I’m been wondering about different BJT formats. In particular the heads up format. Using a double elimination style format and brackets I was wondering how many people would be interested in playing in something like this event over a 2 day period? The fee for an event like this would be either 1,000+100 or maybe as high as 2,000+150 depending upon the amount of players interested. It would entail 16 players. Prize pools would either be 16,000 or 32,000 with the top finisher getting 50%, 2nd place 25%, 3rd place 15% and 4th place 10%. For a 1,000+100 that would be 8,000 4,000 2,400 1,600 For the 2,000+150 that would be 16,000 8,000 4,800 3,200 Now the players would be playing 10 hands per game and it would be a best 2 of 3. In the semi-finals it would be raised to 3 of 5 and 5 of 7 for the final match. It would hinge on having 16 players interested in playing in a heads up competition. The rules would be similar to what the TBJPA uses. If there is enough interest the event would likely be held at a major resort in Vegas. Comments/suggestions?
I'd like to offer a suggestion re: prize breakdown. In the single elimination style tournaments I've been in, any consolation game for 3rd and 4th was mostly just a pain in the a$$. We'd usually agree to chop 3rd and 4th money 50/50 and throw the ball for 10 frames just to keep the tournament managers happy. Almost all of the spectators were watching the championship match anyway. Make 3rd and 4th the same payoff and let the two players go drown their sorrows.
In the double-elim format that Fred suggested, there is an explicit 4th place finisher without a payoff. Personally, I don't think heads-up tournaments are that interesting. The strategy just tends to be a lot more basic than in a multi-player field. Now, match-play, where both players play off of the same hand could be interesting.
Head up is okay FGK and I have been discussing a possible head up event. One thing about head up is it doesn't take that many players, 8, 16, 32, 64...ect. However with less players comes less prize money. So were back to the question, what will bring in the players? Both FGK and I agree that for a smaller 16 players one on one event will could get enough players, but it would have to be played somewhere in Las Vegas for the best chance to succeed. I could even see a smaller model with only a $500 entry fee as a dry run event just to see what type of interest we could get up. I perfer the double elimination over a re-buy option in the one on one format.
Toonces, Thanks for noticing that with this double-elimination format there is a definate 4th finish. My reasoning for this is that unlike the other heads up there could be no collusion with this format. The other thing that I invisioned is a double deck - rather than a 6-8 deck shoe. In fact what I would like to have is a double deck dealt down to the final 10 cards. The point is to emphasis less of a "luck" element that is inherant with BJT - especially with 5 or 6 players on the final hand. The purpose of the smaller field is that in order to make something like this work the entry fees would have be to higher than the normal buy-ins. The plus side is that with only 16 players you've got a 25% chance of winning money - that's much greater than any other BJT that I've seen. Plus you would be playing multiple games and matches against a variety of players. Also with a small field of players the options of having this event are really endless - from the high rollers pit of a specific resort to a suite or even someones house. It could be open to all or strictly invite only. The question I have is this? Is there any interest in an event like this? If yes - PM me or post here. What would REALLY be neat is to have ALL IN sponsor this event and comp in the top 16 players at the end of the year!
I completely missed that it was a double elim format that you'd suggested. Of course I'd know what that was....... Don't know why I'm chiming in here, I couldn't afford to play that event if it was 5 bucks. But here goes, anyway. The doubledeck dealt to the bottom would be enough to keep me away from it, period. Brings card counting into the fray, which should have no more bearing on TBJ outcome than stack counting should. I couldn't count cards if someone was keeping track on a chalkboard behind the dealer, but even if I could, I'd still believe that it shouldn't be encouraged in TBJ.
WHY? Keeping track of cards IS a skill and that information is used to make the correct bets. Keeping track of chip stacks is just a matter of time and eyesight and has no bearing on decision making. The intent of this format is to generate interest in less luck and more skill format. Just my .25 on the subject.
Card counting in BJTs I agree completely with leftnut's post. I too caught the implication in Fred's post that card counting might come into play. Which brings up a question I have wondered about for some time... ?? Does anyone employ card counting in tournament play now ?? I would like to hear from members of the forum, including Ken.
Well, here's my .02 about it! :laugh: Casino BJ and TBJ are two different animals. TBJ involves calculating chip counts and optimal bets, deciding on variance from basic strategy depending on the ongoing situation. Casino BJ is about trying to reverse the built-in house edge. Now, I can see the merits of an argument that card counting should be allowed in TBJ, but have to vehemently disagree because the game is about betting strategy and NOT about card counting. If I were to run a TBJ, I'd be trying to lay my hands on as many CSM's as I needed, or run 8-deck shoes with at least 3 decks cut off. Maybe 4. There is still plenty of room for skill without the card counting. I'd rather see a lot more hands per game if you want to even out the luckbox factor. Don't get me wrong, I believe that card counting is an excellent skill and bow to those who can do it, but IMHO it doesn't belong in TBJ. Feel free to disagree. All I'm saying is that if someone were to set up a tournament like that, I wouldn't play. If I could, anyway!
Counting In Tournaments As I've said before in other posts, I agree with those that say counting doesn't have much value in tournaments. During the last few hands of a round, there is no value at all. But, if you think about it, what is the reason for counting? It's to size your bets according to makeup of undealt cards to get an advantage. Why wouldn't you use the same advantage in tourn. play that you use in open play??? Billy C
Do you realize you contradicted your argument with this statement. In particular "deciding on variance from basic strategy depending on the ongoing situation". Card counting is one of the ways variance from basic strategy is justified. And "optimal bets" means, in part, betting more when the odds are in your favor. In most every game played in tournament style, yes even bowling, one taps into his skills in that field to win the tournament. Now you are saying card counting should be prohibited mainly because you can't do it. Although I also don't card cards, to prohibit a recognized BJ skill from tournaments is ludicrous. It's like prohibiting a "hook" from bowling tournaments. Your arguments against card counting simply do not hold water.
Number of decks in tournament play Believe it or not the most popular number of decks for tournament play is 6 decks from a shoe. The advantage players don't mind that much and the non-advantage players feel they have more of a chance with a six deck shoe. So it isn't what anyone player wants, but what is best to draw in the most players.
Hah! Thought we might get some good responses from that, get people talking here again. Without the insults, too! Guys, I didn't say that it should be prohibited, nor that it should be prohibited because I can't do it. I did say "IMHO it doesn't belong in TBJ." It's an opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Wouldn't even think of making rules to prohibit a somewhat related skill, but I would be taking steps to significantly lessen that advantage if I were in charge. I'm quite well-versed in imbalancing a bowling ball by drilling out a strategic location on the ball and packing it with lead. Bird shot works great. However, the powers-that-be made rules that no one can do that, because it gave those players an advantage that was deemed unfair and I am unable to use my knowledge to an advantage. Not too far removed from this discussion. Again, IMHO. P.S. TX's last line is 100% correct.
Very poor analogy - imbalancing a bowling ball is prohibited in regular competition not just tournaments. Can you come up with any example of a skill allowed in regular play but not allowed in tournament competition? You also said "I would be taking steps to significantly lessen that advantage (card counting) if I were in charge. Now we are getting to the real problem of BJTs. Everybody, i.e casinos, wants to make their own rules. I think that every BJT I've played in has some variation in rules as opposed to another. No two are completely identical. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why more players are not being attracted to BJTs. Standard rules is what we need before we can even think of BJTs becoming more popular. Without that BJTs will continue to languish and just be "something to do" rather than becoming big & popular like, dare I say, POKER. TXtourplayer got the right idea about trying to standardize rules and I hope he succeeds in that endeavor. It's an uphill battle and the odds are stacked against him but his success is critical to advancing BJTs beyond the "MA & PA" stage where it is currently stuck. So, until we can get out of that rut, all other discussions on how to make BJTs more popular is mute.
Well, no, not really that bad at all. If I'm not mistaken, counting cards in the regular casino BJ game is also forbidden in almost every casino in the land outside of New Jersey. So, counting cards is not allowed in "regular play" either. Again, I'm not talking about how I would prohibit it, just merely lopping off a sizable portion of the advantage. We are sure in the same corner about the need for some kind of rule standardization for TBJ, though. It's nuts out there. TX is still right. It isn't what any one player wants, but what is best to draw in the most players.
Card counting may be forbidden because it gives the player an advantage over the casino but it is not "Illegal". Just a second, "DEAL OR NO DEAL" just came back from a commercial. Another second - the drama is mounting. The drama is over now back to this discussion but my hands are all buttery from popcorn so I have to wash my hands. Card counting is used in most every card game involving skill. Any decent poker player knows what's left in the deck by observing the exposed cards. You can't play a decent game of bridge or pinochle without counting cards. So I just don't understand why this skill, if one chooses to use it, should be denied. Now, many say counting is of limited value in tournaments and that is entirely a separate discussion. But rules should not be set up to make counting impossible because if the opportunity to apply that skill surfaces in a BJT, a player should be able to apply all of his skills, not just some.
Deal! Well, looks like we will have to apply a trite phrase here - agree to disagree. I hope Fred and/or Rick can get that idea off the ground. Won't be me there, can't afford to pay attention much less an entry fee right now, but it'd be very good for TBJ in general.
One, Two, Four---If I could count! Devoted counters find funny money (non-negotiable chips) tournaments especially attractive because the dealers offer more penetration than a downtown hooker does (85-90% typically). As far as banning counters from tournaments goes, theres NO WAY that can happen. I'll never forget a live money tourn. at the Stardust several years ago. One of the most prolific counters that we all know was in the seat next to me. Either 50 or 60 hands in a session, min. bet $5 max bet $300, two deck pitch game. About 20 hands into the session the count gets extremely favorable. He bets $300 and gets a BJ for a $450 win which put him way ahead of the rest of us. Luck wasn't with him in the end though as he kept betting good counts and losing and ended up not being one of the 2 table advancers. Billy C
Wow, some interesting posts on this thread. Let me clarify a few things: 1. The heads up format provides, in my mind, a unique way of playing BJT. It’s a format I like – personal choice 2. With regard to the number of decks: I find it hard to believe that the majority of players like a 6-deck shoe. Sorry but I don’t buy into that argument. I believe that a 6-deck shoe is used to make the game go quicker – less shuffling than a double deck and easier to deal 3. Dealing down to the bottom of the deck(s). Whom does this favor? The card counters right? Not necessarily. When you’ve got a high count the likelihood of the 10’s favors the players right? Well in a heads-up match both players have that information – if they choose to use it. 4. This format, limited to 16 players, is NOT intended for the first time, beginner, novice or intermediate BJT players. It would be for the more experienced players who have a larger BR (hence the higher buy-in). Because of the higher buy-in and experience level it would need to be held at a higher end location. Having civil discussion, like this one, is a good step in the right direction for the TBJ community - as there are tournament directors and others out there who read these posts. It is good for thinking outside the box. My whole purpose of even writing about this was to determine if there was a demand for such an event. I guess you could say it was to get the “pulse” of the BJT players. Based on the overwhelming number of PM’s that I received I would say that the patient is DOA.
