Multielimination hands friend or foe.

All of my thinking so far...

TGun makes good points about the chunkers..But, to rely on Wongy to outlast them in a UBT is not the best, or a good approach.

Strategy, progressions and utilizing position in elimination, secret bet, secret action become more important. Knowing, or reading opponents likely play also becomes an element.

Mathews and Stann have related their progression thoughts. Stann, Pane and Smith have put up their strategy, bluff thoughts. Rodman has shown utilizing some poker skills can play an interesting role.

Smith has related how some more even non-conventional deviations from basic can have an influence.

It's still a work in progress and yet will never be as defined as Wong's tournament strategy. Only one element and to a minor degree, the determining of a total chip goal, by a certain hand can come into play.

There are just too many variables in each hand leading to the elimination and the elimination itself. Some savy, seasoned, tournament "hands" have expressed the exhaustion,(SWOG) at the end of a table.

Protecting against BRL in the elimination round can produce as many disaterous outcomes (for an individual) for the remainder of the table as chunking or min betting throughout.

Each hand becomes a position fight, one little gear, in the whole wheel.
To make the wheel roll, each hand has to be a perfect play. But after each hand the next best perfect play changes.

Solid basic background, experience, flexibility, creativity, and just a touch of positive variance, discipline, freshness, clear and even headedness and attempts, attempts, attempts, attempts will go farther than a formula or treatise.

Maybe it's not lost on most, but a Wongy strategy was for the few informed against the mass of ploppies. i.e. the banning of knowledgeable players in Casino prefered "rewards" tournies.

When you got down to knowledgeable players, say in Global's or some open B & M events there are very few to repeat week after week, tournament after tournament. And when it's ALL knowledgeable players it comes down to something like"ON ANY GIVEN SUNDAY!" The level is so high that one minor misplay, or mistake can cost one THE GAME(that day) But there's always the next one.

 

My delayed .02

On contrare mi amigo – there are many of us who would be intrigued by your assumptions. Please post them, educate and enlighten us oh great one.

Mr. Yama, on this simple basic point I most respectfully disagree. Your basic assumption is incorrect because you cannot “predict” the future. Let us look at your premise of the minimum bet – until the final hand scenario. Betting minimum every hand is NOT skill it is merely discipline and patience. By doing this technique you are assuming that the other players are less skilled, less patient or less disciplined and will eventually bust out BEFORE you. Should that not occur you will simply use maximum strategic bets in an attempt to overcome the “gap”.

While this technique may indeed be powerful and having passed the “test of time” there are new developments on the horizon, ie. Elimination BJ, that are making this technique outdated and ineffective. Let me use your own words to clarify my point:

These are results to be proud about and as such are a testament to your skill. During the past two to three (2-3) months since the introduction of EBJ there are new comers to the BJ world, such as myself, who are quickly approaching the number of rounds that you describe. I personally have played over 500 rounds. Since I am unsure how you calculate your 50-60% better chances than the average to advance I will not post my personal advance ratio. I have been using the technique described by other members here (see advancement thread). Since I have the data from these rounds if you would like to share your method of calculating your advantage I would be more than happy to “plug my numbers into that spreadsheet” so that we can compare apples to apples. My initial thoughts would be that your apple is MUCH bigger than mine; nevertheless Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Here Mr. Yama is the crux of your assumption to which I must emphatically disagree. As I interpret your writing LB1 &/or LB2 need to place big, possibly max bets on the elimination hand (EH). That is a misconception based upon your many years of “traditional” BJ Tourney play. Unlike the final hand of a BJ tourney where you MUST finish BR1 or BR2 at the EH you simply need to NOT be LB. Therefore LB1 &/or LB2 need NOT make such big, perhaps maximum bets as their goal is simply advancement.

Now I will hear you point out that if LB1 &/or LB2 were simply to make a min bet or small bet they would be eliminated/locked out – hence your ASSUMPTION of a large possible max bet. If there were not a “SECRET BET” (SB) I would grant you this point. However, with the introduction of the SB the skill of psychology comes into play – a very important skill never before so critical to BJ tourneys. But lets look further:

How is this any different from a “traditional” BJ tourney in which a person at the table makes max bets and the dealer busts several times? According to your theory these less skilled players who are making larger bets should be the ones eliminated and not the skilled players.

Once again I will respectfully disagree with your premises. While true that statistically the BJ player will only win 42% aggressive plays at certain times, especially 1-2 hands BEFORE EH, can be used to “head fake” other players into correlation betting that “locks” them out or cripples them heading into the EH. The art of psychology is beginning to rear its head in the playing of these tourneys and this is a factor that has never been necessary before in “traditional – old time” BJ tourneys.

 

Part 2

First - disclaimer: I am NOT posting another to "increase my totals" it just wouldn't let me continue in length.

I do not wish to have my prior post sound disrespectful in any way, shape or form to the elder statesmen (and women) of this site. I merely bring my niave viewpoint to the table.

It is my personal belief that there is a paradiam shift in the field of TBJ which is being led by EBJ. If I am incorrect then so be it. Having said that with new systems, rules and strategies what is "old school" may or may not be applicable.

A final thought to all who have contributed to this thread:

This is what blackjacktournaments.com is about. Thoughtful, thought provoking, interesting, useful and helpful posts. Can we try to do more of this and less of the name calling? I know that I will in the future and in the infamous words of Rodney King,

"Can't we all just get along?"​

PS I hope everyone had an enjoyable Thanksgiving. One of the things on my list was for the help and guidance that I have received from this site and especially for the hard work that Ken Smith has done. Thanks again.

 

Fg

I read Ken say EBJ has forced him to use progression much more often. Dont you think players being forced into progression highlights the need for pure luck? I think the very addition of elimination hands has expanded the need for luck. It forces the desperate acts of lunge betting.

 

Balance

I think that the variance changes over the duration of the game and I think Colin may have alluded to this before. Since your opponents are the biggest form of variance in TBJ, in traditional forms that variance is pretty steady thoughout the game as you typically have a large number of opponents lasting the duration. In EBJ the variance may be greater than traditional forms at the beginning but towards the end it's a lot less. You're far more likely to lose to a lucky player on the last hand if there are 5 of them than if there are just 1 or 2.

But then again I could be utilizing the mouth on my elbow for this communication.

Cheers

Reachy

 

Multiple elimination hands definitely hurt the skilled player

In BJ tournaments - the primary factor determining the winner is luck - or variance, if you like, - or probability drift, if you are being mathematical - the math doesn't allow arguement - the shorter the series of hands you play, the greater the impact of probability drift on the outcome - while a few mathematicians have dealt with drift and its implications for bet sizing - no one has looked at drift and its implications for hand play in terms of playing bj with the goal of WINNING THE TABLE as opposed to playing bj with the goal of maximizing long term ev - what the elimination hands do - is force you to play a very short series of hands - which increases the effect of drift on the outcome - elimination bj is not a more skilled game - it is a game designed to increase the role of luck as opposed to skill - and lessens the advantage the skilled player has -review some of the work that has been done looking at risk of ruin in short series of hands and the importance of drift in these calculations - the shorter the series of hands - the greater the risk of ruin at a particular bet size, due to the increased role of drift - ebj is a carnival game - and reduces the importance of skill - it is not a debate - it is math

 

Dear RK,

I respectfully disagree with your premiss that EBJ reduces the game of BJ into a series of shorter hands.

Once again people need to "think outside the box". EBJ simply eliminates one of the people at the table who has the lowest chip total at a predetermined time. Too many people focus on being BR1 or BR2 at EH1 or EH2 and this is being short sighted.

It is my personal opinion that the freerolls, in which people have "nothing to lose" have contaminated the EBJ discussion and playing in essence making it a "carnival game"

In your post the opening state, "in a BJ tourney the primary factor determining the winner is luck" contradicts your statement that EBJ is a carnivel game - it is the math. I disagree because I do not feel that math alone can compensate for the psychology/secret bet factor.

I do however appreciate your position and would ask that you present the math to bolster your statement(s) no as a challenge, but as one who is seriously interested in determining the mathematical advantages/disadvantages.

 

fgk42

I will admit that your request that I 'present the math' kind of threw me for a loop for a bit - since this is not a matter of ev calculations from a spread sheet or a simple formula - but is inherent in basic probability theory - and drift theory - and I started to see myself getting into offering a basic course in probability theory followed up by an advanced course in drift/walk theory - but - let's make a stab at it -

first - reference Wikipedia and the article on the law of large numbers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

and also the article on Central Limit Theorem

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Limit_Theorem

a statement of the law of large numbers - from wikipedia is

"If an event of probability p is observed repeatedly during independent repetitions, the ratio of the observed frequency of that event to the total number of repetitions converges towards p as the number of repetitions becomes arbitrarily large."

what this means practically - is that for a small sample size - you are more likely to diverge from the expected probabilities than you are for a large sample size - i.e. - when you play fewer hands at a bj tournament table - you are likely to find the hands and results diverge more from the expected proportions and outcomes than tables at which you play a greater number of hands - in other words - luck, variance, drift, becomes a more significant factor

for an illustration - I will use the nice spreadsheet calculators available on the University of Newfoundland Faculty of Engineering site -

the first example is for a set of 29 bj hands at a tounament table - where we are looking at the frequency of 'stiffs' - for convenience - we set the prob of getting a stiff at 40% - which is actually pretty close to the prob of being dealt a hand of 12 - 17 -

Enter values in the three highlighted boxes:

Number of trials n = 29 ¬ must be > 0

Prob. success in a trial p = 0.4 ¬ must be in [0, 1]
Prob. failure in a trial q = 0.6

Mean = expected value E[X] = m = 11.6
Variance V[X] = s^2 = 6.96
Standard deviation s = 2.638181192

Enter a value for X : x = 11.6 ¬ must be in [0, n]

Binomial p.m.f.: b(x; n, p) = 0.14738
Binomial c.d.f.: B(x; n, p) = 0.49004

Poisson approx.: p(x; m) = 0.11751
F(x; m) = 0.50802

P[x-0.5 £ X £ x+0.5] = 0.15032
Normal approx.: P[X £ x+0.5] = 0.57516

Partial tables of the binomial probability mass function
and the binomial cumulative distribution function:
n = 29 p = 0.4
p.m.f. c.d.f.
x P[X = x] x P[X £ x]
1 0.00001 1 0.00001
2 0.00007 2 0.00007
3 0.00040 3 0.00047
4 0.00173 4 0.00220
5 0.00576 5 0.00796
6 0.01537 6 0.02333
7 0.03366 7 0.05699
8 0.06171 8 0.11869
9 0.09599 9 0.21468
10 0.12798 10 0.34267
11 0.14738 11 0.49004
12 0.14738 12 0.63742
13 0.12848 13 0.76590
14 0.09789 14 0.86379
15 0.06526 15 0.92905
16 0.03807 16 0.96712
17 0.01941 17 0.98652
18 0.00863 18 0.99515
19 0.00333 19 0.99848
20 0.00111 20 0.99959
21 0.00032 21 0.99990


now here is the results for 7 hands

Enter values in the three highlighted boxes:

Number of trials n = 7 ¬ must be > 0

Prob. success in a trial p = 0.4 ¬ must be in [0, 1]
Prob. failure in a trial q = 0.6

Mean = expected value E[X] = m = 2.8
Variance V[X] = s^2 = 1.68
Standard deviation s = 1.29614814

Enter a value for X : x = 2.8 ¬ must be in [0, n]

Binomial p.m.f.: b(x; n, p) = 0.26127
Binomial c.d.f.: B(x; n, p) = 0.41990

Poisson approx.: p(x; m) = 0.23838
F(x; m) = 0.46945

P[x-0.5 £ X £ x+0.5] = 0.30032
Normal approx.: P[X £ x+0.5] = 0.65016

Partial tables of the binomial probability mass function
and the binomial cumulative distribution function:
n = 7 p = 0.4
p.m.f. c.d.f.
x P[X = x] x P[X £ x]
0 0.02799 0 0.02799
1 0.13064 1 0.15863
2 0.26127 2 0.41990
3 0.29030 3 0.71021
4 0.19354 4 0.90374
5 0.07741 5 0.98116
6 0.01720 6 0.99836
7 0.00164 7 1.00000
8 0.00000 8 1.00000
9 0.00000 9 1.00000
10 0.00000 10 1.00000
11 0.00000 11 1.00000
12 0.00000 12 1.00000
13 0.00000 13 1.00000
14 0.00000 14 1.00000
15 0.00000 15 1.00000
16 0.00000 16 1.00000
17 0.00000 17 1.00000
18 0.00000 18 1.00000
19 0.00000 19 1.00000
20 0.00000 20 1.00000

graphs in the next post

 

graphs of distributions for 29 hands and 7 hands

I find that I am unable to either insert or upload the graphs I wanted to for the 7 and 29 hands distributions - I am away from home and using my sister's computer - with contains no software for or possibility of my converting spreadsheet graphs to images for insertation - and - when I converted the spreadsheet pages to a doc file - for attachment - the resulting files were too large to attach by this web site's rules - so - I'll talk and reference the data in the last post - will do graphs in a few days if anyone needs -

if you look at the data under x[PX=x] for the 29 hand distribution (previous post) - you'll see that the probabilities cluster around the expected modal result - of x=11.6, with x=11 ans x=12 being about equal - and the probabilities of x=10 and x=13 being very close - etc - in other words - for a 29 hand sequence - the actual results are just as likely to veer towards fewer stiffs as they are to veer towards a greater than expected number of stiff hands - and vice versa - a symetrical distribution -

if you look at the same data for the 7 hand distribution - you'll see that the resulting probs are biased towards your receiving fewer stiffs than the most likely, modal, result - thus while 3 stiffs out of the 7 hands is the most likely result - you are more likely to get only 2 stiffs dealt to you - that you are to get 4 stiffs - and much more likely to get only one stiff than to get 5 - and more likely to get only 2 or 1 stiffs than 3

thus with the fewer hands in the sequence - stiffs are more likely to be under-represented than over represented - the distribution is skewed - for the smaller number of stiff hands -

also - look at how the variance and standard deviation changed with the reduction of hands played -

for the 29 hand distribution - the sd was 2.6382 and the expected value (number of stiffs received) as 11.6 - so the ratio between sd/ev is 0.2274 -
while for the 7 hand distribution the sd is 1.2961 and the ev is 2.8 - so we have an sd/ev ratio of 0.4629 -

in other words - the variance reduces more slowly with the decrease in trials than the expected value does - meaning - drift has more impact on results - as shown by the distributions - and you are more likely to get highly deviant results

the reason I chose 29 hands and 7 hands - is that 7 is the number of hands in EBJ before the first elimination hand - while 29 would be the number of hands before the final hand in a regular bj tournament with 30 rounds per table -

bottom line - the results of play during a 7 hand sequence to the first elimination hand in EBJ are subject to much more random variation that the results of play during the first 29 hands of a 30 hand regular bj table -

so - ebj is far more luck driven than regular bj -

also -note that since at most ebj tables - you are less likely to get stiffs during the first 7 hands than the probabilities predict - you should bet aggressively during this period - like the drunk-all-in-guys do - that's why they keep beating you -

final comments - what applies to differences in length for very short sequences like 7 and 29 hands - applies even more significantly for the differences between short sequences and very long sequences of hands - the math underlying basic strategy assumes you will be playing an infinte series of bj hands - that's required for the probability function to converge so that an optimal strategy can exist - when you look at what happens when you are dealing with a very short finite sequence of hands - such as a 20 hand tournament round - bs is very unlikely to be an optimal strategy - and also unlikely to be an advantageous strategy for such a short sequence - in fact - every finite sequence of hands has a unique optimal playing strategy - which is another reason we get beat by the ploppies - their doubles on hard 16 against the dealer's ace just happen to be the best strategy for that particular finite sequence of hands -

damn that probability drift

one final comment -

there was a reason I chose the rough probability of getting a stiff for the example - I have been looking at surrender during tournament play - given the likely frequency of receiving a stiff against a dealer 7 -A; and the odds of dealers winning these confrontations versus the player winning by either hitting or standing - my first rough calculations/guesstimates (and they are very rough at this point) are that you are advantaged by surrendering much more often during tournament play than in regular bj play - since surender will be the most advantageous option at more than half the tables you will play in tournaments - this is because - as in the above example - for small series of (stiffs) hands - the probability drift results in a greater frequency of negative results than expected - from the basic strategy expected values for these hands -

 

Wow! My brain just imploded!

I've attempted to read the 2 posts and I've got to admit to not understanding the "technical" stuff. However I believe the general principles are understandable to a layman like myself and I wonder whether they miss the point. Hypothetical situation: 2 players, both seasoned pros, play 2 games. 1 game of 30 hands and 1 of 8. In both games they both minimum bet until the last 2 hands and then bet what they need to to take the lead. Is their any difference in the skill level required for either of the 2 games? Or to put it another way, which of the 2 games does luck have the biggest impact? I would say they are practically the same since they both, in essence, come down to the last few hands and it could be argued that the preceding hands had little impact. I think your analysis is more applicable to blackjack cash games and maybe accumulation format TBJ. The skill in TBJ is understanding that "probabilty drift" exists (I think that most skilled TBJ players appreciate that phenomenom but don't know it by it's technical name) and minimise it's effects.

There was a discussion about the ideal length for a tournament a few weeks ago and I asked the question - At what number of hands does a tournament change its "nature" and become more like a regular blackjack game where it becomes more about EV and being able to count becomes the most important skill? Is it 40, 50, 100, 300, etc?

Cheers

Reachy

 

the bottom line is

that the longer the sequence of hands played - the more likely the results are to approximate the expected results from the base probabilities we associate with basic strategy, et al - and the shorter the sequence of hands played - the more likely the results are to diverge from the expected probablities - ie - the shorter the sequence of hands - the more luck is a factor - while one plays 30 hands in an EBJ tournament - the elimination hands starting with hand 8 mean that you are entering a decision hand - where you may be eliminated - following a very short sequence of hands which are very likely to produce divergent results -

what this means is that if you give a very skilled player 29 hands to position themselves before they face a 'decision' hand - they are more likely to be well positoned than if they have only 7 hands to position themselves in - and all the skillful play in the world is not going to change that - you can not play 'skillfully' if you can not, with some assurance, predict the frequency of hands you will get and their probable outcomes - the game becomes much more randomized in the shorter sequence -

what you can, perhaps, predict, is the type of variation from expected frequencies and results that is most likely to occur - thus - in a tournament round - you are likely to find surrendering stiffs a desirable choice, even for hands where the ev is better than -0.50 - because the probabilities are that you will experience negative results, enough to make surrender the best choice, at more than 1/2 the tables you play - and since your goal is not to max ev - but to win tables - you are advantaged by surrendering more often -as you will win more tables this way - even though it is a bad choice re ev and you wouldn't do it in advantage play - in essence - you can play your hands in such a way as to - literally - make yourself luckier -

 

I see this thread has found it's way back to the top. Thanks AceMachine. LOL

There can't be any debate about EBJ being more skill or luck than traditional tourneys. It isn't even close.

 

Thanks for the math application. I agree that should we "dig" into the numbers, the probability algorythms and other mathematical "mumbo Jumbo" the average reader, myself included, would have their eyes begin to glaze. Nevertheless it is an excercise that is necessary in order to support ones premise. It is this hypothesis that you have forward that I disagree with.

EBJ is MORE than 8 hands. My contention is that when people are using mathematical analysis and appling it to EBJ it is like taking a 120 V hair dryer and sticking it into a 220 V socket. It doesn't appy even though the electricity is still necessary the voltages are different.

Your statements about BS and their application to tourney BJ allude to what my friend Reachy opened my eyes to a while ago - it is a guideline but there is more to the story. But I digress.

Yes RK the shorter the interval the less likely one is to achieve the ideal bell curve and the more you will find results beyond the usualy 1-2 standard deviations. Therefore SKILL, not mathematical but psychological and money management SKILLS, become absolutely CRITICAL.

In your last post you said in an "old-fashioned tourney" there were 29 hands before a "decision" had to be made while in EBJ it was 7 hands. Are you implying then that in "old-fashioned BJT" you NEVER bet more than the minimum until the final hand? With all due respect I find that a little big to digest so please enlighten me.

Also I have to admit that the original premise of this thread was elimination hands as related to EV. After reading the posts again and again I do not believe that it can properly be addressed until we can definately determine the amount of skill level and advantage play levels of EBJ vs. non-EBJ.

Other observations that I did not comment upon but need to be addressed:

1. Counting (AP play) - the generalized consensus is that it is not a very "useful" or powerful tool in tourney play - neverthelss an respected posters seems to disagree. EBJ - online this factor is removed due to continuous shuffles BUT can play a factor in LIVE tourneys

2. Psychological/Mind Games - Live play and Online play are two different birds - if anyone doubts this simply watch players/tables online and how they play live. Must less wildcatting and more conservative live play - There is also chip counting (but that is another whole different topic)

Final Mr. Matthews your statement:

Any YOUR answer is............

 

I didn't say

skill was not an important factor - just that it was less of a factor in determining the outcome in a very short series of hands -

and I do think that the elimination hands convert ebj into a 'series of short series' of hands - because the play in a final hand or elimination hand is going to be abnormal - as people go all-in or make bets and plays to establish their 'final' position - so you are really playing a very short series of hands to gain position for your 'final/elimination' hand move -

to actually agree somewhat with you, fgk, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that ebj is a 30 hand tourney - and to act as if you must win or lose it in the first eight hands - and that is a bad mistake - so I try to look at ebj as a series of very short tourneys - the first a 6 of 7 advance table; the second a 5 of 6 advance tabvle - etc. - it really is in a sense like playing a series of very short multiple advance tables - I think if you look at it this way - it starts making more sense - and helps your play - and keeps things in perspective - but - your chip counts carry over - so - you not only need to survive the elimination - but with a reasonably competitive chip count - that's harder -

but the elimination hands and secret bets do increase the luck factor - and in a game that luck means so much in as tbj - anything that makes luck even more of a factor puts it into the 'carnival game' category as far as I am concerned -

however - read Joep's and Ken's post on Ken's bet against Hollywood and how he pysched it out - very good reasoning/pysching to good effect - so there are new skill factors involved in ebj - but I still think overall - the roll of luck is increased -

in response to your suggestion that I am saying you should bet the minimum until he final hands - well - wasn't that what Wong said????? maybe he was on to something? Actually it doesn't follow - that you should bet nothing but min bets - remember that 'luck' can benefit as well as hurt - and it hurts you if the drunk-all-n-guy hits three hands in a row with max bets - and you are left far behind - I think it actually puts more of a premium on betting more than the minimum to stay in a competitive position - with the more agressive betters in case they get lucky -

finally - while I don't count in tournaments - and I can do a simple count - so that is a choice - I think counting might help give a slight edge in making decisions such as what hand to make a move on and if you should try counter-betting to close a gap - and even basic bet-sizing decisions - the edge you gain is probably slight - but tbj is a game of slight edges accumulating to your advantage -

now for an embarrassing final confession - when I started playing on-line on UB - I was playing to pile up as much money as possible for the initial period of play - and I actually carefully tracked the results - and the results - over a pretty fair number of tables - for the on-line play - were better than my results over live tournament tables after I built up the money - I used the on-line play to test new strategies and such - after I had my initial bankroll established - so overall results don't mean that much - but the superior results for the initial on-line play - where I was trying to build bankroll - well - I was doing better at the 'luck heavy' ebj than at the 'skill heavy' live tournaments - so I worked real hard on my chip counting!!!!:joker:

 

Question: ? ??

Do we know for a fact that on line bet21's and UBT are continuous shuffle?

We do know, it's six deck. Or was, or were told it was.

And to Rkucek and k-42 as far as the hands. Yeah, it's a possible 30 hands. But you're doing minis with in that. You take a long range approach to a degree, but more importantly are the mini rounds. How many have you played when the outcome is decided before hand 16? Those variables screw up a chip total determination as in the "old days", but can also lead one to disaster within the mini rounds just to survive. One may survive the elemination hand only to be chasing a chip leader for the next 8 or 9 or 5 hands.

I do believe the "there's always a better bet" concept and the "leave no unused chip" theories are significantly more important in EBJ than in the "old fashioned" events.

And I also strongly believe that no formula is going to be able to guide YOU.
Schtuff changes at every hand. You gotta be fast on your feet or arse and be willing to dance, even if it's not with a star.

 

noman; UB,Bet21,andUBT and Bet21.net

all say that they shuffle a six deck shoe after every round - so you can't count -

I do see ebj as the equivalent of playing several tables - an 8 round table, followed by a 9 round table - etc. - with chip counts carrying over -

also - you are right that it makes no sense to survive an elimination round with too few chips to compete - so that is a factor in your elimination hand play - I try to play so that I survive with a competitive chip count - and if that means taking a lower probability play to end up with a competitive chip count - then a higher probability play to just survive - that is what I will do -

there is skill in ebj - and some of the skills are a little different - as are some of the playing situations - so let's not discount the skill involved - but let's also recognize that there is a bigger luck component in ebj - recognizing the roll of luck in ebj and taking account of that in your play is a 'skill' itself -

 

Here, once again, is an assumption on your part that BS is the "gold standard" to be used when playing EBJ. Given the shorter time frames, higher varience, psychological component, secret bet et al., I content that this assumption is false. Therefore, all other calculations based upon an inaccurate initial assumption shal be themseles be skewered.

This assumption once again implies that there are no decisions to be made prior the final 1-2 hands. Now having not played in many LIVE "old fashioned BJT" I don't have the proper credentials to make statements, however I would assume that 1-2 decisions would be necessary prior to hand 29. If I am wrong please correct me. I simply wish to compare apples to apples and not to kumquats.

I was always under the assumption that luck was a constant - like x or z. While it can't be totally measured it can be estimated. Now according to your post my play can increase my luck from say x to 2x? Hmm, that should like a skillful move to me!

 

fgk42

actually - I said that BS was not a perfect strategy for tournaments - and could be improved upon -

also - when you increase the effect of variance in a game - the game becomes less predictable - and may well become 'skewed' - such as favoring more negative outcomes at most tables - with a 30+ hand table - it is more reasonable to expect that the actual proportions of hands dealt - and their outcomes - will somewhat approximate the proportions and outcomes we expect from our probability calculations - that are the basis of basic strategy - more important - that deviations from these probabilities will be symetrically distributed - and not skew off in one direction at most tables -

skilled play is benefited by predictability of the cards and outcome - when you do make decisions - you base these decisions on your expectations of what the cards are likely to do - a certain probability of being dealt a bj, of getting a stiff - etc. - when the probabilities skew off and become less predictable - your 'skilled' play quickly becomes random play -

and yes - I do think it is possible to play in a manner which makes you 'luckier' in a sense - when variance/drift becomes a very significant factor in what you can expect the cards to do - then developing strategies to take the effect of drift/variance into account can benefit your play - example would be that while the basic, long term odds do not change - when you are playing a tournament table of 20 hands or less - at more than 1/2 of these tables - it will be to your advantage to surrender almost all stiffs against a dealer 7-A, instead of the basic strategy play of hitting many of them - over many tables - the basic strategy plays will give you an advantage in terms of ev - but you don't care about that - your goal is to win the table -so by surrendering - you maximize your chance to get 'lucky' at more tables and benefit your position at that table - by making the 'wrong' play - than by making the 'right' high ev play - you play expecting anomolous results - and base your play on the expected frequency of the anomolous results -

 

Some of the best minds

In my humble opinion, some of the posts above come from some of the best minds of the game.

I have nothing to offer compared to what they have to teach us.

My only solution has been to treat EBJ as a totally different game from a "traditional" bj tournament.

Just as Poker and BJ are different games, I think these are different games which require different strategies. I see this as a challenge to broaden my skills.The relative merits of the two games are of little value to me, simply because I have no control of the nature of these things.

 

Venture,

I understand how you feel. When I compare myself to the likes of S. Yama, Ken Smith, Joe P and the other pros on this site I sometimes get overwhelmed. Nevertheless I have taken the time to put into words my thoughts and ideas.

The value of this thread and this forum is not that there are "right" and "wrong" answers but the sharing of ideas and thought processes. My original hypothesis concerning EBJ vs. "old-fashioned" TBJ is/was this:

They are two DIFFERENT beasts.

To give you an anology you have drag racing, NASCAR and demolition derby. All involve cars and drivers but each has different modifications and technique unique to their sport.

My final point is to you and others who may sometimes feel overwhelmed by the caliber of posts from the pros here - don't. Share YOUR ideas and especially questions. Ask away as I have done. Help us all to challenge ourselves to become better then we already are. Just my .02