation with the house as the only opponent. Blackjack players do not have a win-lose relationship with each other, usually they all win or lose against a common opponent.

    Tournament Blackjack is a very different game; in tbj the players do compete against each other, even if that competition is mediated through a dealer. Players must take into consideration the play and bets of othe r payers, and you are trying to beat the other players, not trying to beat the dealers. TBJ is directly antithical to regular bj. A completely different type of game. Many bj players will not like tbj, because they will not like the competitive element, and/or will not want to learn a new set of skills to play tbj; skills which are not needed or applicable to regular bj. What this means is that the market for tbj IS NOT ALL BLACKJACK PLAYERS. It is a very small subset of bj players.

    Poker tournaments took off when the internet poker scene started getting big, and more people started playing more poker. That simple. Blackjack has always been the most popular casino table game, yet tbj has never benefitted from that popularity the way poker tournaments have from the popularity of the cash game.

    I would place th seeming popularity of early tbj in the 'fad' category, it was new, the casinos didn't understand where their best interests lay, and the players tried it. The player numbers declined because many just didn't want to do it.

    If we want big tbj tourneys with great rules, we need to create a market for that. It is just not there now. No matter how we jerk around rules, prize pools, etc. - it is not going to work. Not unless we can figure out how to build a good sized pool of potential players.
  12. rookie789

    rookie789 Active Member

    Poker vs. Blackjack side action

    The issue of poker vs. blackjack (rake vs. side play) tournaments has been debated on this site for which seems like years and the bottom line is casinos at large want (deserve) side play from tournament players in all tournaments including Blackjack, Poker, Slot, VP, Bingo etc.

    I participated in a Craps tournament during a recent WSOP event at the Rio and sat at blackjack tables playing and conversing with WSOP participants that were playing $500 + per hand so I'm not convienced casinos believe the Poker Rake is the only potential profit they may achieve, poker players also give casino side action in addition to tournment rake as I've observed. I think it's illogical to believe or assume poker players only contribution to a casino potential profit is the rake, they in my experience give side action.

    I believe it's short sighted some believe blackjack tournament players can pay a 5 to 10% (Vig, Rake) in lieu of appropriate side action and casinos should/will offer BJ tournaments other than mini's. A 10% Vig/Rake for a 100 player $100.00 entry without side play as some have deemed satisfactory is only a potential $1,000.00 hold for the casino minus expense.

    I doubt any casino other than those promoting mini tournaments would approve a tournament or other promotion that included a one or two day event for a $1,000 hold minus expense.

    If you want blackjack tournaments more than mini's you must as Toolman has preached "Pay to play".
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2009
  13. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Rookie on the mark!

    I agree with Rookie, well said. Now I'm going to go back to 1984 and tell you about my first blackjack tournament at the Desert Inn and how it was run and how it was profitable for the casinos and how they could pay out so much in prizes.

    August 8 - 11, 1984, The entry was $350 with "Live" money buy-in's of $500 every round. Every player could play in each of the three rounds by re-buying for I believe $250 each time if they didn't win their table and another buy-in for $500 each round. The top player from each table
    advanced to the semifinals. Basically the three rounds where entries and re-entries.

    Each of the three rounds offered prizes for the high score in each. !st round was $5,000 bonus, 2nd was $10,000, and 3rd was a brand new 84" Cadillac. These events even paid a $1,000 bonus for each session winner (top score) in every session about 8 sessions per the three rounds.

    That means $24,000 for the 24 session winners and around $40,000 for the three round winners. *Note: 1st prize for the event was $100,000.

    In these events they normally had around 650 plus players, (that is 650 X $350 entry = $227,500 plus all the additional $250 re-buys, plus the $500 live money buy-in's each round (that is $500 X 650 players buy in's = $300,000 X 3 = $900,000 at risk by the players).

    We also played 60 hands per round at $10 minimum up to $500 maximum so it was like playing two hours of regular play for every round played.

    With each $350 entry fee the contestant would receive three days/nights hotel and tournament gift.

    You can see how blackjack tournaments have dropped over the past 35 years.

    For those who didn't know Chris Ferguson (Jesus) professional poker player once won the Stardust blackjack tournament for $100,000 and other pro poker players; Russ Hamilton, Blair Rodman use to also play in these tournaments along with BJ expert Anthony Curtis.

    I've seen the players and know how much money use to be offered in these blackjack tournaments, this is why I feel so strongly about trying to get them built back up again.

    These tournaments were run with a set formula and rules and offered guaranteed prize money and they always booked up. Not just at one casino, but at several of them in Vegas.

    Some say you can't go back, but I believe if you offer the players a good product you'll bring them in and if the money is there we'll start building a stronger players pool of regulars.

    Only problem is I don't see most of the current players willing to play the "live" money format anymore. Now days most all the tournaments use non-negotiable chips, this is why side action is so important for the casinos.

    It can be done but I think forced side action maybe the answer, only unlike Winstars 20 hours before the event, that players will be ask to come in for three days with day one for registration, day two tournament starts, day three the tournament finishes up and over those three days 16 hours are needed to be put in on side action (tables, machines, whatever as long as the casino gets there action). Perhaps 4-8 hours needed before you may play round 1 if not played entry is forfited, by third day you must have in your 16 hours or you forfit continuing in the tournament.

    *Note: The above rules would only be in play for those players coming in just for the tournaments and do not have a history of regular play at said casino. This seems to be as fair of a suggestion as I can come up with.

    I realize this sound harsh but something needs to be done, I can promise you that there are about 40 players on this site that play tournaments all the time and they already put their time in at these casino's.

    Ask S. Yama, Ken, Walt, Dr, Bass, BJBeauty, Rookie, Chips, Eastxpro...etc they all have a history of play and give the casino action. When I was playing I had a history of playing, this is why these players get invited to tournaments.

    My above suggestion may not be the answer but seems like forced side action may be the only answer since so many players have a problem with giving the casino side action and only want a free shot at tournament play.

    I'm open for suggestion and welcome any that can help improve and increase BJ tournaments for all of us.
  14. zweeky

    zweeky Member

    In that case, why not offering the players the option to pay an extra fee equivalent to an average house edge of 16 hours if they are not interested to give side action?

    For me, giving side play at the games you mentionned is out of the question, because these are games that I don't enjoy playing at all. I enjoy tournaments because of the competition between players. AND the possibility to use a strategy. I've played thousands of Hearts games online for free because it's a game I love. I dislike most casino games, not because I don't have an edge but because I think they are boring to play. I did enjoy regular blackjack for a while in the past, but now I'm bored after 5 minutes of play. I would be inclined to think that many tournament poker players think the same. When I don't play to win money, I want to play to enjoy myself!

    I've been playing blackjack tournaments for only 3 years and as you may know, it's mostly online play.

    In the last 6 months, I played more than 900 Sit N Go on UB, with different buy-in fees and a fixed 10% to the house. This gives the house around $1700. But maybe that kind of "side play" would work only online. My point is: I wouldn't consider 20 hours of side play for regular BJ, but I would for a game that I love. But if it's really impossible for a live casino to make enough money this way well... I don't have any suggestion. As for 20 hours of regular BJ, I would rather pay directly the estimated house edge (with basic strategy) and do something else outside the casino.

  15. Billy C

    Billy C Top Member

    Side Action

    How many of us that post here ARE NOT compulsive gamblers? I have no shame for being one (should I?)
    Having said that, I get invited back to events simply because I always give huge amounts of side play (more often than not it's video poker rather than BJ). About the only things that will tempt me to play "regular" slots on occasion are extremely high progressive jackpots or a hell of a good looking woman sitting next to an empty seat!
    I admit it's not always easy finding "playable" games but diligence has been working for me.

    Billy C
  16. hopinglarry

    hopinglarry Top Member

    Desert Inn

    Ah, the good old days.

    Rick, what are the odds, I also played in that Tournament. It was the 2nd tournament I ever played in.

    I remember the pre-tournament spread with the shrimp and stuff. Quite a feast.

  17. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Go one better Larry

    Yea the food was great, the gifts were great (still have my DI binoculars), and rooms were included.

    Remember who won it? He also one the Desert Inn tournament earlier that same year. Which as luck had it they use to offer a Million dollar bonus if you won two blackjack tournaments in the same year at several of the casinos, unfortunately the Desert Inn was the only one that didn't!

    The winner is someone we see at Durant tournaments, Brad Dunham aka: The Abilene Kid. The second table (round) I ever played in I met Brad and won the table, since I had won the first round as well Brad made the 4th round coming in 2nd.

    Back then you had to win the table to advance to 4th round, but you could play all 3 first rounds and if you won all three you made the semifinals automaticly.
  18. rookie789

    rookie789 Active Member

    "Pay to Play vs. Play to Play"

    I mistyped and misquoted Toolman in my 07/22 post in this thread, my apologies are extended. Toolman does not advocate "Pay to Play" as I stated which suggests a Rake/Vig but rather "Play to Play" which encourages tournament players to support casinos that offer tournament host casinos a potential profit but also offers tournament participants a potential profit.
  19. TXtourplayer

    TXtourplayer Executive Member

    Casinos mind set

    We have been discussing what needs to change on the part of the players, but what about the casinos?

    The casinos mind set is that by banning seasoned tournament players (STP) they will improve their tournaments, FALSE!

    How does this improve their events? Because season players dominate their tournaments? False, just look at most events held maybe 10% or less are won by STP.

    The casinos feel that their bottom line is no better with STP there or not. False!

    Most tournaments prize pools are based number of players attending the event. By banning STP fewer players attend and the prize pools drop. When the prize pools drop the invited players attendance decline as well which in return drops the side action and effects the casinos bottom line profits.

    So what needs to change? The casinos mind set on STP for a start. If the casinos would start allowing "ALL" players to play this would help raise the number of players attending tournaments, which would raise the amount of prize money awarded. The more prize money awarded means more invited player would attend the tournament, which means higher profits for the casinos bottom line. TRUE!

    Next the casinos need to start using better formats and rules. Offering formats where two players advancing from each table throughout the tournament, offer minimum and maximum betting limits regardless of the starting bankroll. Offering surrender and insurance would be nice as well.

    These simple changes wouldn't cost the casinos anymore money, but could increase their profits during tournaments.

    Also have the casinos withhold a small percentage of the prize pool to cover tournament expenses, charge a $5 fee per player for extra chips, award a bonus if the winner is staying at the host casino. All these little things could make hosting GOOD tournaments more appeling to both the casinos and players.

    So let's hear feedback on my above thoughts?
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2009
  20. Fredguy

    Fredguy New Member

    Just out of curiosity, what casinos bar STPs from tournaments ?

Share This Page