I didn't know where to put this and since I'm new to the TBJ world I thought the newbie corner would be appropriate. I read a lot of "Team XYZ" in some of the other postings. There are some posts in favor a lot of speculation and accusations about fees, etc. Personally I don't care. My question is this. If you have a "Team" at a specific BJ table do they/will they work in a concentrated effort to advance one of their team mates over "non-Team" players at that table? Is this even possible? And before I start reading about the "paranoid" comments [am not/are too] I was re-reading Wong's book on my last flight and he talked about putting together a team. Now if all this means is that a group of players decided to pull their resources, split pots based on finishing places, etc., then more power to you. I just want to know from a "rubber meets the road" perspective - do "team BJ players" have an advantage over the individual TBJ player?
Teams FgK42: This is one of my biggest paranoias. It strikes deep. "Into your heart it will creep. There's a man with a gun over there....." Some time ago on another previously well visited site, I expressed those concerns. S. Yama responded: Don't be concerned. Play your best game! I believe that wins out. I know for a fact in a non-nevada tourney I was high-lowed at a table, but neither of those two won the table. At Hilton events I heard of, talked to members of money partnership teams, crying after their last remaining "fellow" was eliminated. Perhaps because of the ESPN movie "Tilt", the word "TEAM" resonates when used in a gambling situation. And I don't doubt there are still some substantial "teams" working. We all know the MIT team. Admire them. Curtis and Wong and others were part of a "TEAM". We admire that and their accomplishments Most of what we hear in BJ of "TEAMS" is against the casino. Is a "TEAM" in a BJ tourney any better or worse for an individual, say the invited "high roller?" BJ players get the stigma, because of their ability(the good ones) to find the edge, the advantage. Where does advantage cross the line, if it does? Is it situational? Or whose OX is being gored?
Ok, I get the above quote. Does anyone remember "Bringing Down the House?" In there the "Team" consisted of a counter, another and the "Big Gorilla". In there they talked about the counter and other position drawing cards until the count was at such an advantage for the "Big Gorilla" to plunk down serious money and walk away a winner. My reason for asking this question was this: Could a group of players at a table stack the "odds" in their favor? How? One member counting and giving signals - personally I doubt this BUT.... Members agreeing ahead of time that on hand (x) everyone bets .76% of BR There may be other ways or, maybe (more likely the case) I'm just over thinking this! Having heard that there are only 3/10 members of UBT who are "pro BJ players" (Congratulations Kenny E, Hollywood and A. Curtis BTW) I have a feeling that all my questions are mute but maybe I just want some validation. BTW How come Joep isn't on team UBT?
JoeP- UBT Obviously JoeP is one of the few people who intimidates Hollywood. Matbe they figured bringing JoeP to team UBT would be like bringing TO to the Eagles. I would have liked to have seen JoeP on King of Vegas, that would have been more entertaining than that pervert from MSU.
My Three Cents for JP Setting aside my many discomforts with UBT for a very brief moment, I cannot for the life of me understand why the UBT gods are not quickly appointing JoeP as a member of their team. Nobody has taken more heat on their behalf and nobody has supported them more. I am sure that his appointment news is just around the corner along with the news that the online qualifiers are ready to go.:joker: :joker: :joker:
teams I've heard rumors of teams playing in local tournaments. Which could be an advantage to the members. But I doubt if it could happen in a large tournament, with so many pros watching. tgun
Mind Games... The main disadvantage I see to playing against a team is psychological. If several players start pressing the bets harder, you might be inclined to push more out to keep up.
teams It's hard to make the right bet if one partner bets high while the other bets low at certain times during the game. Another team might be a player and the dealer. That really hurts. tgun
The DEALER? Tgun what casinos are you playing at? If I ever thought a dealer was partnered up with a player or players I would have to do a Joep and call the gaming control. Cheating is not cool and any dealer that partners up with a player is cheating. I made a comment to a casino tournament director just this pass year about this situation. The dealer for the finals knew one of the players and was very open about it. Although the final table was dealt right, it looked very bad and I suggested that he teach his dealers not to show any favoritism to any of the players. As far as players making deals in tournament play of 5% to 20% I don't have a problem with that or even chopping the pot for the final table. But to go in calling yourself a team brings up lots of doubt in players minds. Card tournaments are and should be an individual event, players think about teams such as in nascar and team mates block out other drivers so their team members can do better, that is what team members do why else have teams. Now anytime team members are on a final table and one bet high and one bets low it is going to look really bad even though that might be the correct play. It looks like it is a block out move to middle the other player or players. Now in the case of the UBT the term TEAM is really misused. They are really just part of the UBT family members like "Full Tilt Poker" has Phil I., Clonie G., Howard L., Chris F. Andy B., etc.... All these players play against one another they are just well known poker players who represent the "Full Tilt" company. This is what UBT is trying to do with the UBT team, just get familiar face out there for blackjack. The TV audience wants players they can recognize and rout for, hence the UBT team.
In other casino tournaments, the potential for team play is even more dramatic. In craps or roulette or Texas Hold'em, it's very easy to consolidate all the team's money in front of one player. At roulette, one player goes all-in on red, and the other goes all-in on black. After that spin (unless green hits), one player is doubled-up and one player is out. There are lots of ethical dilemmas once players agree to collaborate. I've had many opportunities and invitations to participate in tournament events as part of a team, but I've done so only on three occasions that I recall. In the first case, it was a roulette tournament, and we did a chip transfer as described above. We advanced from that round, but lost at the final table, which was a $1000 winner-take-all event. The one other time I've been involved in something like that, it was a small craps tournament. We didn't finish in the money that time either. The only time I did finish in the money in a team situation, it was a blackjack event where five players agreed to evenly split the results beforehand. In that event, I never played at the same table with any of my teammates. I did however make the finals, and as the sole money winner, my win was negligible after I had to split it five ways. Craps tournaments are often full of teams, and it is tough to beat a smart team at a table. Perhaps it's good karma, but I managed to pull down the first place win at Gold Strike in Tunica last year for $25,000, and I owed not a dime to anyone, because I was playing straight up. I'll go ahead and plant my flag firmly on this side of the ethical fence... I regret playing in the past as a partnership in tournaments, though each event I describe happened several years ago. In the future, if you see me at a tournament table, you can rest assured that I'm playing for me and only me. Now, I may cut a small deal of 10% or less with someone else involved in the event, but I'll never have a large enough deal that it would impact my playing strategy. I encourage everyone else out there to make the same commitment.
My three cents! Good honest post, Kenneth. Playing "opposites" and playing "soft" and agreements to split the final table, even when not all final table players participate, create all kinds of opportunities for collusion and unfairness. If playing partners or team members end up together at the final table, perception of collusion alone affects the integrity of the game.The same could be said of anybody who is not at arm's length from the management/promotion of the tournament, participating in the tournament.:joker: :joker: :joker:
Hmmm... Ken, I seem to remember one of your "oppurtunities & invitations" (roulette) quite distinctly....
Yes, and Momma Goose was an unfortunate victim on that table. I've regretted that incident ever since. Please accept my apologies.
Helping out a friend My local paper runs a weekly poker column by Daniel Negreanu. In a recent article, he writes, “Even though you might not see any harm in it, and your intentions are all well and good, soft playing your friends is a form of collusion. It's called team play.” I can think of one situation in tournament blackjack where, intentional or not, there can be “soft playing”. Near the end of a round before the next-to-last hand is played, a player can keep a chip or two back, instead of betting all-in when he has absolutely zero chance of advancing if he loses the bet, just to keep his seat in play and thus influence the button position for the final hand. Granted, the other players' cards may be better or worse due to the extra hand(s) played (akin to 3rd base “taking the dealer’s bust card”), but we all know what a big advantage acting last on the final hand is. Here’s a link to Negreanu’s article, No friends at the poker table. It’s a good read. --jr
Hey Jackaroo thanks for the good article posting. The example in the article was dealing with poker and good - take that same principle to the BJT and your example of betting last and it can have a major influence. We know what a great advantage it is to bet last in a BJ tourney. What if one member of the team, instead of keeping back a single chip goes all in earlier than normally just so the "non team" member would have to go from betting last on the last hand to being "on the button" and betting first? In the article Daniel talked about penalties. The problem is how can you prove it?
Poker "teams" Here is a link to something that happened at this year's WSOP. http://www.casinomeister.com/news/july2006.html#CAUGHT
dealer on team Tex, let's suppose the following: The dealers deal from thier hand(2 deck pitch). Dealers decide when to reshuffle Several of the players play every week. Players and dealers are small town nieghbors. No pit bosses observing. Many players are tourists. I'm just saying it could happen. tgun
Ethical Fence: Swog: Nice link, Good example of stupid collaboration. Duh! But in the larger arena, just my twisted mind, but I commit to Yoda's side of the fence. It's always more satisfying and long range gratifying to accomplish something on your own. Hopefully, it was through skill, experience and well thought out strategy. The obvious examples of collusion in any tourney(heck live or ring games of any kind) are,or should be, noticed by seasoned players. Two continuing dilemas however: One: An AP, reading, understanding the rules of a particular tourney, (let's make it Blackjack,) as an AP can and should do, determines a "ploy" within the rules to exploit. It will happen once under the given rules, for then the other knowledgeable playas will recognize the "strategy" and put it in their quiver for the next time. Or, it will be discussed immediately and forever and made know to everyone who cares to listen. Or, a casino running the tourney, will rewrite rules to prevent the exploitation. EX: Surrender trap. Good exploitation. Good Strategy. Good Skill. Good Execution. Till it became known a real manipulative ploy. Still available to ALL in a surrender game. And not a "cheating" move, just good thought. EX: MIN-MAX Bets. With no stated incremental bets. While most would play min bet in increments of the minimum, without specifically stated incremental bets, the AP makes min plus 1. Confuses opponents. Nothing wrong with that. Tournament holders incorporate rules that bets must be made in increments. Not stated...ploy available. EX: DEALT DOWN GAME: TUCKING A BJ. If not stated in the rules in the dealt down game an AP considers tucking the BJ. Hell and fury over whether it should pay the 3-2 for not revealing immediately, until a floor person, or pit boss makes the ruling. RESOLUTION. Specifically stated in the rules whether to tuck or not to tuck. EX: DEALT DOWN GAME: DOUBLE ON A STIFF. Do the rules specify turning over the bust? Is a bust known. Should it be determined immediately. Even in dealt up game when the double card is dealt down. Do the rules specify the dealer should determine immediately if it's a bust? Those are just a few examples of what an AP can and should do for the advantage. TWO: What does an agreement between any number of partners going into a tournament to divide all winnings amongst the parternship create? On the surface, probably a good business deal. Especially if all the partners are top players and any one is a high odds favorite. Their collective skill should assure that one or more will cash benefiting the group. But there would be a fine line of avoiding the collusion tempatation available at a common table. As previously stated, though, the collusion would probably be instantly recognizable. In a more innocent venue such as a golf outing or bowling tournament partnerships are made to share in all possible prize offerings. The "hope" that one of the group will get lucky, benefitting all involved. I have, however, seen and experienced in some gabazillion money bowling tourneys across the country where manipulation of the rules, within the rules has led to more than suspicious wins. Sometimes, as in casino management, it has taken the organizers of these gabazillion tourneys a year or two to catch on and ban future participation. Though the money won was money won. Back to the BJ. A final table preagreement chop while legal and ethical may produce less than optimal play by the particpants. So just as the fence provides a fine line between one side and the other, so to is it a fine line in any prearranged agreement to split, chop or percentage tourney winnings. It may be that only after something comes to light that either enough outrage backlash stops it, or the recognition of the advantage alows its use to be normal.
