Multielimination hands friend or foe.

Firstly, I would like to lay emphasis on the importance of skills. Blackjack tournaments are games of skills, but element of luck plays a big role. To make it a true sport and to make it financially worthwhile for dedicated players I feel that we need to try to preserve as much as possible of any skills that could be applied in tournament blackjack.

We should be careful with making analogies between blackjack tournament and poker, especially tournament poker. There are quite a few players crossing over from that game, as well, there are bj players who play both games and I’ve heard many confused opinions based on drawing parallels for the two, so different, games.

My goal playing blackjack tournaments is to maximize the EV. I understand that there are other possible reason to play: pride in winning first place at any cost, socializing, trying new techniques, getting to know your future opponents styles of play, etc.. But for the purpose of this discussion it is about maximum money won.

I will present a few aspects of why I think elimination hands lower the EV for skillful players, some of them overlap, some would require a lot of prep work, which would take too much time on my part and would be boring to most of readers of this post.

Skillful blackjack tournament players should desire games that have very low Variance (which for people less mathematically inclined could be broadly called “luck element”). With blackjack tournament format that offers no variance at all, if you are the best player at the table (even just by little tiny bit) you always win the round.
With some Variance included, your long-term results should represent a degree how much better you are than the rest of your opponents but a single results of any particular tournament would be uncertain. The more trials the better the chance that the results are identification of skills, but this requires a much bigger number than most people think it is. Also, Variance in blackjack tournaments effects players differently based where they are on the spectrum line of skills they possess. This gets additionally complicated as some simple (or just a few of them) skills can be unproportionally effective, depending on tournament rules.
Take a look at the results of “one round” tournaments available on GlobalCasino. There are many instances where players performed 30% better than the average for a couple weeks, playing more than 50 rounds, and then they had a week or two with another 30, or so, rounds where their results were worse than the average.
Of course “the not so good players”, all right, call them bad players (but we should treasure them as they make us better players by compartment, and they maybe playing for other reason than winning) will be still performing badly. So argument that somebody who is really bad performed badly doesn’t tell anything about the attributes of the tournament format. Analyzing statistics clearly shows that results of playing anything less than one hundred rounds are not fully representative of somebody’s skills (though, it may just happen that it is).

One empirical example. I have played over 3,000 rounds in my life. Statistically, I have had above 50%, actually closer to 60% better chances than the average to advance to next round, and I am sure that results of Arlik’s, John’s, Joe’s, Ken’s, Ms. Jade’s, Norm’s, Tirle’s and a handful of others will be similar or better. This is relatively constant for any stretch of over one hundred rounds in my play, but I also had some fifty consecutive plays where I performed at average, or below – which could be a couple years of playing for many people (so, dear readers, don’t’ get discourage by a lean year, or two).
This edge means that in UBT format, two out of seven advancing, a good player would advance close to half the time. Now, David, what do you think, how often will you be forced to make a big bet to survive elimination hand, losing of which would take you out, or would reduce your chances of advancing close to zero? This is the all-in bet. Also, those are the sum of risk when one uses progression bets to stay above LBs to avoid all-in bets. Do you remember how many rounds you didn’t have to make all-in bet, or one, or two progression bets at all? I am curious.
Whenever you make a bet that losing it would take you out you are taking slightly more than 50% chance of being eliminated. So, right there, your chances of advancing are less than half the time. If you win the big bet your chances to advance become much better, but not near being a guarantee of final success.

When I talk about blackjack tournament skills I often say that skilled plays are product of a “technical program” and “execution”. One can try to remember all the cards spent, tables of right plays, keep differences to all other players bankrolls but the excess of task can make one’s perform poorly. If we give points, let’s say from 1 to 5, the technical program was 5 but performance only 1. The total score for that player would be 1 times 5, equals 5.
Now, take a person that plays minimum for all hands until he tries to become BR going into next-to-last hand, and then freely doubles down on last two hands if needed. This simple plan is at best worth 3 points but easy execution could be perform at 5 points, for the total score of (3 times 5) 15. Such a play would make this person performing much better than average, perhaps as good as 20% better.
Where am I going with it? Well, elimination hands naturally lend themselves into good execution for people with no other skills. Almost everybody would realize that if they are LB1 or LB2 they need to win the elimination hand (or one just before it) with a big bet, perhaps maximum bet. That’s a big plus for an average player at the cost of skilled players.

Not only this, elimination hands tourneys often times structure play in such a way that players with lower bankrolls take turns with each elimination hand, one or two at a time. Even if you are already “lucky”, so you don’t have to make really big bets, on average one out of two other players, or more likely zero but two players in the next elimination hand will win big bets. So, if you survive to play last hands you need to do catch-up bets before you can employ your masterful endplay techniques.
This would rarely play out this way but it shows the mechanism that to a degree takes place. Imagine that out of six players three would double up and three would bust out. Now, one (of course the one with a position on you for the last hand) stays with doubled bankroll and the other two take turns to double again. One wins, one loses. When it comes to the endplay you have to deal with one player who has twice your bankroll and can correlate with you, and the other who has quadruple your bankroll. No matter how much you know about the game and cards, you will not be much better than average to advance.

I’ve heard some players saying that in elimination rounds tourney everybody needs to play more aggressively (I agree), and that it better fits their style of playing. Go ahead, enjoy yourselves, but this is not an optimal play. This is where I come with a poker analogy. In poker, aggressive play, at right times, brings advantage, as aggressive players “steal” pots, or blinds, that their inferior hands do not deserve. In blackjack, any aggressiveness, unless absolutely called for, is just an unnecessary risk that will be met and resolved by cold statistical results.

Yes, you may work hard to maneuver around the elimination traps, which can bring a deserved enjoyment of successful play, but this may work once, twice, or even three times in one round, only to finally fail you and stop cold, short of advancing. If I had more time I could bring another nice analogy to poker, where it seems logical that if you are just slightly better than average, and choose carefully confrontations to double, and double your money as a tourney progresses, as a cumulative effect your final success should be a big multiple of average players. Not really, with plenty of huge poker tourneys it is easy to have half a mill as entry fees. So any good player could win millions every year. Right!
One simple way of looking at chances in blackjack tourneys is to assume that if you are 50% better than average, then you will be 150% of the norm in the second round, and again, close to 220% in the third round, and more than three times in fourth round. Generally yes, but a fuller picture would have to include Variance and therefore we would have to deal with number of trials and both chances- chances of advancing and being eliminated. Not a good number.

cont. next message

 

Elimination part 2

A subtler subject of cumulative effect of different skills. There is some truth in my saying that blackjack tournament player is as week as his weakest link. This works for synergistic effects, too. For example, I estimate that counting, which I prefer to call knowing the composition of remaining cards, helps by increasing Ev of a player by about ten percent. So, if a good player already has 40% better chances of advancing, this skill would make him advancing to the next round from 140% of the norm to 154%, which really increases chances by 14%. If you give all the information about composition of the remaining cards to a below average player, lets say somebody who has only 80% chance of advancing, this would help him out to only 88%, increase of eight percent.
Similarly, if elimination hand restrains any aspects of your skills the help of other skills is also diminished.

And lastly, the secret bet. It adds some fun, pretending, more often than not, that it is effective psychological game. I would rather lean toward thesis that it helps weaker player more than the skilled one. An average player will more often not fully utilize available information from the open bet. But secret bet used by average player though often not the optimal, often times must be treated as the perfect bet.

Sorry for chaotic and ungainly post, I wish I had more time to prepare, nevertheless I hope it helps to look into the matters a bit deeper. It is not full analysis, I had to use some shortcuts.

S. Yama

 

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this matter. I was very interested to see what your thought process was for this. I think I've got a handle on your points as to why. Let me know if I'm missing something.

You believe that the UBT-style BJ tourney, introduces a greater luck factor, which hurts the best players because:

1) Increased variance (this probably is made up from some of the following things)
2) Bigger bets are required earlier in the event, and have an enormous impact on each person's ability to advance
3) Amateurs, not knowing any better, will bet big at elimination hands with the potential to luck into a large lead. The assumption is that they wouldn't have known any better, but they're lucking into making a proper bet due to what's evident to them by the format.
4) Aggressive betting is encouraged by the format, but in a -EV game, where you're more likely to lose than to win, this aggression will be a negative impact
5) The fact that more luck is introduced has a compounding effect and diminishes skill to a greater extent
6) Secret bet favors amateurs because they're less likely to interpret open bets correctly.

Having read your post 4 or 5 times now, I feel comfortable in saying that I flatly disagree with both some of the points you make, and some of the conclusions derived.

I also feel that you make assumptions that aren't necessarily fact. For example, you claim that unskilled players, being LB1 or LB2 near an elimination hand would know to go all in or make a big bet. You assume this is true, but it isn't necessarily true. I even saw some people in the LB1 or LB2 position make hopeless bets, even bets where they completely locked themselves out, but didn't need to.

But even if we assume that you are right "most" of the time about LB1 and LB2 betting big near eliminations (which I am not sure it is "most"), you imply that their big bets will jump them out to a lead, where you'll have to play catch-up before you can work your betting skill.

In a traditional tournament, I think amateur players are well aware at the end of a round that they need to bet big. I don't see it as any different than coming up on an elimination hand. The final hand is the one elimination hand in a traditional tournament.

So let's say these amateur players in a traditional tournament bet minimum to the last 3 hands or so and then bet big. They've got a very good chance against the BJ pros, just following that strategy. They're also just as likely to win in a traditional tournament, as to advance an elimination hand.

So now which situation favors the pros? Being behind an amateur with no hands left (or 1 or 2) to play, or being behind an amateur with 20 hands left to play?

I think what people have done with the UBT format is let the "trappings" of these new eliminations confuse us. If 2 out of 7 people advance, whether it's a traditional format or a UBT-format, 5 people get eliminated. In a traditional tournament, just call hand 30 the elimination hand where LB1, LB2, LB3, LB4, and LB5 are eliminated.

One thing you mention is how many rounds of BJ tournaments you have played and how you've far exceeded an average player's expectation over that long series (3000 or so rounds). You also mention that you've had runs of losing at a rate even below an average player's expectation, but in "the long run" you're a clear advantage tournament player.

I'm sure that's true. The long run favors the pros. Now I would argue that these elimination rounds, actually create pseudo-mini rounds that increase the number of iterations, thereby getting a little closer to the long run in each event, given a traditional BJ tourney with the same number of players and number of rounds. This should favor pros.

I would like to know from you, given the game must be played with a rotating button, randomly placed, 2 advance out of 7, and each player is dealt an individual hand of BJ, what the "ideal" tournament format for a pro player would be. Would it be a format like the Hilton Million Dollar events? 30 rounds. Best 2 at the end move on? How about 10 rounds? or how about 300 rounds? Would the 10 round tournament be better or worse for the pros (or no difference)? How about the 300 round tournament? Better or worse?

The reason I ask is that the elimination comes at hand 8. You play a tournament to hand 8, 6 advance out of 7. Then you play a tournament to hand 16, and 5 advance out of 6. In my opinion, if the MDBJ tournament rounds were 8 hands instead of 30, I don't think it would be a significantly different tournament.

You do make the point that the people advancing at the elimination hands carry over their BRs to the next set of hands. This makes my smaller-round theory not a true parallel, but I think it's a red herring. We're still looking at the same 30-hand round as before. It's really the same tournament.

You say that the fact that aggression is a negative for the players, because all it does it lead to "cold statistics" meaning that you're more likely to bet big and lose your chips. This seems like a weak argument to me, because everyone is dealing with the same statistics. If anything, the pros will know better than the amateurs, how to take advantage of this. Overall, everyone is playing against the same odds, so I don't see this as significantly impacting either way. If you had a very small number of starting chips in relation to the minimum bet, I could see this being a factor, but at 100 times the minimum bet, I think it's neither here nor there.

At one point above, you mention some players you would expect to have significantly higher expectations than an average player, due to their skill level. You mention the names "Arlik’s, John’s, Joe’s, Ken’s, Ms. Jade’s, Norm’s, Tirle’s". I thought it interesting because a couple people in this list had a very high level of success in the UBT. Results will be known in a few months and then I can be more clear on this.

You ask me how many rounds where I made either a progression bet or an all-in bet. Probably every round I played! How many traditional BJ tournaments do you not make an all-in or progression-type bet? I consider your "progression" bet to be any type of take-the-lead bet. Unless you bet minimum, and everyone else busts out (which does happen once in a long while), I would think that you make these type of bets as well.

You also imply that the types of bets lead to a 50/50 proposition. Now hold on a second. Are you saying that winning one hand in a 3 or 4 bet progression is a 50/50 proposition? Of course you're not, but you kinda slide by that point without addressing it. Perhaps it's more like 80/20 rather than 50/50.

Going back to something I said before, your main argument seems to be predicated on the fact that you believe that bad players will instinctively be trained to bet bigger, and if they're out ahead of you, your chances are significantly lower. I think anyone who thinks to bet big near an elimination, would also bet big near the end of a 30-hand round. Pro gets behind at an elimination, still time to work it. Pro gets behind end of a traditional tourney, and no time to make it up. I guess what I'm saying is your primary point, that is the foundation for you entire argument, just doesn't work for me.

You say, what if you get through an elimination and one person with position on me has double my chips, and the other person has quadruple my chips. Well, yeah. That'd be a tough spot to be in. How would you handle it in a traditional tournament? Or does that never happen to you in a traditional tournament?

continued on the next post

 

You mention variance being the skilled players enemy. This tournament would appear, on the surface, to have greater variance because of the eliminations, but I don't feel it necessarily is. Like I said before, it's 2 advance out of 7, either way. In this case, there are more meaningful, and critical decisions to make. What is the best weapon against variance? Inserting meaningful and critical decisions. In my opinion, a UBT tourney has a LOWER variance than a traditional tournament. Crazy? There are more opportunities for the pro players to insert skill, and more opportunities for the amateurs to make mistakes, and that's going to lower the variance of the event.

Think of it this way. In a traditional BJ tournament, how many critical decisions will be required in a 30-hand round? We'll give 1 point to betting decisions and 1 point to playing decisions. I'd say in a traditional BJ tournament you'd have about 10 to 12. In a UBT-style 30-hand round, I'd say the number is closer to 30 to 32. Scientifically derived numbers? Nah. Just off the top of my head, but even if the numbers are off a little, you get the point. MORE skill because more critical decisions have been made. More skill = less luck. By definition.

When a BJ dealer is shuffling the 6-deck shoe in a live BJ game, the house isn't making any money. When a BJ pro is not required to make a critical decision, he is not gaining any advantage. It isn't like his "presence" at the table creates an aura of superiority to the competition, which increases his chances. It's each bet, and each play of the cards, (each critical decision) that over time exerts itself to his long-term (and short-term) advantage. Given my above estimated numbers, one UBT round requires 3 times as many decisions, or a pro could see it as 3 times as many "opportunities."

This point, more than any other, should have the greatest bearing on this argument. A 30-round traditional BJ tourney does not give the pros as many opportunities to use their skill as a UBT-style 30-hand round. It isn't even close. That alone, says it all.

As for the secret bet argument, I see your point. I think that's just a matter of opinion. Perhaps in early UBT tournaments there was less-skilled use of it than there will be in the future. Either way, the secret bet argument could go either way. I think I could be right, or I think you could be right. Not really relevant. The elimination hands is more where the meat of this lies.

In summary, I disagree with much of what you say. I feel that there is lower variance, and more skill involoved in UBT tournaments. I guess I couldn't really be more opposed to your opinion. Having said that, I respect you a great deal, and always find your writing and knowledge to be enlightening.

David

 

My 2 Cents

If I may inject my two cents here and for multiple reasons.

When Kenny and I have an interesting guest on our radio show we always encounter a drop off in calls into the show, sometimes none. At first we were confused by this and thought that maybe the guest was not as interesting as we first thought.

We later find out by speaking to people that listen in that they were so intrigued by the guest that they didn't want to interrupt the flow of the conversation between the guest, Kenny and I.

In this thread I believe the same situation is occurring. We are all intrigued by Mr. Yama and Mr. Matthews opinion’s on the UBT format and their ongoing debate over skill vs. luck.

I know both of them and have the highest respect for their skill level in tournaments. Mr. Yama accomplishments are well noted and Mr. Matthews although new on the tournament scene has already made his mark.

So my point here is that more players who have played in both types of formats UBT and the traditional formats of no player eliminated until they run out of chips should voice their opinion's here.

It is very clear on what Mr. Yama's and Mr. Matthews opinions are and no one posting now will interrupt any of their flow which we all have enjoyed reading.

So let me lead the way

I have played in hundreds of tournaments and have been very successful in them.

I have played in 7 UBT tournaments and I will tell you first hand that they were the 7 toughest tournaments that I have ever played in .You are forced to make meaningful bets almost on every hand .Where in a original format you can almost put in on cruise control for a while and make small adjustments during your round. There is no such animal as cruise control in the UBT format.

I happen to be one of the lucky players who are beta testing the UBT software so my playing experience is now more that just 7 UBT formats and its one tough format. You are never safe .The other night BR 1 betting last was eliminated because of some secret bets and in my opinion not paying attention to the bets he could see. He also won his bet and still was the player knocked out. Something like this would be rare in an old style format.

So if you already don’t know what my vote is for let me clarify it for you the UBT format needs to be skillful played and I believe favors the skilled player.

The cards that you are dealt has nothing to do with your skill ,but how you play the hands, make the optimum bets and position yourself are skills that are most useful in this format more so than any other format that I have ever played in . I would be interested to hear other players thought on this as I believe Mr Yama and Mr Matthews would also .


Joep2

 

My breakdown on all the BJ formats

I think it comes down to personal opinion and what the situation is in both tournament formats for which is more skill or uses more strategy. If a player is winning more in one format than another I think they will lean towards that direction. Don’t forget they also have an accumulation and hybrid formats to throw into the mix.

Personally here is what I think of each format. I will breakdown the good and bad (in my opinion) of each one.

Before I breakdown the formats here is a list of rules I look for in tournaments before I play.

1. Two players advance from each table, hopefully throughout the tournament until the finals.

2. Re-buys are offered, when you’re coming in from out of town you don’t want to travel all that way for only one shot.

3. Minimum and Maximum bets, this is another biggie in my book. I like a maximum bet of no more then 30% of your starting BR. How many times have you out played the other players at your table, taken a good lead into the final hand only to lose to some lucky %*&@* that catches an all in blackjack to beat you on the last hand. Where is the strategy in that, there is none, it is just plain dumb luck.

4. Surrender, this is a given if you want to have any type of strategy in your tournament.

5. Allow DD and insurance for less, another part of tournament strategy.

6. Limit splits to three times and allow Aces to be split only once.

7. Only pay 3 to 2 for blackjacks. If a player is lucky enough to catch a BJ 3 to 2 is enough of a reward.

Elimination format:

I enjoy this format, it allows the more seasoned tournament players (STP) a slight advantage over the newer players, especially the more hands played. How? Because the STP can slow play, where most of the newer players tend to bet more aggressively. Now this will benefit’s the more experienced players, when you encounter a hot dealer. Remember in tournament play you cannot just buy more chips and when you go down early. This is the biggest advantage for STP in an elimination format.

Now on the flip side, if you get the hot player that starts off betting big and takes a big lead over the rest of the table it can be a long drawn out round watching one player hit 20’s and 21’s every possible way while you’re catching nothing but 12-16 every hand. This is why advance two players is so important, with strategic play (and luck) you can still advance to the next round.

Overview: I prefer this format simply because it allows you to stay in the game longer giving you a chance to recover any early failures you may encounter. Remember the old saying “You can’t win if you not in at the end!”

UBT format:

This is a new format started last year, which I was fortunate enough to get to play in. It has a lot of great concepts and new twist to conventional blackjack tournaments. The elimination hands add a lot greater sense of urgencies when it comes to betting. This I truly believe is an advantage for the newer players, as far as the luck factor is concerned. A more experienced player can find himself out of the tournament within the first 8 hands if they get a bad run of cards.

Now all things being equal I think the strategy part of the game comes in a lot more in this format. There are several elimination hands throughout this format which I would have to say benefit’s the STP.

The UBT format offers several of the rules I like in tournament play (mentioned above), but rule number two is not offered (re-buys) and number three is the min/max. bets, min. $1,000 bet is okay (starting with $100,000 BR), but the maximum is $100,000 I believe benefit’s the newer players. It allows the last hand all in factor I talked about in the above rules. I understand it is needed for TV so I'll make an exception in this case.

Now the next rule is the elimination hands. Good or Bad? I guess it depends on if you advance or not. I’ll use last years UBT seven qualifiers as an example: Below are several STP and here is their results.

Ken, JoeP, Kenny E, Swog, MIT Mike, Bradley P, Walt, Mr. O, myself were a combined 6 out of 43 (I believe these figures are correct) and that was just to advance to the second round. Now if we were playing elimination I would bet the results would be more like 28 out of 43 and possibly higher.

After looking at the above results from last year I would have to believe it is good for the newer players and not so good for the STP. But to be fair this was the first time this format had been used for real tournament play so it is hard to base an objective opinion at this time.

Overview: It is a little different, but I like it, I understand the elimination and higher max. bets are put in for TV. I still lean towards the regular elimination because of my style of play, but I’m up for any and every format that can help build blackjack tournaments up and you can’t deny the prizes money UBT is throwing out there is sure to help build up interest in BJ tournament.

Accumulative format:

When you talk about luck needed to win in tournament BJ I have to think this is the format where luck is needed the most. It is pretty simple format you just have to be the highest in chips after a designated number of rounds.

Catch a cold dealer and your in great shape, everybody from your table should be in the money, but catch a hot dealer and even the table winner wouldn’t advance. This format is a coin toss at best, skill and strategy don’t come into play as much as in the other formats, other than bet big and hope you win.

Overview: This is my least favorite format, I normally stay away from this type of format unless it is what's being used for a VIP event. It is not a tournament I would normally pay to enter.

Hybrid format:

Mixture of accumulative and elimination formats. Starts off the same as accumulative, where you play (normally two rounds) trying to get in the top percentage of players (normally top 35 players) to advance to the semifinals where you play an elimination format to see who gets to the finals. The finals is also played in an elimination format.

No re-buys, and they only advance one player in the elimination format from each table in the semifinals.

Overview: Several players used to pack Bally’s Tunica for this format and they are trying to bring it back at the Sheraton in Tunica, of course they added and additional $25,000 to the prize fund which does make it a lot more inviting. I think to keep it successful I wouldn't stop adding the additional $25,000 to the prize fund.

Blackjack tournaments in general:

Over all I think it will be up to each player which format they like the best. I am assuming that anyone with success in one particular format will choose that one over another. My main concern is that regardless of the format that is used that players start getting interested in Blackjack tournaments and the tournaments start picking up like poker has.

Personal picks and why:

Elimination - Better for STP due to the number of hands played, strategy used mainly towards the end of the round. This format is the only one where a good start is not necessary, as a matter of fact most STP would prefer a hot dealer.

UBT - Double edge sword here, advantage to the newer players due to the short number of hands played. But advantage to the STP because more strategy is used more often because your possibly playing the end of the tournament every 8 hands or so. I understand the format is to make it more interesting for TV and from what I have seen it works.

UBT is also trying to offer players a cheap way of playing with there online satellite events (coming soon). There are really trying to work with and for the players.

* A good start is a must, stumble out of the blocks and you're dead in this game. Luck early is needed here.

Accumulative - Only worth it if it is free and close or I’ll travel if it is free and there another tournament going on around the same time in the same area.

* A good start is a must, stumble out of the blocks and you're dead in this game. Luck early is needed here.

Hybrid - I’ll go same as the accumulative.

* A good start is a must, stumble out of the blocks and you're dead in this game. Luck early is needed here.

So over all what do all four formats have in common? LUCK! If you don’t get lucky and catch the cards when needed it doesn’t matter what format you are playing, you’re not going to win.

I will support all BJ tournament formats 100% as long as they are honest and the casinos payout fairly.

 

My three cents!

Excellent post Big Tex. Looks like your back must be getting better.:joker: :joker: :joker:

 

Difficult Decision

Great post’s all.
I am a member of another Blackjack site were the administrator selects the post of the month.
I just thought that I would put Ken on the spot and ask him that if he had to make the same decision, who would he choose from this thread.
The nominations are: -
S.Yama
David Matthews
Txtourplayer

Over to you Ken (Sorry)
Andy

 

Droogie's nominations for best post.

U didn't like Norm's?

 

Nominations

Noman.
Joe Pane made an excellent post. When he comes back as himself I will nominate him.
You are supposed to be my mate on here so stop winding me up.
Andy
PS What the hell does droogie mean?

 

Thanks. but

I'm glad you liked my post, but when it comes to writting I am not even close to S. Yama or David M., those two guys are GREAT writters. You honor me just to mention my name with those two guys.

I just try my best to put down all the options and then my opinions and let the players choose which options, ideas, plays, they would like to do. I'll never tell anyone how to play or what to bet, only what I would do if I was in their situation and then only if asked.

And thanks BJFAN4, my back is feeling a little better, but I'm still out for at least another month.

 

Droogie:

Not to seeminly make light of the main topic. I am pondering the very excellent points. Yet I may never reach an educated conclusion, for the thesis' themselves just may only be proven or verified over a time of actual play, wherein the results are verifiable, observable and repeatable. The UB Tour, allows, if indeed it carries through a year, at least, the FIRST opportunity to actually compare apples to apples.

The above statement to get to the lighter side for Droogie:

With your analytical and deductive skills, you of all(okay perhaps Collin) should, in short order, be able to determine the meaning of "Droogie." If you look "close."

And I shouldn't, but an additional clue, is in your opening statement.

 

good points on both sides Dave&Yama.
I love this format because it is good for TV
and we don't have to kiss up to Casinos.
I've had "limited success at all formats".
UBT today at Palms. Elimination hand 8
bank rolls from positions.
1) $37K
2) $23.5 K
3) $33.5K
4) $25K
5) $37.5 K
1) bets $10.5K
2) bet Secret
3) bets $16K
4) bets $500
5) bets $12K
Comments ?????
Who am I ?

 

UBT format is essentially three - 8 handed games combined into one. As such it favors the lucky. Im going with Yama on this one for the most part.

Examine a 30 round tournament vs a 11 round tournament....in which game will the skill factor over rule luck?

I have played several hundred rounds online ...I certainly agree with Joe that EVERY hand is a key hand...but flat betting the min and loosing 6 straight still leaves skill eliminated at hand 8 most times.

I like the format...I think everyone does...the fact that each hand is very important means that this game can be hard on ones nerves...lol

I havent played a live match yet...I would imagine the wild betting is less there...as it seems to be going away for the new players as they gain experience and as the stakes rise....I see less and less allin first bets on every game... except for the crazy tec points games which I think hurt the game more than help it....buts thats meaningless really.

I seem to get knocked out plenty of times at the 8th hand...but when I make my big moves...Im always hearing "Insurance?"...

The big early bettors have quickly learned to slo bet after they have gained an early lead...this is a tough player to catch...if there are three at your table...well one is bound to stay lucky...

Im finding scores to be either in the high 20's or high 180's (thousand) depending on the hotness of the dealer... I might be dreaming though...

Im doing ok....Id like to do better though.

Last week I played through 900 plus to #1 in UBT freeroll and the next night I played thru 800 plus to #3 in Bet 21 freeroll....

In last months two final events I was gone from both on hand 8...hopefully I can do better this time.

Lots of skill and lots of luck required...

 

I haven't played nearly enough games of any format to offer any empirical evidence, and nor do I have the skills or mathematical knowledge to make any strong assertions, but ....

Is it possible that the multielimination format has two simultaneous and paradoxical effects? -

1. Increasing the variance and hence favouring luck in the short term.
2. Increasing the edge of skilled players and hence favouring skill in the long term.

Every elimination round is a hurdle at which you might stumble and fall, so there is clearly more scope for the cards to simply not go your way on one of the key hands that you will be facing than is the case in the traditonal format, in which it all comes down to the final hand.

But, for every occasion that you are forced to make the best of a bad situation and extract the best odds you can of surviving an elimination, there will be another in which it is an opponent who is faced with that same decision and may not play it as well as you do.

So maybe by increasing the number of significant decisions that have to be made, the skilled player's overall, long-term edge gets a boost while at the same time they are much more vulnerable to simple 'bad luck' in any given game.

Does that make any kind of sense?

 

Comments

I think to say that UBT is 3 x 8 handed tournies-in-one over-simplifies the situation. If those tournies where 1 or 2 advance at each stage I'd agree. However they aren't. Obviously it varies from situation to situation but the way I look at them is this: if X= no. players remaining then each elimination hand is in effect X-1 advance. I think that the process of elimination also favours skill towards the end. When players aren't forcibly eliminated you could have a full field on the last hand and then it can become a crap shoot. If there is just 2 or 3 of you I believe it's less so.

As for Acemachine's question, well I'm not sure who you are. I'd normally say you were BRL since that's when most people post up hands that they've played and want to know whether they did good or not . Since BRL is displaying a secret bet and it is not revealed to us I'd say that you were BRL+1 or on the button. My opinions on the quality of the bets are that they are generally good.

1) On the button, could be overtaken if everybody bets big and he doesn't and the dealer busts. Bet his lead more or less over BRL+1 and will beat an all in bet by BRL. Could DFL to beat others if need be.
2) Classic secret bet postition. BRL and early to act.
3) Good bet. Bet enough to surrender back the 3rd low and will almost certainly have the 2nd high.
4) Obviously didn't want to risk giving up the low. (1), (3) and (5) can lock him out (3's surrender will force him to win for potential tie). Still, 48% chance of advancing.
5) Since (4) bet small he has no chance of being eliminated. Made a good bet by correlating with BR2 and BR3.

cheers

Reachy

PS. Since I started this post London Colin (or should we call you Vienna Colin ) has made a very interesting post, and yes it does make sense. To me anyway!

 

1 of "my 2 cents worth"

Excellent discussion. I agree with some of each post.
The UBT TV format is very entertaining for both Pros and Newbies to watch.
While the pure elimination style is less apealling to the uninformed viewer. Therfore I'm happy with UBT's audience apeal, the more fans the better. Personally, I enjoy watching all BJ tournaments.

When I play in elimination tournaments with a few chunkers I fear them when they get way ahead until variance catches up and they lose back their lead. Many times it requires more than 8 hands for this to happen. I've talked to chunkers that have said that chunking is the only way that they can have an occasional victory over the "good Players". I believe that a chunking strategy wins out over no strategy. But loses to a Wong type of strategy over the long haul.
Therefore when playing UBT the more chunkers the greater the chance of one of them being succsessful. So I feel that the UBT style gives the chunker a better chance than does the 15 or more handed elimination style games. UBT with a few or no chunkers is a much better game. Because it gives Wong strategies a chance to work.

tgun
P.S. my other 1 cent later.