Match Play BJT Format with NCAA-Style brackets.

I've read various threads on how best to bet and play in lots of different tournament formats and I've recently read Ken Smith's ebooks on winning more BJTs, but I've never seen this type of format addressed. I'm scheduled to play in a few days, so I welcome any advice I can get.

Tournament starts with 128 spots. Each entrant plays against one other player each round. Winner advances to the next round. There will be 4 or 6 players at each table, depending on the round, and, although the rules leave a lot to be desired, at least the betting appears to alternate between the two players in each pairing (playing order is not specified). It sounds as if this could be quite challenging for the dealers, and I believe there may be more than a few mistakes.

However, since this is new, most everyone should be in the same boat. Obviously, having just one opponent is better than several, but there must be different ways to approach the competition with this type of format. 128 becomes 64 in round 2; 32 in round 3; 16 in round 4; 8 in round 5 (top 8 win cash); then final four and championship rounds. Some rounds have different number of hands, different starting BRs & different minimum and maximum bets. No re-buys.

Has anyone had experience with this type of BJT format?

Would you approach betting and playing strategies differently with this format?

 

Just curious. Are you playing in this event?

https://www.blackjacktournaments.co...-madness-heads-up-tournament-satellites.2729/

 

Thanks, Ken, for your quick reply. I already have "Climbing the Ladder" on my hot list of things to try to remember (master?), along with several of the other ideas mentioned in your eBooks, but, until your response, I had moved that one down the list while I concentrated on others. Now, I'll spend more time on it.
I suspect there will be lots of beginners in this event and, although I've played in a couple dozen BJTs in the past year, I've never cashed once, so I still need to sharpen my skills ( a lot!). Your eBooks have been an enormous help toward understanding how tournament play is so different from playing at a casino table. As you say, "don't let yourself get too focused on the blackjack part of the game at the expense of the tournament part."

 

I used to regularly play at a couple of online tournament sites that featured two-player tables, so that both the betting order and the playing order was set in stone. The main impact is that as soon as the button is assigned you know who will have position on the final hand. (A player can't get knocked out and change the order, because a player getting knocked out means the end of the contest any way.)

So you can make a determined effort to build up a significant lead if the button does not fall favourably for you, and be a bit more relaxed about it otherwise. (and happier just to have a one-chip lead going into the last hand.)
If it turns out that it's only the betting order and not the playing order that is guaranteed in this event, then I suppose things might not be so clear cut.

If there are enough rounds (i.e. hands per table, not tournament rounds), then you can also gain more from studying your opponent in the early hands than you can at multi-player tables. Similarly, if you get the opportunity to watch other tables being played, useful information can be gained for later.
(I used to keep a list of players and their favourite bet sizes and playing styles, so even if I lost the button, I would often know what bet I was going to be up against.)

All you can do is focus on trying to win each heads-up contest you are faced with, so the wider tournament structure doesn't really have any bearing on your approach.

 

No, but it sounds somewhat similar. Does anyone have any experience with this format?

 

No experience, but that casino is within my driving range for tournaments and I had considered going. If it had been the same event, then I would have been interested in any first hand information you might have been able to gather.

 

Thanks, Colin, for the insight. I'll have to wait and see whether play alternates with betting. I appreciate your suggestion to watch other tables while I'm waiting to play; if I play early and win, I can look at the bracket chart to determine my next opponent and watch that match.

 

You're welcome. Good luck in the tournament.

Good point. I hadn't quite grasped the idea that you can always see which pairing your next opponent will come from. So the wider tournament format does actually have an influence. (Online it was always a random allocation, made just before you start play at the table.)

 

Well, as it turns out, unless you know the other players by their first name and last initial, the info on the bracket board isn't enough to find which table your next-round opponent is playing at in the current round. I didnt make it past the second round. However, I played late enough in the first round that I was able to watch a couple of earlier matches and practiced keeping track of exact bankrolls for a few players. When the ending totals confirmed my calculations, the confidence boost helped me keep a running total of my opponent's BR with a lot less effort and stress. (Thanks for that tip, Ken!) I feel as though I was able to use several of Ken's pointers satisfactorily, but when your opponent bets last, plays last, goes all-in on a final hand double down, and catches the exact card needed, there's not much left to do but congratulate him and wait for another BJT.

Having real opportunities to employ concepts from Ken Smith's eBooks was the best part of the competition. Knowledge is very helpful and necessary, but experience solidifies the ideas into worthwhile memories for future situations. Any novice to average tournament participant who chooses not to spend less than the cost of a green chip to buy, read, re-read, study, and learn both of Ken's eBooks before playing in their next tournament is not, in my opinion, being a thoughtful steward of their finances. I certainly wish I had known about and purchased Ken's eBooks a year ago, before my first BJT!

 

Ken, do you feel that it'd be a smart idea to make a max bet early on? I know this is risky, but if I appropriately match bets with my opponent and wait til the very end to make a move, aren't I just taking a bigger gamble to catch better cards etc. rather than having a commanding lead early and putting the pressure on? I know they both have their pros and cons, but wanted to know which you'd recommend and feel is the better strategy for a H2H matchup.

 

What do you mean button placement is a big factor? In heads up, dont they just alternate the button the entire 20 hands?

 

Generally in heads up, isn't the best strategy to bet opposite still?

 

tHANKS FOR the suggestions, guys! Not sure what I'll do as far as betting, but maybe I'll size my opponent up at first and if i see she's betting big then i'll just bet the opposite and hope she loses.... but most likely she'll be conservative so right away should I start the progression or only later on the round?

 

You're right about that!

 

Don't assume they just alternate the entire 20 hands. The event I just played in was a combination of processes. In rounds 1 & 2, with 6 at each table, for the first 12 hands, they moved the button from seat #1 to #2 to #3, etc. each hand. The button was for betting and playing, so in hand #2, player #1 bet and acted last, but all other players went in order, so the rest of the odds went first and the evens went last. (I actually suspected they would work like this, based on their very confusing rules, so I created a chart to refer to for after I got my seat assignment.) Then, for the last 6 hands (we had rounds of 18 hands), BETTING alternated between odd and even players, but PLAYING stayed in button order. I was in seat#5 in round 1. Since the button for hand 18 was on player#6, I got to bet and play last. But in round #2, I was in seat 4. This time, player #6 busted out early, so we were down to 4 at the table. The button was on player#2 for the last hand, so I had to bet before my opponent (evens bet first), but he had to act before me. Sound confusing? At least everybody was in the same boat. There's an easy fix to this that makes the dealer's job much simpler also. Pit player#1 against player#4, 2 against 5 and 3 against 6. Then have the dealer move the button from #1 for the odd hands to #4 for the even hands and continue that sequence for the entire round. I send the casino a letter with this suggestion for future events.