Which type of players is harder to advance against? A full table of 7 "seasoned" players aka "Wongs" or a table with 2 "Wongs" and 5 regular players lets call the "Wildcats" ? One advances.
Two Wongs don't make a wight Sorry, couldn't resist a small pun there! Your numbers add up to seven, so 2 Wongs would be me and one other Wong?
Yes Colin If you are as a Wong you are counted as a Wong, but consider yourself as an observer. BTW, I miss voted, I voted a table of 7 Wongs would be hardest to advance from. I think its hardest to advance from a table with 5 Wildcats when one advances! DOH!
I'm not sure With that many wildcats, then the chances of one or two building up a large lead may be better than even, requiring the Wongs to start making catch-up bets. OTOH, there is a good chance that they might all bust out. So it may be that you have a high probability of a relatively difficult task (having to catch up), balanced by a lower probability of a much easier task (having to beat whoever's left after most of the field has committed suicide).
Are you serious? I'd much rather be up against 5 average/unskilled players and 1 skilled player than 6 skilled players. No question. No brainer Why would you have it the other way Barney? Do you think you'd earn more money in series of S&Gs when only 1st place pays when up against a table of skilled players rather than against 1 skilled and 5 unskilled? Isn't this just another way of looking at the skill vs. luck debate? Explain yourself man !!!! Cheers Reachy
What I've been notcing lately is that it really seems to depend on starting chipcount. If the tournament gives a high amount of chips to start with and a high max bet, I think the crazy dudes tend to do a lot better. They can make some errors, but then still hit big because the errors don't knock them out right away. Smaller chipcount, reasonable max bet, they seem to shoot themselves in the foot easier. I have no hard numbers to back this up, just what's happend to me recently.
Reach I honestly believe if you're outnumbered 5-2 a wildcat or two will pull a max bet lead if not more. My answer, If I had a choice between playing against 6 Wongs or 5 Wildcats I would choose the Wongs. That might sound crazy, but I would choose to compete against the Wongs. The very mindset brings predictability. B
Good luck then... I'll sit with the less skilled players and Ken S, you can have Ken S, Joep, TXT, Kami, Hollywood, Swog & Monkeysystem at your table. Lets see who has most BR available after a few games... Cheers Reachy
Are they lucky Wongs? Just typing that cracks me up. But seriously, the cards I've been getting are killing me! 12-16 against dealer 10's. Even the ABSENT players are catching blackjacks. If you consistently catch bad cards and those freakin' all-in bettors make a hand, you're screwed. You have to make what would normally be unreasonable bets to stay in the running.
Reachy If four players make a max bet on the opening round, there is a 0.71 chance that at least one of them will win their bet. They've all individually hurt their own chances by being so reckless, but the question is have they also effectively ganged up on you and hurt your chances too? If not four or five wildcats, at what point would it become too much (if you imagine a table with as many seats as you like)?
Reach Get off those silly internet sites and play some live games that are absent of Wongs. You will find a good chance to rebuy early! BTW, remember I voted wrong on my own poll! Move one up to I want to play with Wongs! Wongs Wildcats, we need a terms glossary for this board LMAO! B
And bear in mind that there is a difference between 'advancing', i.e. qualifying for the next round of a tournament, and winning a S&Go. In the latter case, you only have to win sufficiently more often than the law of averages would suggest, in order to make a profit. Each additional player at an infinitely-expandable table would mean more money for you on those occasions when you do win, balancing the fact that you win less often.
counterintuitive I think a simulation is required here (I'm going to attempt a simplistic excel one later!) as the only way to analyse this is with data. I do understand where you are coming from but I still maintain that the flux that goes with large bets even against multiple players makes all of them dogs to your calculated approach. Point taken about profit and S&Gs Colin but it's technical. In 100 games where only one advances I maintain that the skilled player will advance more when playing against majority wildcat bettors than he will against majority skilled players. Cheers Reachy
You may be right As I said earlier, I'm not sure. I just wanted to make the point that it is far from being a 'no brainer'.
TEC rounds v. St. Kitts qualifiers... A side note, I noticed whilst accumulating TEC chips yesterday that the majority of betting was splitting bank roll or all in. However, once you get to the "real" tournaments, much more skilled betting is taking place. I'm going to assume ( and we know what happens when you ass-u-me ) that folks are trying to rapidly win as many TEC chips as possible. If they win, great. Collect the chip and move on. If not, bail out and start the next S&G.
Yes, unfortunately, the best strategy for these freeroll SnGs is to play them fast and furious. When I play them, I'm going all-in for a hand or two, and then start paying attention if I happen to survive. This is a poor introduction to tournament blackjack for the many players who are new to the game, and I fear that many of them will be turned off by the "slot machine" mentality of it.
Player improvement... I have started seeing some player improvement. I think they've been able to watch the "absent" players $500 min bet keeping a total hovering around the $25G mark for 5 hands, while the split banks are struggling. But you're right about this being a bad intro for the newbies. I've knocked off a couple of folks that had over $125G chip lead but kept betting like they thought I was right behind them with my $30,000. In reality I was, but they didn't know how to play it and blew their lead. And a good dose of Basic Strategy would help several of these players.
