Important point!

We have all been in the situation of having to bet on the last hand and only having between 10 seconds to one minute to decide on the proper play. This is easy for us to say what we would, could, or should have done when we have time to sit back and figure it out. It is even easier when we have everyone’s chip totals in front of us.

What is so amazing about the play so far on the WSOB is these players are suppose to be the cream of the crop of Blackjack tournament players and they have unlimited time to make their play's and still some of them make the most asinine plays I have ever seen for tournament players.
Honestly they look like they never played tournament blackjack before.

Yes, I have make more mistakes then I care to remember in tournaments, (I don't know one of us who hasn't) but give me unlimited time and I am pretty damm sure I'll come up with my best possible bet to advance.

 

OK, enough.

This is getting a little bit ridiculous here. As amused as I am by this weekly thread, I am compelled to respond to the mounting criticisms of such players as Grosjean, Konik, Anthony, Mike, & myself...

What started in good faith as a valuable analysis tool of this showcase tournament has denigrated into a den of intellectual snobbery. Factual & mathematical criticism is one thing, but unfortunate & clear biases should not emerge in the same vein; this does nothing but a disservice to the analysis being presented.

I think it is vitally important to remember that while STRATEGY is something that can be mathematically guided & tournament theory something that can be learned from the years of research that have gone into such treatises as Wong's tome on the subject, the implementation of such strategy is still inherently SUBJECTIVE. Several fallacies emerge, and to understand them we must think just as much about biology & psychology as we do mathematics:

This tournament is NOT the product of random selection, but rather a carefully picked, minute cross-section of some of the world's best players (the very few Mohegan Sun 'locals' who weren't as up to par as the rest of the players -- and some definately were, as we'll see in future episodes -- could naturally represent the fractional % predisposition to 'genetic mutation' in this biological model, as they are far and large in the minority of this already small population sample). Therefore, standard tournament strategy -- which has been tried and tested in countless, ploppie-laden tournaments & NEVER in such a controlled environment as this one (except whereas such results have been lumped in with all other data from said countless ploppie-laden tourneys) -- can only be used as a guideline for general behavior, and any reliance on it as a primary mode of play WOULD ONLY, AT BEST, RESULT IN A COMPLETELY RANDOM 20-25% expectation of being BR1-BR2 at the end of the initial qualifying round. One MUST ASSUME, going into the tournament, that everyone else at the table (barring the potential for the established 'genetic mutation' of our sample community) will have in his or her possession the EXACT SAME KNOWLEDGE. "In a room where everybody knows more than the next guy, nobody has an edge."
Playing THIS type of tournament to the Nth degree would see a completely random result in the predisposition of certain players to win. We as advantage players must recognize this & conversely infer that ultimately our ADVANTAGE lies in the calculated DEVIATION from the established system of play. Ultimately it is the fact that we can count on all the other players to play flawlessly that is actually our biggest strength.

Of course, no one is a robot & not even the pros play flawlessly (as we have seen). But we must nonetheless, as a player in this type of tournament, assume this to be the case until proven otherwise. That is what is fundamentally different from playing with ploppies -- where such plays as flat-betting the majority of the tourney became standard simply because you know the ploppies will most likely burn themselves out -- in this example we can no longer apply such methods because we must examine WHY the rule became standard in the first place & hence set it aside since it can not fundamentally apply any longer given the specific cross-section of players in this particular sample. And so we must take tournament strategy to a new & HIGHER level to accomodate the reality of the INDIVIDUAL game, rather than applying data from Nth DEGREE of games with much lower density of AP's.

I believe that the reason many of us made such high ROR plays is because we came to this same conclusion, and realized that in order to have the best chance to advance, it would be IMPERATIVE to pick up a substantial lead early on. Thus many of us actively employed higher-risk unorthodox methods (like my negative progression or Cat & Anthony's huge bets out of the gate) because we concluded that the slight increase in ROR would more than be compensated by all of the other factors that go into playing against this caliber of competition. I'm sure that if you saw any of us in a tourney such as the Million Dollar II, we would be playing much more 'by the book' simply because it is tournaments like that that the book was WRITTEN FOR (and research culled from).

In fact, just to throw in a specific example, I shot "Vegas Challenge" a few weeks ago (a Travel Channel show) & Anthony was the host. He had gone over to the Hilton on one of our off days & played in the MDII, but unfortunately didn't make it past round 2 -- but in the conversation we had about his play, i realized that he had played it 'by the book' rather than some of the wildness we saw in the World Series episode. Why? Because it was a different type of tourney, and so all the standard rules still applied. This wasn't the case in the World Series.

So please, it is really insulting to tune in here week after week & hear how stupid these pros are, how they don't know how to play, and how (the real kicker) you would've played so much better. Especially where the endgames are concerned -- sometimes, yes, the play just cannot be defended (Grosjean's 1000 bet) because there is no scenario that would result in positive expectation. But in other instances (my & Konik's choice to lock second with a shot @ first, rather than be a favorite for first with a shot @ third) -- things become subjective, and to apply mathematical probability to justify what the 'correct play' should have been is what is really asinine. Mathematical probability assumes an unlimited field of trials, which doesn't exist here. There is only one World Series.

So lets continue to analyze & comment. And yes, point out the plays that didn't work. But lets remember the caveat: these pros DO know how to play, and that the majority of the off-color plays are very intentional. That the books are being re-written as you watch. That some of the 25 of us are out there creating the foundation of something completely new. That everything we know to be true about our art can be used as a guidepost, but ultimately we are going to need to improvise one last, final edge over it all. We're playing for cash and glory, but also what this one-of-kind event symbolizes is the highest pinnacle of what we've achieved as a culture & these players are not up there replacing you but rather REPRESENTING you.

So I for one cheer every new play, new idea, and unconventional moment. These are not ploppies making blunders, they are advantage players trying like hell to get an advantage over their own kind. We are witnessing human ingenuity in motion, and even where it does not work, I refuse to disrespect the efforts of those involved.

-hollywood dave.

 

Good post Hollywood. BTW, my son (15yr old) was really rooting for you! Hopefully, you won the 2nd round!

A couple of things to keep in mind in all of the "monday morning quarterbacking" that we have done - with the analysis and pointing out the "questionable" plays, it helps all of us to improve our game by thinking about the right plays and then taking the time to mathematically prove the play with the highest expectation.

We have all made dumb plays (for me, surrending a 17 late in the game is probably the dumbest), so it is reassuring for us to see the "pros" make mistakes. I have reanalyzed my "stupid" plays countless times to hope that I learn from the mistakes. I think that our pointing out errors and often times then having someone make a counter argument as to why it may have been a good play is helping all of us to improve our game and really THAT IS WHAT THIS SITE IS ABOUT in my opinion.

Finally, look at the bright side, if we think that many of the pros made dumb plays and that we could compete with them, it just means more people thinking they have a chance to compete and that should make for bigger pots for you to win.

 

Dave, thanks for hanging out with us and reponding. I agree with some of what you are saying, but disagree in other areas. I hope that you've been reading my commentary as the analysis I meant it as, with some snarkiness thrown in for fun.

Your argument seems to be that since you are playing against all experts, that you need to be innovative, or play risky, so as to jump to an early lead in order to have a chance against other experts. This is the concept that I disagree with. I agree that your play against pros ought to be different in some areas than your play against novices. Wong even points out areas that you should play differently against pros vs. novices. They generally involve trying to predict your opponents' plays. But your thesis here seems to be that if everybody's playing "optimally", one should be applauded for doing something unconventionally. I think that's flawed for a couple of reasons.

First of all, what we have seen in this tournament is that all experts do not play optimally. Pros, despite their knowledge, miscalculate, overlook an option or alternative, get nervous under the lights and exposure, etc. I've heard many of the participants, including Ken and Anthony, admit that lots of pros made big mistakes in the late stages of the tournament. Therefore, it would seem that the best way to get an advantage in this style of tournament is not to create your own innovative strategy on the fly, but simply to avoid mistakes and capitalize on your opponents mistakes. If you can make the fewest mistakes, you should have improved results, even against the best.

Second, even if people could not be counted on to make mistakes, it is a fallacy to claim that one should reinvent the wheel just because everybody already knows how the car works. If there truly is an optimal way to play the game, than anything you do that takes you off that course, by definition, is sub-optimal and should decrease your EV and your chances of winning. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is an even MORE optimal way of playing, than by all means go for it. But if you do so, it is imperitive of us to analyze that innovation, whether it be with logic, simulation, etc. to determine whether the innovation was an improvement or simply sub-optimal. And I don't mean to see whether it worked this time. I mean whether it could be expected to work in the future. For example, Dave, your negative progressions worked out for you. But I would not want to incorporate it in my game (assuming I was playing against experts) unless I was convinced that it was a good idea. So, I agree that we should applaud people for trying new things. But I'm not willing to just accept that the innovation itself is a good idea, just cause an "pro" intentially made the play.

Compare this to the highest levels of other games. You will never see chess grandmasters playing at the highest levels begin with a sub-optimal opening. That's because after years of studying the game, some openings have been found to be more likely to win than others. Just because you are playing against a grandmaster, taking a gambit on a bad opening would be a bad idea, and the grandmaster would likely punish you for it. At championship Backgammon, an unorthodox play at the highest level is unlikely to be successful against another expert. In these games, people realize that the game comes down to capitalizing on your opponents mistakes and, depending on the game, some luck.

To say that you need to jump to a big lead like Cat said yesterday says to me that in crunch time, she doesn't trust that she can play the last hand as well as her opponents. If she did, than she would know that a small lead going into the last hand would be a greater use of her limited bankroll than taking unnecessary risks to develop a huge lead. In Anthony's case, he was being shadowed by Konik's bets. When he tried to lay back and let other people challenge Konik's lead, none of them would do it. Now whether Anthony had the right response is worth debating, but the situation is worth looking at.

Dave, in your case, a negative progression on every hand is indeed an innovation and I even said so. But as a new idea, it needs to be looked at to determine if the innovation was a good or bad idea. It looks like the consensus on this forum is that it is interesting idea, but that the math does not support it, even when playing against other experts.

Honestly, I don't think most of us believe that they could have played better anymore than they believe they could have made a better throw than our team's quarterback. But that doesn't mean that we are too stupid to identify a mistake. Sometimes they are actually innovations that go beyond what we could have come up with at the time. I think Bradley Peterson's bet is a great example of that; an unorthodox move that when looked at later is pretty brilliant, but one that even Max Rubin did not give him credit for at the time. Other times, like your last bet, perhaps you were willing to give up extra EV in trade for the likelihood of additional television exposure. (which bugs me to some extent that there is an additional incentive to finish in 2nd, such that it calls into question the motives of some of the players on the final hand). But sometimes the bet is just wrong. Not that it backfired, it was just mathmatically sub-optimal. And perhaps it wasn't obvious at the time, and perhaps we'd make mistakes just as bad or worse, but it was still a mistake. And just as you can find people ripping on hundred-million dollar movies made by directors much more brilliant than us, and just as people make fun of celebrities and reality show contestants, you players are now in the public eye with this show. And criticism goes with the territory when you are billed as the top BJ players in the world.

So yes, the World Series is new and great TV, and I love the opportunity to see some of the most notorious players in the world do battle. And it is interesting to see and talk about the result. But it's a little too soon to say that this is the best that tournament BJ can get. This show, to some respect is a petri dish of innovation, but that does not need to be unanimously propped up as the best of the best, but rather analyzed dispassionately (and to some extent without fear of insult) so that all of us can improve our play, which is pretty much the point.

 

Mr. Tounces,

You are being too kind to me. My bet was indeed mathematically sub-optimal. I am not trying to hide from that fact.

But what you write is very interesting and insightful. Learning, whether through personal experience or the written word, and getting better is what it is all about.

 

Interested in Your Explanation

Brad:

I really appreciate the modesty in your posting. However, as a "newbie" to tournament blackjack, I would really appreciate understanding, from your perspective, why you would risk a "sure thing" of getting into the second round by making the bet you did.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

 

A Rough Road to travel

Each first round game contained one Mohegan Sun VIP. The intermediate round, I suspected, would probably contain none. So other than the extra 2500 I would get for getting second on my table, instead of third, there was no additional guaranteed money unless one were to win the intermediate table.

As you probably can tell be what I have posted so far, I'm not a math person. I can usually keep track of how many beers I've had in a night if such information is of any interest to me but that's about it. Maybe there are some math people on this forum that can do the EV work. Something like my 44% chance of winning that hand puts me in the finals with x number of dollars to be divide up amongst six people as opposed to if I lock into second, or what probably would be second and have to get through another round with five probably very skilled players. I was just trying to get to the big dance without having to go to tryouts at the dance school were others danced as well as, if not better than, I and there was only one opening for the lead role.

Keep in mind that even in light of my less than optimum bet, just about everything had to go wrong for me to still not finish in at least second place. Bobby has to get blackjack. The dealer has to get an ace up. The dealer has to not have the blackjack so that I lose my insurance bet and the dealer has to hit, with the ace up and a non pat hand, and make a final hand between 17 and 21. All of those steps along the way can happen, but the last one not happen, and I take first place. If the first couple of scenarios don't happen and the last one, the dealers final total, does, I still get second place.

 

Brad, why are you so sure your bet was sub-optimal? I did an EV calculation on the "Mr. Congeniality" thread, and unless my percentages were off (which they could be), I think yours was the right move. Did Anthony tell you afterwords that it was a bad play? I wanted to do a simulation, but Tournament BJ d/n handle surrender.

 

The Court of Justice Had Rendered a Verdict.

The reason that I stated that the bet was sub-optimal is because that is what Wong's book states.

I actually had not seen your analysis until about 15 minutes ago. Perhaps my scattered thoughts combined with some on the other factors I was considering, as I alluded to in my first post, had merit, at least, in an intuitive way. I hope that you are correct!

Several people with much more tournament experience than I stated afterwards that my bet wasn't optimal but when in doubt, stick it out. So, hopefully, at least, it wasn't horrible. I've written explaining my reasoning and the thoughts going through my pea brain at the time.

I did finally see the show tonight on its forth airing. I saw it at a gym in Las Vegas. There were other people who would come by the TV, stop, watch and even comment. Nobody seemed to know it was I on the TV! I must say that it was painful to see hand 29, when the dealer drew to 20 when I was looking at a lead going into the last hand, and then the series of if, and only if, anything can go wrong and combined make you lose, it will on hand 30.

 

Thanks For the Info

Brad:

Thanks for providing your insight into what motivated you to do what you did. Makes perfect sense now. I would have done differently. However, I am not as much of a gambler as you.

In any event, I enjoyed watching your play, as well as the WSB. It has been great fun for me, as well as my family.

Regards,

 

Thanks

Glad to stimulate some extra discussion on this topic. And I appreciate everyone's good sentiments. I think we can all agree on a few things here.

Absolutely, we must open every moment and every play to abject criticism. And find the plays that didn't work as well, and come together to discuss & perfect what we have witnessed. By no means do I mean to issue some sort of gag order, in fact I really enjoy the spirited debates that have emerged over key plays. And (as we have all seen), many plays were not as perfect as they should have been & a forum such as this one is a wonderful tool for perfecting our own individual games. Kudos to Ken Smith for providing the webspace for such a community to exist; unlike many other boards that are too commercial or too full of ploppies or spammers to have a serious discussion, I know that those who participate in this forum are all very intelligent & well-informed, or at least open to the truths of advantage play. Our subculture of counters is small & I feel a bond for others with these similar passions.

So please, lets continue to analyze & criticize & yes, pepper our posts with sardonic, cynical, and colorful commentary about the 'pros' who don't always play that way... but when I read a post like the one that started this particular thread (or portions of previous posts) that seem to serve no purpose whatsoever except to spread ignorance and negativity, I feel like we do a disservice to our community & ourselves. Suddenly we look like morons instead of the calculating players we are, and the value of this particular board loses credibility. And losing EV is never a good thing, especially when we're running with such a high count!

So rock on, and back to some specifics:

Toonces, I gotta agree with you here. But back to my 'thesis' (which you summarized pretty accurately) -- there are points in this type of tournament that must embrace principles outside mathematics. Case in point -- Micky splitting a ridiculous amount of tens. Mathematically sub-optimal -- but psychologically correct, after reading the dealer for an unmade hand. Another case in point -- Konik's and my decision to lock 2nd rather than risk third. Again, given the specifics of the situation, mathematically sub-optimal -- but to someone who is not necessarily playing for just the cold hard cash, very correct plays. Ken is right in stipulating that additional TV exposure is a very real factor some consider. But don't laugh & say that that is not mathematically optimal -- because already this week I've had two auditions for new poker TV shows (yes, I'm an actor) as well as a very real possibility of being a host on another big blackjack televised event coming soon. Not to mention other job offers relating to the more clandestine aspects of card counting, team play, and the like -- which all add more $$$ EV to the equation. And lastly, more exposure = more free invitations to other BJ tourneys (I've already been invited to another, no buy-in) -- and lemme tellya, my friend, now the mathematics of locking second far outweigh the initial 5% figure attributed to me not doubling for the full amount in hand 30 of game #2... there is a bigger picture, and just as much of the expected +EV comes from additional professional blackjack tourneys/cash games opportunities as it does from the side gig I have of being an actor who appreciates TV exposure.

And while I agree with you that certain mathematical plays are just good strategy -- like how to play an endgame, or how to maintain a lead (yes, I DID let MIT back in the door by not protecting my lead in hand 28 -- a bad play), I still must challenge the validity of the wait-and-see game by flat betting 100 bucks the majority of the game. These are not ploppies, and if I can take a reverse progression with 3.8% ROR times ~10 progressions, that still puts me in better position than the other pros who will be forced into taking much riskier progressions once I have achieved BR1 -- just two progressions of 1/3 - 2/3 has far more risk than many of my 1/30th progressions. And while I would not use this strategy against ploppies, I know I can force a pro into a very high ROR progression simply by making a few relatively low ROR progressions early on... to me that's just good strategy & the mathematics ARE optimal when you make this type of RELATIVE analysis rather than just confining oneself to linear calculations.

ULtimately the proof is in the pudding & I've gotta make this work at the Wild Card round to be in the running; I'll keep my fingers crossed til then!

-hollywood dave.

 

Ah, Ken...

There's just no sneaking past you, is there? Damn your 2 1/2 % advantage using a single 1/3 - 2/3 progression. Curious -- what if, seeing an oppenent make the initial 1/3 progressive bet, I broke my own progression to roughly match the other bet? Then the only way for my opponent to realize their 2 1/2% net gain over me would be in the ~12% event that they'd win while I lost. Obviously I would not be compelled to continue in a progression if I saw other pressing factors developing...

 

Ah, but Hollywood, in the show that we saw, you were not able to keep to your own progression. There were times that you were down enough that you jumped right to the 1/15 or 1/7 level (Case in Point: Hand 7 and Hand 8). Often, part of the problem was that you had a double-down and split which messed up the numbers and now you needed to make a larger jump than before. Also, a double-down is essentially a highly correlated 2-level progression (with higher rewards). Given both the double-downs and the necessary compensation afterwords to catch-up, I think that 70.6% may be an overestimate of the likely success of the strategy.

P.S. I should say that I may just be compensating, as my girlfriend announced a couple weeks ago that she plans to be the future Mrs. Hollywood Dave.

 

Honestly, I don't think the logjam would last that long. I would think eventually, someone would fall several hundred behind, and seeing that the top player was being conservative, would make a progression for the lead.

 

BJ on TV

Ken, I have watched the shows with great interest, but so far, BJ does not make for great TV, and I imagine the program seems pretty dull to fans of "Kenny vs. Spenny". We are watching people concentrate at a table, and it lacks the player to player conflict and intimidation of Poker games. Most of the gripes I have about the show are not about the tournament or the way it is presented- its the huge number of commercials and the worthless cutaways from the action to look at the casino carpet or somesuch. I'm enjoying the show much more now that I'm taping it and skipping the noise.

For drama on TV, I wonder if a pitch game might be better, along with Poker style hole-card cameras for the player's cards. The viewers would know the player's hands, even if they were tucked, and the players would have the opportunity for a showy slow roll of a natural.

20 hands of minimum bets could be worked around in the editing of the show. I'd like to see them show the first round and any key rounds and then skip forwards to as many uninterrupted hands leading to the finale as possible. To make better television, at the finish, I'd have the cash or a big check presented to each episode's winner.

Nitpicking aside, I'm really glad to see this program on TV, and I hope we'll be seeing more like it in the future. I've gotten a real charge too, out of seeing the show's participants discuss the action here.

Sentry

 

Yeah, but is she cute? After all, she's dating a guy named 'toonces' !

-hd.