I took a play survey about 5 years ago over this issue and to my surprize over 65% of the players perfered "NCV" chips over a live money tournament. Now I bring this up because I perfer live money much better, but I try to stay with what the majority of the players want. However when hosting multiple events I was thinking about one of the events being run as a Live money tournament. I was thinking around a $150 entry with a $150 buy-in (your bank roll), make the limits $5 to $50 (maybe $75 at the most). Offer re-buys at $75 with another $150 buy-in, with guaranteed two re-buys, maybe more if avalible (like the old New Frontier tournaments). Pro: is what you win is real. Con: what you lose is real. Pro: players don't bet as crazy, (or most players). Con: it's harder to DD on a hard 18,19, or 20...LOL Pro: you can win back, or at least some of your entry. Con: you could lose double your entry. Pro: low bettors usally do better in this format. Con: a big better can bury you early if they are winning. Pro: the total cost is known up front ($150 entry). Con: You could lose $150 entry, $150 buy-in, $150 (2 - re-buys), $300 (2 - buy-ins from re-buys) = $750, maybe more if you get additional re-buys and buy-in's. Pro: all the money goes into the prize pool. Con: only the entires and re-buys go into the prize pool, buy-in's belong to the casino. So which way do you want to play? Guess it is poll time.
Very good format, but... I guess I forgot one important detail (opp's), these events won't be held in Las Vegas, so the number of players willing to play "live" money will be a lot smaller that at the New Frontier tournaments, that is also the reason the amount of the entry fee and buy-in's are only half that of the New Frontier. This would be the first time this location ever offered a "live" money event and therefore would like to start it off smaller to see if their locals will play and support this type of an event.
I've never really understood the enthusiasm for live money events. Look at it this way... Blackjack has a house edge to begin with, so why volunteer to risk real money in a tournament? In addition, good tournament play means often playing non-basic-strategy, which increases the house edge. I wouldn't be sad if I never played another live money event. Bring on the funny-money tournaments.
Very good point.... Actually I voted for the "live" money, simple because I have had very good success in these events, (even when I didn't advanced). However Ken it correct (as normal), and from my own findings (from prior surveys) and as I posted above that over 65% of the players perfer "NCV" events anyway so I guess I'd rather play in a "NCV" tournament with more players, than a "Live" money event with fewer players.
I could be wrong but I think the Stardust was the last to hold live money tournaments (in Las Vegas) with some regularity. Then all of a sudden they stopped. Some of the players there said they (the casino) stopped because they were losing on the live money. The argument went that although most of the players lost money, those that did win won big because of making max bets at their tables in face of the competition. Can't say that's for sure, just repeating what others were saying. But it did make sense to me when looking over the posted totals at each table. Personally, I prefer NVC tournaments. I'm there to play a game to see who who can end up with the highest "score" not to see who can win the most money. Yes we call the chips in "dollar" value for convenience purposes but it would be more accurate to say "credit" or just plain "chip" rather than "dollar". You want to play for real money, play live BJ. You want to play a game where the winner has the highest "score", play tournaments or monopoly or scrabble or ????
I agree with Ken. The only argument for playing a live money tournament is to have the prize money subsidized by the money the casino expects to take in off of the live money game. Otherwise, there is a huge loss of EV. Also, I think the poll answers are kinda leading. The issue with live money tournaments is not that it risks too much money, it is that it is not positive EV. Actually, if you were going to offer a live money tourney, I could see it with one caveat: All money won or lost at the table would be added to the prize pool. For example: 30 person tournament with $150 entry fee = $4500 prize pool. Table 1 results ($150 buyin): Player 1: busts Player 2: finishes with $200 Player 3: busts Player 4: finishes with $205 Player 5: finishes with $300 Player 6: finishes with $50 The house won $145 at the table, so you add the $145 to the prize pool. If a table loses money to the players, it is taken out of the prize pool. I can think of a few problems with this format concerning integrity of table play and proper auditing, but it does address Ken's issues.
Spend money to gain money It is all about money, or increased chances of winning. It works for players who are better than the average and understand balance between necessary barter of losing cash for improved chances of advancing. We all agree that some players will not play anything close to the optimal tournament strategy because of the risk of losing real money with suboptimal basic strategy plays. While it may be not wise to double down for additional $300 on hard seventeen versus dealer’s small up-card, even though the only way to advance to the second round (reentries still available) is to beat an opponent who stood with a pat hand -- the similar situation in the semifinal, from expected value point of view, may necessite doubling. So, there is something to be gain tournament-wise at the expense of cash blackjack plays. Our task is to investigate are how much we can gain and how much we can lose. The cash playing cost depends on style of an individual tournament player. It is not cheap; for my style of playing it could be just over 10% of the starting bankroll per played round, for most good players it should not be more than 20%. Now we can look for the necessary benefits by using conditional approach. We need to find out how much we gain over the average player to make this tradeoff worthwhile. Can we increase our chance to advance by 5%, 10%, or more, by putting emphasis on tournament play? I believe, for my playing, it is somewhere in between these first two numbers. Let’s take the most famous cash tournaments at the late Dust as the example: with 180 players, one rebuy guaranteed, some second rebuys (we always take it), two out of six advancing in the first round, one out of six in the second round and two out of six advancing from the semis. Advantage (better than the average) increases in the rebuys by 5% and decreases by that much in the higher rounds, $600 starting bankroll. The increase in tournament EV is almost exactly one entry fee (all entries returned) for each 5% gained in advancement per round. For entry fee $350, I would gain almost $500 at the cost of about $250. This is the benefit of cash tournament versus the same tournament with funny money. There is also additional small benefit, if one can increase chance of advancing in the first round then there would be less expenditure for the rebuys. S. Yama
Damn, it is good having S. Yama back... S. Yama can explain every situation so well. What I want to know is when your going to write your book?
thats for the contribution S. Yama. I had some preconceived notions that I think are wrong about live money tourneys. Can someone please tell me, in a general sense, if this is right? You sit down with 500 in live chips to play X number of hands At the end of the tourney you walk away with whatever you have X+ or X- chips. The advancers go to the next round and start again with their 500 live chips - or is it a carry over? How is this different than funny money where you buy in for 500 and get 500 chips? Also S. Yama, could you please expand upon the advantage that the skilled player would have in this type of tourney versus the funny money. Does the added advantage come from money management skills, willingness to dd when appropriate, etc. Thanks
The format is identical to funny money tournaments. There's no carrying over of chips from one round to the next. I understand Yama's claim that more players will play poorly because of the live money aspect, although I'm still skeptical that it is enough of an effect to offset the cost. However, I have not played a live money event in several years, so I'll defer to Yama's judgement that they may be a good deal for the skilled player. For an average player, live money is a worse format than funny money tournaments. In years past, live money tournaments did offer an interesting opportunity for counters. Some live money tournaments were 2-deck 60 hand rounds. Some players used a tournament strategy of straight counting, spreading as wide as they please.
Could you elaborate? For example say you enter NCV tourney, pay 500 for fees and there is a 100,000 prize pool. Now there is a Live money tourney, do you have to pay a fee PLUS use live money or is the live money part of the fee? With a NCV if you end up with 50 or 5000 chips for the round it doesn't matter With a live money tourney if you end up with anything over 500 it is a plus - even if you don't advance right? Obviously I'm missing something here...Please help
The buy-in is not part of the entry fee. For each round you play, you must buy-in with cash to get the chips to play with. At the end of each round, you keep whatever chips you have left and can cash them in. Next round, you buy-in for cash again.
Ok, so like a NCV the most you can lose is your initial buy in. The plus side is that unlike a NCV tourney you COULD have more money, get eliminated from the tourney and still come out ahead. On the downside if the advancers only have 100 left for the second round then the actual cost is much more..... The interesting question about this type of tourney is do the people play differently because they feel it's "realy money" or do they play like it's NCV chips?
