I got the following email from GameAccount I'd be more flattered by the opening remark if it didn't begin with 'Hello, USERNAME,'. What do you think? My instinct is to suggest that 40 rounds is a bit too long, and 20 or 30 would be better. (They have made only two changes - 40 rounds instead of 10, and $4000 starting BR instead of $1000). A $500 max bet is 12.5% of the starting BR, compared with 50% at Global or 100% at UBT. Is that a good or a bad thing? It sems to offer more scope for getting a lead of one or two max bets and locking out your opponent. To put it another way, there would be less opportunity to get lucky and take the lead with an 'all-in' in the last couple of rounds. In the original 10-round version, the min bet of $100 is a huge 10% of the starting $1000; it is now a more reasonable 2.5%, compared with 1% at Global and 2% at UBT (or 1% in the finals). This seems OK. At 10% and with only 10 rounds, a couple of swings or lost DDs, even when min betting, can leave you with really just one opportunity to make a catch-up bet Please let me know what you think. I'd like to be able to offer them suggestions that would help the more skilled players.
My personal .02 Mr. Username, Make it 30 hands - more standard format there. I personally like a higher max as it keeps you in the game longer and makes for interesting play. Capping the max bet too low benefits the bots and not the players. I also like a higher starting bankroll myself - I would suggest 5000 with a max bet of 2500. This encourages wildcats which in the LONG run benefits the skilled players as the wildcats may/can/should burn themselves out. This also allows you to get a quick lead and sit on it. Bots can't do that! As far as playing the final table to 40 hands what the heck is that? You play until there is a winner! PS. My reply would be: Dear GameAccount, I appreciate your seeking the players input into this matter. As you can see from my track record I am one of your best customers. In fact my fan pool extends beyond the "pond" and I have the ability to reach thousands of potential customers. As you understand my opinions are important to the overall success of your game I would be happy to make several suggestions that would be VERY beneficial both to you, GameAccount, and to me as a player. My consultant fee is only _______ a very reasonable amount given the hours that I have dedicated to working on your site. If you prefer you can simply remove any fees from any future games that I pay on GameAccount as compenstation. When you implement my suggestions you will notice an increase in players and overall profitability at your site. As you come to recognize the value that I can supply your company I will gladly accept the position as captain of Team GameAccount. You may have your people contact my agent to come to acceptable terms which I will be very generous as a sign of goodwill. Oh, last but not least, the name is London Colin NOT "preferred player" :flame: Yours truely London Colin a.k.a. BlackJack Guru
Pros and cons Well to start off with, I am not very thrilled about the "bots", enough players are ready are scared to play on-line without being told they are using robot players against us. Now playing longer rounds is something I love, it is a BIG advantage for a season tournament player. When I first started playing we use to play 60 hands and live money. Anytime you lower the number of hands played you add a bigger degree of luck into the chances of winning the table. I also perfer the meduim size bankroll around $500 with minimum bets of $5 to $10 and maximum bets of $200. Now you are taking away even more of the luck factor out of the event. Most everybody on this site is an advantage player or trying to get there, so I would think that most of them would perfer as little luck involved in the events we play in as possible. *NOTE: This is just my opinon!
I was thinking about this the other day I was wondering what the ideal length for a tournament would be. I agree that as the number of rounds increases the luck factor decreases. But at what point does the game change into a completely different animal? For example a tournament that's 100 hands long would be like playing regular "you vs. the dealer" blackjack wouldn't it? Then it's a case of who is the best AP rather than who's the best tournament player. Sure there might be some tournament specific skills called into use towards the end but up until the last few hands it'd be about counting, bet spreads, etc. Or am I talking out of my elbow because of course I haven't got a clue what playing a 100 or 60 hand tourney is like? I think if you plotted a graph with the Y axis as tournament skill (TP) and the X axis as number of hands I would say the curve would be S-shaped. What do you think? Cheers Reachy
*** ** *-*/ *-* * *- -*-* **** -*-- Most B&M's I've been in are between 25 and 30 hands. Global had 15 to 20. UBT Runs up to 30 possible with the elimination. Imperial Palace in Vegas runs a 40 minute then 5 hand event, dealt to the bottom.(initial round--double deck. Subsequent rounds single deck.) Above foundation. Now. Dealer stand/hit 17? Surrender? Double ANY two cards, including BJ? Double after split? Split up to how many times? Double and insure for less? Bet in stated increments?(no half bets, except for insurance, or insurance rounded up?) Surrender rounded down? If cards dealt down can one tuck a BJ. If cards dealt up can one double a stiff without outcome known till end? House rules for Dealer "mess ups"(No backing up cards, burning cards, redeals, yadda, yadda, yadda. Min/max bet? Starting bankroll? I probably missed something. But. Without somekind of statistical overlay, we all recognized what seems to be the best play in a short rounded game. In a lengthy "hand" game, would one play the same, or an accumulation style approach?(Yeah, I didn't list that above, cause, I stay away from those. A man has to know his limitations. Just like sports betting and darts.) It would seem, in a lengthy "hand" game one would play as "basic" as possible staying with opponents, staying within max bet range, observing position for last bet hand, figuring options for last three bets and ultimately doing what needs to be done when it comes down to it. I GUESS in a longer "hand" game the curve flattens out, which would speak to a GREAT basic play. And to steal from POKER--Self control, Discipline and Patience. And dats an attempt at da truth. Blithizitz. And don't forget the location holding a lengthy "hand" tourney would have to devote a considerably longer time to the event, which complicates matters on another level. Oh and by the by. That 40 minutes translates to about 20 to 25 hands, depending on whose trying to jocky for position on the final five, if the 10 second rule(there's another factor..how long to make bet? How long to make card decision?) is enforced.
Hey Chili Cook Off Winner! Re: "Note: This is just my opinion." TX quote. Whatever gave you the idea anyone would be confused about that? (snicker, snicker)
Disclaimer Damn Noman, now days I have to post a disclaimer on my posts and even than I may get jumped on about my comments...LOL Or as you put it, snicker - snicker.
Thanks everyone Lots of food for thought. I certainly think 40 is too long, and the ealry rounds would just be the usual min-bet, basic strategy stuff until it's time to start jockeying for position in the home straight. One factor I neglected to mention - They use four decks and deal down to the last card. Now, if you wanted to count cards and gain the maximum benefit, presumably you'd like the shoe to be not quite exhausted going into the final hand. Four decks should give around 25 or 26 rounds, so 24 might be a good number. On the other hand, if you are not counting and want to minimise your disdvantage against any opponents who might be (particularly a bot, which could make unerring use of perfect knowledge of the deck composition) then 30 rounds should ensure that the last five or six are dealt from a new shoe. I was thinking along similar lines, but mainly on the grounds of familiarity, rather than any certainty about what benefits skilled players the most. Starting with 8 max bets (4 x 500) does seem excessive, but the familiar 2 or 1 max bets (Global 2 x 500, UBT 1 x 25K) may be too far the other way. The multi-table tournaments use the 10-round format throughout. The suggestion is to switch to the 40-round format for the final table only (presumably to make it a bit more of a spectacle). I'm not sure I like the idea; better to stick with the game that you've been playing to get you that far. I thought 'Dear CASINONAME' might be a good opening. Alas, they've now barred US customers, so my reach has shrunk somewhat. The bots thing is not as bad as it sounds. We are talking about heads-up games, and the bots don't take part in tournaments, just 'Matchplay'; i.e. single table Sit & Gos. You need never play against one unless you choose to; they won't pop up at your table uninvited. There is still the issue of trust though. As soon as you have any kind of a losing streak, it's human nature to start thinking that the game must be rigged. When it comes to the betting limits, obviously, the absolute value of the amounts invloved is just a distraction, what matters is the ratio between them. UBT has added lots of zeros to make us all feel like high rollers, but I'd have preferred it if they had used the equivalent - BR:1000, Max:1000, Min:20, Increment:20 rather than the inflated- BR:25K, Max:25K, Min:500, Increment:500. For comparison, If we keep the GameAccount $4000 BR, your preference scales to - BR:4000, Max:1600, Min: 40 to 80. Unwieldy numbers, which is why I'd like to see a BR of 1000 used as the routine starting point for such calculations. The BR need never change, it's just a question of how you then divide it up to give all the other figures. These figures do show however, that you favour a max bet of over three times that which is being proposed, and a min bet in the region of half what is being proposed. One peculiarity that remains from the 10-round game is the increment of $1. i.e. the smallest bet you can make is $100, and the next smallest is $101. An increment of 50 or 100 would be more usual, it seems. Over 10 rounds - and more importantly with only 10 min bets in my total BR - I've actually found this quite useful, allowing for a few unusual strategies. It probably would be less so in the new format, but couldn't do any harm I suppose. Indeed I am seeking to minimise the luck; I just want to try and make sure that really will be the effect of whatever it is I ask for when I reply.
Aaargh! I don't know if they've already had replies from other players or are just tinkering, but the 40-round games now have the same $1000 BR as the 10-round games. With a $100 min, I think that's just ridiculous! Also, they weren't kidding when they said they were aiming the longer games at high rollers. The existing games offered a buy-in ranging from £0.50 to £25, but these ones start at £25 and go up to £1000. Too rich for my blood! I normally play at the £5 level. Hopefully they'll lower the threshold; people certainly aren't rushing to play for such high stakes.
Dear Mr Username, Concerning the length of the game - without an elimination somewhere in the middle (8, 16 & 25 with UBT or random like WSOB) if you go 30 or 40 it really makes no difference. From my personal experience most of the old time pros will just put it on auto-pilot until the final 10 hands anyway. My question is this - if people just min bet and wait what is the purpose? To let the wild-catters bomb out right? Now when you limit the max bet the advantages ultimately goes to the min bettors! Who is likely to bet min - a pro that's who! TX gave several factors that would favor the "old guard" like himself - good and valid points. I however looked at it from the perspective of the casino. I mean lets face it you make more money the shorter the tourney than the longer! If you can host 1 tourney per hour or 1 per two hours...... Just another perspective
Actually, most players have been min-betting for the first few rounds in the 10-round format; if anything, being too reluctant to put some chips out. (Maybe it's a British trait. ) But I think there are other advantages to a somewhat limited max bet. Shame on you Fred! I assume that was part of their thinking in raising the minimum buy-in for these games. Not much point if nobody plays though, which seems to be the current situation. FWIW, I currently plan to ask for the following - 24 rounds BR 1000 Max 400 Min 10
