2 Million Finals poll

As the new 2 Million Dollar Blackjack Tournament is starting to fall in place several options are coming up.

One biggie was brought up on Kenny's show tonight by JP (Joep).

Buying in for the finals.
What does everyone think about a flat fee of $10,000 to get into the finals?
Personally I love the idea, it give hollywood celebrities a chance to come play and all money rolls back into the tournament prize pool.

Should you be able to win more then one qualifying spot within the same year? If so can they play more then one spots until you would be playing at the same time? Or would they have the right to sell it?

This could be a big plus allowing players to win more then one qualifying spot. It would also help sell out the monthly qualifiers and not just counting on new players to fill the void each month. Thus assuring the success for both the casino and the players and allowing this to become a yearly event .

I also think a $10 fee (min.) per player should be charged to off set the casino expences.

This is not a pick a answer poll, we want your feedback on these options.

Thanks,

Rick

 

2Mil Survey

In response to TX survey and not to p off the people who have done the hard ground work on this. If they have it nailed, I'm not looking to alter anything they've done. Once the paramaters are set, i'll adjust and go with it.

But TX posed and I'll respond:

Number one: a $10,000 buy-in to the finals for any who can afford it, would be just fine by me. As long as the tables and number of rounds in the finals are adjusted accordingly to accomodate, the over 200 finalists who played their way in.

Sure bring on the celebs. If I'm paying $1,000 and a possible rebuy in a month and make it, I don't care if someone wants to lay $10,000 for the finals

Number two:Not to convolute it, but I don't like the qualifying for more than one spot. Rick, you're question on this one contains all the confusing ramifications of allowing that.

Rather, have a rebuy for the finals from the eliminated qualifiers, not much different from the $10,000 direct buy-in. Though I'm not sure a $10,000 rebuy is fair for someone who's already spent a monthly fee and earned a chance.

The finals re-buy would add more to the pot and wouldn't be much different from the allowed direct buy-in.

But again adjustments would need to be worked out for number of tables and rounds for the finals.

Number three: Rather than the additional upfront charge to the player, allow the casino a something under 1 per cent hold back for expenses, or the per cent charge the Frontier initiated to compensate dealers who weren't covered by the winning players.

I know the calculators will come out on this, if it's agreed the casino keeps a per cent, but that vig on the entry seems better than flat rating an addittional charge.

Not everyone gives the house side play, but I have and others have. And I don't see how the publicity could hurt the house and not make it worth their while, while not charging contestents more.

And while not that knowledgeable on this subject, the house could get an insurance underwritting as they do for other big pay out activities.

Not to overlook the fact that all the prize money as this is proposed, comes from the players, which is determing the final prize pool, without the house gauranteeing it.

The house's publicity for holding a big payout event, additional revenue from rooms, food, drink, side play, should positively impact their bottom line, without the participants having to pay additional. But it it's needed to seal the deal, then it's needed to seal the deal. It should still be a positive result for the winners and an excellent expectation for all who only pay the $1,000.

You asked.

 

Just posting options

Norman don't get me wrong, before I posted I talked with Joep. I am not saying lets do any of the things just checking to how and if the players would like to.

One thing you brought up was about the vig. I agree with you, but by just having a additional $10 fee you eliminate all the players thinking the casinos are screwing them, it is easy to figure 20 players at $10 = $2,000 instead of taking out of the entry fee and someone "Screaming the prize pool is not right".

Also remember the LV Hilton took money out of the monthly prize pool to cover three room nights. I am sure that will already be coming out of the entry fees.

I'm all for what everyone else agrees on. I will be there trying to qualify however the plan goes down. We all need to if we want to keep this tournament. We already lost one we may not get other chance if we blow this one.

 

2mil tx survey.

Gosh tx, don't get me wrong. You asked for ideas. That's all I gave. I'm with you and the ground troops on this one. I want it to go. However it goes, I'm for it.

I'm not out to change the wheel.

Tell me the format. Tell me the rules. don't change it in midstream and I'll adjust to whatever it is.

No matter how it's played, I'll test myself against the best. That and the money make the event. (and sometimes the personalities.)

 

Tex you said the LVHilton took the room money out of the entry fees, but they also charged each players comp account, sounds like they made out like a bandit. And yet they were saying room included in tourney entry. Also tourneys rules need to be standardized, how many times have they stated one set of rules but changed them when you sat down to play. This can not happen in poker tourneys as all major events follow the "Tournament Directors Association" rules which is printed on their website.

 

Comp account?

I never heard of anyone getting their comp account charged at the LV Hilton?
I know personally I never had my account charged.

As far as the rooms, the money was adjusted for the three nights stay just prior to the first ever LV Hilton qualifier (back in April 2002). Jimmy Wike made an annoucement that the monthly prize pool would be cut to handle the third night (they had only planned on two free nights). They top two spots weren't effected, 3rd took the biggest hit and of course I came in 3rd that event...LOL.

Do they have to standardized the tournaments "NO" would it be good if they do "YES", but each casino has their own rules. Is it possible to get them standardized? Maybe, but only if we get blackjack tournaments as popular as the poker events. Until we get the major sponsors to pull in the big bucks for blackjack I don't see it happening. The casinos are only willing to change if and when they see a profit, (as any business should).

You asked about changing rules, every tournament I've ever played in usually will have stated somewhere "Subject to change" and or "Management has final say" or something to that effect.

As far as poker goes, I would only be assuming, but I would have to think that the casino have simular rules or "Outs" as they do in the other tournaments.

 

2 million tournament

i dont think it is a good idea to let anyone buy their way into any tournament.is is the golden rule he who has the gold makes the rules.i like competition and if someone is good enough to qualify they should not be subjected to money teams that will be there for sure.i think for the first several times you should keep the formatt simple.and who gives a shit about celoebrities anyway?stop kissing ass and play the game.if you win it wont be because you bought it.eastexas pro

 

Up to $400,000 extra

We all want the money that poker is making, but when we bring ideas in to blackjack that poker is using some players get up set.

What do you want? Changes have to be made or open blackjack tournaments will soon be a thing of the pass. When I first started playing 500 to 600 players per tournament were common, now 250 is a big tournament.

Lets see the WSOP seems to be doing pretty good, how do they run their events? Oh they allow a $10,000 buy-in to the finals besides all the satellites and monthly qualifiers....MMM. I guess the buy-ins for the finals the 2 Million blackjack could work also.

Lets look at the pros and cons of allowing $10,000 (in a limited number max. 40) buy-ins for the finals.

Pro:

1) More money in the prize pool, up to $400,000 extra.
2) Chance for celebrities to play. Will draws in bigger crowds and easier to sell sponsorship with know names playing (which brings in even more $).

Cons:

1) Will add an extra player to each starting table (from 5 to 6).
(two players still advance from round one, just have one extra at your table)

Just see $400,000 extra vs one extra player...MMM. I have to be in the top top anyway to advance...MMM. Yes, I think I would be willing to try that.

If your going to win you're going to win, why not play for as much as we can?

Just my opinion.

 

Celeb $10,000 Buy-In

I'm with TX and Ken on this. More money in prizes, more attention from the media, more interest from the public, more tournament participants ... I think there's very little trade off on the down side. In fact, to maximize public interest from the outset of the monthly qualifiers, the casino could announce various celebrities who have already agreed to participate (buy-in) in the finals. Hence, some participants will be lured by the prospect of eventually (possibly) playing in a finals tournament round with one or more celebrities.

 

Get all celebrety bj participants

What an idea!!!

Getting celebreties to contribute $10k to get in the finals is a great idea.
That's sweetening the prize pool by a lot- with minimal competitive risk .
The idea excites me about as much as when I overdosed on Viagra.

 

A satellite by any other name ...

I think the idea of a $10,000 "BUY-IN" is a great idea but if it is carried one step further, the potential is enormous!

Thanks to the popularity of poker, the term "satellite" has become a well understood term in the gaming world. You play in a poker satellite to try to win a seat into the "tournament". The satellite itself is not considered a "tournament" by the players - it is a means to inexpensively get into the "tournament". The "tournament" is only held once a year with players who either won a satellite or were willing to pay $10,000.

So why not exploit this to blackjack's advantage? Having a "$10,000 buy-in", in effect, changes a "yearly blackjack tournament with 12 qualifying tournaments with a final tournament" event to "12 satellites and 1 tournament". After all, a satellite by any other name is still a satellite. There are several reasons why using the term "satellite" could work to blackjack's advantage and I am just listing a few:

1) Easier to understand. The term "satellite" is immediately understood by a player.

2) Physiologically, the average player is more prone to play in a "satellite". Somehow, winning a "seat by playing in a satellite" seems easier than "getting a seat by winning a qualifying tournament". Of course thay are both the same but the perception is the different.

3) Paying $10,000 to get into "the tournament" would face little objection from other players. I don't hear any objections from players in the WSOP.

4) Now this the BIG ONE. It can spawn other tournaments and/or satellites. Just as many independent casinos now have promotions to "win a trip to Las Vegas and satellite into the WSOP", why not the same concept for the 2 million dollar blackjack tournament or other large pay-off blackjack tournaments that may materialize? Or other major casinos my create their own MEGA MILLION tournament with satellites played throughout their various locations. Or, TXtourplayer: you can have a satellite (or 2, or 3) on your planned cruise. Or ... who knows? I would not attempt to guess if this would become wildly popular or fall flat on its face but the possibilities are intriguing.

In closing, at the risk of repeating myself:
A SATELLITE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A SATELLITE.
Let's exploit the term to the advancement of blackjack tournaments. Poker created the concept and players love it.

 

Excitement

GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY
EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THESE LARGE TOURNEMENTS. YOU ALL ARE TALKING BIG MONEY TO ME. HOW MUCH DOES IT TAKE TO GET IN THESE BIG MONEY TOURNEMENTS? CAN A LITTLE GUY GET INTO THESE TYPE TOURNEMENTS AND HOW? IS THERE A TOURNY CIRCUIT THAT YOU DO TO QUALIFY FOR THIS? I WON MY FIRST TOURNY AND LOST MY SECOND TOURNY BUT NONE THE LESS I AM HOOKED.YOU ALL SEEM TO BE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS AND I WANT TO BE PART OF THE EXCITEMENT I JUST DO NOT KNOW WHAT IAM DOING FOR KNOW BUT WILLING TO LEARN ESPECIALLY FROM YOU GUYS IN THE KNOW. THANKS FOR EXCUSING MY IGNORANCE.

MAXWELL

 

2 Mil tourney Survey:

Toolman good points.

I would point out though that there were many satelites to the original Hilton Tourney. And site member and frequent contributor TX ran a number of them

 

Trying to avoid confusion

Noman: I think I know the satellites that TXtourplayer and others were running. Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you'll correct me even if I don't ask you to :laugh: ) but these tournaments were to win a $1,000 seat in one of the 12 monthly qualifiers.

My July 23, 2005 post was referring to possible satellites being held with the prize being a $10,000 seat in the "finals" of the $2m BJT. In that post I suggested a change in termnology to, among other things, avoid confusion like this. Since I'm here typing this response, let me take this opportunity to restate my suggested termnology changes:

PRESENT TERMS
$10,000 Buy-in to the finals
12 Qualifying Tournaments
Final Tournament

PROPOSED TERMS
$10,000 Buy-in
12 Satellites
$2,000,000 Blackjack Tournament

The advertising might read something like this:

There will be a $2,000,000 Blackjack Tournament held in the month of ??????. Entry into the tournament is a $10,000 buy-in. This casino will also hold 12 satellites - one each month - for entry into the tournament. Each of the 12 satellites will award 16 seats into the tournament. The entry fee into each satellite will be $1,000.​

Now keep in mind that I am not suggesting any change in rules, only a change in termnology. Now it appears that the standard way to get in is to pay $10,000. If that's too steep (and it is for most people includung yours truly), then you can enter a satellite for $1,000 to win a seat. This psychology has worked well for poker. I say let's expolit the fact that gamblers understand the term "satellite" and are willing to play in them.

I have presented the benefits of this proposed termnology change in my July 23, 2005 post above so I see no need to repeat them here, but I will repeat this:

A SATELLITE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A SATELLITE

One additional thought:

Should the "finals" be really held during winter? That's what will happen if the monthlys start toward the end of this year. I for 1 vote to delay the start until spring. I have enough winter here in the Mid-west. I want to go to Vegas to be warm. A delay until spring might also bring more $10,000 entries (cash and others holding satellites) than winter. Another plus is that it would give more time for the orginazers to properly prepare and adveritse the beginning as opposed to rushing to meet a early deadline - making a bad decision in a rush could doom the tournament. I would advise walking cautiously.​

Well thats it for now. Whatever the final decision, I WILL be there trying for the gold. Add my name to the growing list that say a giant "THANK YOU" to the organizers for their efforts.

PS: Does this mean we (the non-organizer public) are indebted to you guys and therefore have to let you win the first year? :laugh: :laugh:

 

Damn Taxes

I just finished listing to Ken E.'s radio show. A short reference was made to income taxes on satellite winnings at the WSOP. This jogged my memory. I now remember a friend telling me that winning a satellite into the main event of the WSOP results in a prize of $10,000 and an IRS form is issued to the winner in the amount of $10,000.

This isn't too bad if that person goes on to win some decent cash in the WSOP but if he does not, he still has to pay taxes on the $10,000 and has nothing to show for it. :flame:

With this in mind, I AM RECINDING my suggestion to change the "12 qualifying tournaments" to "12 satellites". I understand now why the Hilton handled the MDBJ the way they did:

A qualifying tournament has no prize money (only a return of your entry fee) and therefore no IRS form. A satellite has a dollar value prize and therefore subject to income tax.​

If anyone knows for a fact that this tax consequence is incorrect, please speak up.

The organizers should of course take tax considerations into account when doing their planning. You don't want to have 16 irate BJ players each month complaining about having to pay income taxes because they qualified for the final tournament. Another reason to take your time and not rush things.

On another note, also on the Ken E. show they mentioned that the 2MBJ tournament will probable be at the Golden Nugget. Now don't get me wrong, I will still enter the 2MBJT, but I hate the Nugget. I find the playing atmosphere uncomfortable, the dealers cold and unfriendly, and heat from the suites. I never won a lot there but when I did win they gave me "attitude" - like don't come back if your going to win again, made me feel like I was doing something wrong. Therefore, I will not be giving them much, if any, side action. I know this is not the way to act but I'm not going to play "live blackjack" in a casino that I dislike. Sorry, just telling it the way it is.

 

Your info is incorrect, I won a seat to the WSOP and did not receive a W2-G although I had to give the casino a copy of the IRS regulations. Also if the casino pays the entry directly to the Host casino you have won nothing cash wise and you only pay taxes on cash or prize value. Most casinos think they have to report table tourney winnings over $600 but they do not. From IRS: Reportable Gambling Winnings:
Generally, gambling winnings are reportable if the amount paid reduced, at the option of the payer, by the wager is (a) $600 or more and (b) at least 300 times the amount of the wager (your entry fee). However, these requirements do not apply to winnings from bingo, keno, and slot machines. Gambling winnings for these games are reportable if:

The winnings (reduced by the wager) are $1,500 or more from a keno game.

The winnings (not reduced by the wager) are $1,200 or more from a bingo game or slot machine.

 

Tax question

Pokernut: Thanks for the response. I just found out that the situation my friend was talking about happened to someone who won a local satellite - not one sponsored by the hosting casino. The prize included air fair and $2,000 in spending money. I see the difference.

 

toolman1 and terms

You couldn't have gotten a better endorsement for your ideas when K smith agrees. So to jump on the band wagon, I too will agree.

But in reality, it's your explanation through the sample ad that turned the trick.
That servers the distinction and couldn't more clearly explain players options for entering.

Side note on Golden Nuggett. Funny you have had that experience. I know a number of players from my area, that love the place. And they don't always lose. But then, that's why there are so many options in Vegas. Everyone finds their home