I was reminded of how much hell I gave my buddy David Page about his famous surrender last year on the WSOB. For those who don't remember David surrendered his hard 20 vs. the dealers 2. He told me later it was because he was on TV and only had a minimum bet out and should the dealer draw to 21 he would look smart and it would make for good TV. Since I gave David such a hard time I think it is only fair I give this other player a hard time as well. Now as bad as David's play was, I think we may have a new winner for the worst play ever on TV. It happened in week two of the "King of Vegas" when Todd a casino exc. hit his 21 with a big bet out. David at least knew he was surrendered a 20, but Todd (once again) the casino exc. didn't even know he had a 21? His hand was A-A-9=21, and he hit it. He did however catch a 10 value card for 21 AGAIN...LOL. I believe David is now off the hook for worst play on TV. But David between Joep and I you'll still catch hell over your play....LOL.
Stupid Play Well, it begs the question. Do we just want to be on tv and be good tv actors, personalities. There are one or two on this site over qualified already. Or, do you want to play good bj for the money. Or both. American Idol of BJ? Does someone really desire for the 10 seconds of tv time, that they must make an ass out of themselves. I thought BJ players were the edge/advantage players, bringing heat down on themselves for superior play, rather than throwing mega bucks out there, or acting like the lonely housewife from Texarkanna, let loose at a Chippendales show. The rep is out there that enough top poker pros thought bj players were cheating, recently. Now, other than a chess match, there is nothing more boring on tv than a golf or bowling tourney. Yet for years avid followers of both sports tuned in to pick up tips, to see the pros execute and to dream they could do the same. Good production techniques, editing, commentary would do the same for pitting top bj players at each other on TV, without the "reality" aspect. But.....if the new age, or the only way to have mega buck tourneys is to go NFL for TV, then everyone better line up to buy Cerritos' book when it comes out. Cause, if anyone has the edge on how to play for modern tv, combined with all the old school advantage shiite, sunni and kurd stuff, plus the numbers, it's him. All that struggling actor angst finally paid off. Talk about being in the right place at the right time. Or turning a cow's ear into a silk purse.
King of Vegas TV Noman, I agree with most of your comments, the KOV show got worse week by week. The 3rd show reminded me of Pro Wrestling (Pro ?), it was obvious the participants were prompted to put on a side show rather than just try to win the $1,000,000.00. I agree with JoeP, KennyE's credibility is better served no longer participating. The producers of KOV seemed like they wanted clowns not experienced gamblers to participate. Sorry "HD" and "Mike the Mouth" I guess Leopards can't change their spots.
Little bit of both It's certainly an interesting debate, but the bottom line is this: blackjack is boring to watch on TV. No matter how much the math nerds and AP's like us really get off on the high-stakes mental battles we see on the World Series of Blackjack, etc, the truth is the average American viewer, unlike poker shows, just don't support blackjack TV. Joe Dockworker from the midwest doesn't really understand the mathematical nuances that make these shows great, and for as much as it sucks to have to cater to viewers like him, the networks have no choice. We can all bitch about the commercialization/MTV-ifying of blackjack on TV, but without appealing to the base demographic, the ratings just aren't there. And without ratings, there isn't money from sponsors for advertising/commercials. And without that, there's no reason for a network to put a show on TV in the first place! Rick made an argument in an earlier thread about how if we want to see casinos continue to make lucrative bj tournaments available, then it is our responsibility as players to actually attend these events, as well as produce a decent amount of side action for the casinos. The argument could also be made for blackjack on television -- if we want to continue to see it, and gain the opportunities that the average poker player does for that kind of exposure, then adjustments must be accepted in the formula to make it more appealing to the vast majority of TV viewers, the overwhelming segment of whom just don't 'get' the math like we do. So we've got to accept shows like Celebrity Blackjack, King of Vegas, etc because they are geared specifically towards this popcorn-junkie couch-potato mainstream audience that will pay the bills at the networks -- and hopefully turn enough of a profit so that the concept of doing MORE -- and hopefully, BETTER -- gambling shows makes more sense. For my part, i've always realized from the beginning that if i was going to have any effect on this industry at all, i would have to do two very crucial things -- 1. develop a dynamic, notorious character that would not only be memorable, but bankable from a network's perspective, and 2. be one of the most skilled, disciplined, trained, and seriously focused tournament pros out there. There are many players who embody one or the other of these two elements, but i believe that it is in the uncompromising combination of both of these worlds that success can be found, both as a player AND a tv personality. Face it -- in the modern day world of televised gambling, it truly IS an advantage play to create an interesting screen presence for oneself, and those that would scoff at or belittle this aspect of the reality of the situation are only fooling themselves. i didn't CREATE the demand for this type of 21st century gambler -- i am merely doing my best to FILL it. Finally, the saving grace -- and ultimate litmus test -- of those of us that accept this new 'TV advantage play' of developing a certain cult of personality around ourselves is: are we actually DOING THE WORK, too? Do we KNOW the math? Have we put in the time to be the best tourney players we can possibly be? Do our results speak for themselves? If we can answer yes to these types of questions, then i say, god bless. Dye your hair purple. Get an attitude. Dress like a gangster. Do what makes the networks, ratings, and sponsors happy. Just don't ever forgot your responsibility to the truth, the numbers, the knowledge that supports it all. And maybe one day, when enough tourney pros accept the necessity of this combination of attentions, rather than bitching about how stupid it all seems, we will truly start to see a renaissance of great blackjack TV that not only presents vivid, dynamic characters -- but incredible gamblers and analysis as well that the networks can feel confidant investing in & creating for all of us to enjoy. -hollywood dave.
Like it or not Hollywood is correct, I think most all of us will agree that watching blackjack on TV would not be as entertaining if we didn't know at least some of the players. It needs some colorful characters or gimmicks. Hell look at the King of Vegas, everybody has commented on how BAD it is and yet we still tune in every Tuesday to watch it. Some to see our friends and (be honest) to compare what we would have done if we had been selected for the show. Now, I do think that show goes overboard more than most, but it seems to be pulling us in to watch. And if asked I would be on it next year, People, they are giving away a Million Dollars! When I told Max (Rubin) I would still go on it, he told me "Hell I would pay to be on it". I can tell you this from first hand experience that when anyone asks me any questions about last year's WSOB show, that one of the first questions is: What do you think of Hollywood, or Is Hollywood really that bad?...etc. I just tell them, "He's a real Ass"! No am just joking, really Dave is a good guy off camera and very easy to talk to. My point is that with all his crazy behavior on the show makes him the one person non-blackjack tournament players are familiar with. My only real concern is that any new players that start playing tournament BJ, think this is how real tournament players act. I am afraid that if we stated getting players like Hollywood in the non TV tournaments that tournament BJ players may end up killing more people yearly then postal workers...LOL Bottom line: TV Blackjack is "NOT" real Blackjack, it is a game show with blackjack in it. This is what most players don't understand. Now don't get me wrong, I loved playing on WSOB last year, and I am trying like hell to win a seat again this year, but it is still more game show than blackjack. Really, WSOB does a great job showing a "Real" tournament format but with a few twists for TV. Such as starting with $100,000 in chips, but for TV it looks great. Year one when they started with $10,000 it was kind of boring, but in the finals with the $100,000 bankroll it made it more enjoyable to watch.
um so what are you going as tex- a cowboy is not going to work- any ideas-i do not think you can be obnoxious you are a nice guy- good luck in tulsa :flame:
Just as myself My hat really isn't a gimmick, but at the same time it does draw attention to me. Which depending on how I do can be good or bad. I'm just going as me (hat) and all...LOL. Thanks Maxwell.
Good. Bad. And Ugly Yes. yes. yes. TV. If that's where the big money in BJ tournaments is to be, then so be it. And then a personality like Simon on Idol, gets all the attention. Cause as much as people hate him..they love to hate him. Yeah good TV. But as Idol proves. More people think they have talent than think. The real problem with TV bj is that not all, or even a few good players can also come off good on tv. So those that can have a new advantage. To put it in another perspective. There are throngs of aspiring actors, many good to great local theater performers, some excellent broadway actors, but only a fortunate few are big screenable or tvable. And then, even the ones who make a "screen" are only acceptable for a short time. Doyle Brunson and Amarillo Slim are not and never will be good tv. But therein resides the resolution: Someone who is an expert player and good tv has the definite advantage. they'll get on all the time. At the same time, I guess promoting the game, to draw more players, though Black Jack had and still has the largest player base of any casino game. A mix of good tv people, skilled and not, with certifiably expert players, tvable or not could serve both ends of the dilema. Good TV(with a good commentator) and demonstrable skilled play, while not dwelling on the lack of tv personality. The personalities will have the edge in TV shows. Skill and getting on. But maybe in the long run, the tv popularity will prompt casinos to offer more events, that arn't even satellites for tv, but just plain big money tourneys, based on entries. In the short term, if you're over 25, fat, bald, ugly, wrinkley, a geek, or look like one, forget about tv.
Gee Hollywood, after reading all that...makes me wonder if you didn't lose the BJ round on the first episode on purpose...more exposure that way?
TV. TV. Reality TV. Reality! TV. TV. All right ya'll worried about making a tv tourney, where the money is big nooo doubt and tempting. Pick-up, borrow,go to the library, go on line or steal a copy of the Feb. 6 issue ofTtime magazine. "How reality TV fakes it" Or fill in "King of Vegas." Now, I've seen a world class poker player and a new age bj player plan out their repartee and explain it to the cameramen and producers, only to have it go no where. I've seen a questionable break of the rules, go ignorned for ultimate reasons and be spun into something else. So for a shot at big money, in a less than honest production, do you really want to demean yourself, your inteligence, your diligence, your hard work at becoming the best you can at a certain endeavor. For u're 5 seconds of fame. If so, I can only repeat the age old adage: "Be careful what you wish for. U may get it."
What about character out of context? I think the posts thus far have been really interesting in terms of relation to a character or "on screen persona." But does there ever come a point when you want someone to distinguish between a memorable character and the real individual? In my opinion, even though viewers realize that many projected personalities on tv are surreal, some have trouble desegregating, if you will, fact (the character portrayed out of context) from fiction. Sometimes for example, there are many child stars that are still seen as just that, as the person they played on tv throughout a number of years. As an adult in the real world, it can be hard for them to find other fulfilling roles because that past factor has latched on to them and is always looming over their heads. Their friends and family may know who they are (as seen in TXtourplayer's comments about Dave), but very few others do. Sometimes, a person can be rejected by their fans or other people in various industries, for being who they really are when they wish to step outside their box. Then, of course, there are those who succeed at finding that delicate balance from both sides. It depends on what you choose to be associated with in your lifetime, and what associates itself to you for a lifetime. Smooches!
