There is a fairly lively thread underway, discussing the merits of counting during tournaments, on Norm's site: http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?19411-Blackjack-Tournament
gronbog. KS has commented on this. As have other top tourney players. The Imperial Palace LV tourneys with double deck dealt to the bottom made the extra effort somewhat reasonable. But with most events having 21 hands or less per preliminary round and six to eight decks, cut one and a half to two the opportunities for utilizing a good count are few. In spite of a lot of interesting comments on Norms site(and thank you for the reference) most events are best played to Kens tips or wongs tome.
The only thing I disagree with is that they don't cut the one and a half to two decks off that you imply. Being the tournaments are all "funny money" we get cuts that we can only pray for in regular play. Billy C
BC: You play more in various locales than I currently do. The few I've been in are real money (no huge payouts) and played to house rules. Kewandin and Ignace are funny money? Would alter my future forays. I thought Tama was real money. Good fortune to you.
Please tell me where there are still live money events played. I haven't seen one for many years. Good luck to you, also.
Yes, I do. Mainly because it separates the people with "balls" from the rest. The best example I can give was the first time I made the final table at the Stardust. Last hand in the semis I'm dealt a hard seventeen to my $300 max bet. Only way for me to make the final table was by doubling down (had to have that much on the table) and hoping, so I pushed the other $300 out and caught a three for a winning hand and advancement. Even though there were a lot of good players there, there were also many players that wouldn't have taken the risk with $600 live money. In the end, I only finished in 5th (I think) for 4k on the final table. With the count being what it was, I'm sure that I would have played it the same way with a hard 18 but hard 19 would have been a real tough decision considering that first place paid 100k. I was much younger then so, more than likely, I'd have taken the long shot. Short answer is that it gives gutsy players an added advantage and any extra edge is welcome in tournaments. Billy C P.S. Being Canada uses our same calendar----------Happy New Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Given that the final table had at least $100k on it, making it it would have been worth at least $14,285 for 7 players and $16,666 for 6 players. Pushing out the extra $300 live money would have been an easy choice for me regardless of the situation. But I see your point. If it makes others timid, and you know it, then it is an advantage. Happy New Year to you and to everyone here!
The fact that I knew it wasn't really an advantage at that critical moment because it didn't factor in to the decisions of any of my competitors on this last hand. The fact that live money greatly influences the decisions of the players that are "tighter" with their money in general, is just a built in advantage for more aggressive players before play even starts. At least, that's the way I see it. If the incentive (big purse) was there, I played live money events exactly the same as I play funny money events. Many didn't. It seems like the TC was minus 4 or 5 with few Aces having been shown and that greatly enhanced my chances of snagging a non breaking card.
BC: misunderstood "live money play" I too preferred that challenge at Frontier and Stardust. One Stardust event a young fellow ripped thru the prelims. You had to have $600.00 buy in each round. Come Sunday for the semis the young fellow was begging any one he could for the buy in. He had had a glorious Saturday night. No one fronted him.
That could have been a good investment but still risky if not enough time to write up an appropriate contract stating your claim to 90% of his winnings!
