Paradigm Thinking on EBJ vs TBJT

My point, exactly!

Ahhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reachy to the rescue! Good job mate! Or not? As you so eloquently put it -

"It always disappoints me when first time posters feel they have to come in with "negative" posts; it sets the tone for their future input and I always think it is difficult for them to recover from it."

You couldn't have said more to aid my point, Reachy. And, this behavior of yours, almost blackmail in tone ("recover?") and those whom likewise make their daily "investments," are doing a great deal, in my humble opinion, to damage the potential of the UBT schism, therein...

Stand back man, let others have their say, let nature take its course...If it's meant to be, it will be, as long as this crap stops! No need to expect others to kiss your English arse... just to "fit" in...

 

CastellanaQ

You sound familiar, haven't you been posting here under another name recently?

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my post. I certainly wouldn't seek to blackmail you or anyone. What bothers me is that you felt that you had to burst onto the "scene" with guns blazing, taking potshots, without so much as "hello" or "what do you want for Christmas". One can't help but remember that sort of entrance and it will, without a doubt, colour my opinion of you and your future postings.

As for my investment in UBT, well it currently stands at $64 but I hope to increase my holdings this evening. Fancy a game? Maybe you can kick my English arse… just to fit in!!!!

Cheers

Reachy

 

How 'bout somethin' new?

For land's sake Reachy, get a new tactic! As I initially wrote, I've done my homework, I've read enough of these posts to know step by step how this "dance" goes... The one "You sound familiar, haven't you been posting here under another name recently?" is old stuff...Jeez...give us a break, will ya? How 'bout somethin' new?

Oh, and don't forget to send in those reinforcements, now ya hear? You guys, come on now, switch the roles around a little, try some new lines. Reachy you do fgk42 for awhile, and fgk42, you try on a little Reachy - or better yet, just cut the crap all together... what say?

 

Marks

I'll give you 3/10 for your homework. Must try harder and please re-read the material before you attempt to answer the question next time.

Cheers

Reachy

 

I'll second Ken's reply that Craps tournaments require much more skill than a BJ tournament, due, in part, to the fact that it's essentially impossible to get a "swing" result. But I'll leave that behind.

So, I've been trying to come up with an analogy to the TBJT vs. EBJ debate in a real-world statistics sense. And my first thought is a free-throw shooting contest.

Imagine a lineup of 6 free-throw shooters shooting simultaneously. In the TBJT event, each gets 50 shots and the winner is the one who makes the most. In the EBJ event, we eliminate the low shooter after every 10 shots until the final 10 shots are determined head-to-head.

Now aside from the fact that the EBJ event seems more exciting, I think that if we ran simulations, we would find that the winner in the TBJT contest was more likely to be the best overall shooter than the EBJ contest, arguing that the EBJ event has more "luck" and less "skill" even though in the EBJ event each free-throw feels more critical, due to the cutthroat nature.

The problem with this analogy is that unlike the free-throw shooting contest, the first 75% of any TBJT event can be played on autopilot. Playing better than average in the first 75% of the hands has only a marginal effect on your final result, while in the EBJ event, those 75% of the hands were just as important as the final 25%.

So, to return to our analogy, I think a TBJT event is like a free-throw shooting contest where the first 35 shots can be lay-ups, and only the last 15 shots are actually free-throws (and perhaps the final shot is from the 3-point line for 2 points). The first 35 shots make a minor skill difference, but since almost all of the event comes down to skill in the final 15 shots (especially the last shot), the variance is actually higher and the skill level lower in an TBJT game.

P.S. As an additional thought, see Wong's analysis of a 3-advance round. He says that while you would think that skill players are almost guaranteed to advance in the 3-advance format, in reality a skilled player is only a little bit better than average to advance. However, in the 3-advance EBJ format, it seems that your chances are much better than 50% to advance. Personally, I have advanced in 77% of my 35 3-advance rounds (and some had 7 players initially). Others may not that high of a number, buy I would guess that the top players are around 65-70% to advance.

P.P.S. This analysis punts on the secret bet criteria, but I don't think the secret bet is as much anti-skill as people think. It does replace pure open-handed logic with more game theory and prediction skills. Those familiar with game theory realize that the use of hidden information does not need to remove strategy from the game.

 

maybe

we are discussing different concepts of "skill" and "luck" -

I will accept that a "skilled" player can win in craps tournaments - that does not make craps a game of skill - the roll of the dice is completely random (unless you accept 'dice control' claims) - so the outcome is random - and the outcome is therefore decided completely by chance - that is a game of luck to me - and no skill is involved in its play - BJ and Poker have "skill" components - because a player's decisions and actions can directly affect the outcome of the game - the player can change the odds - in essense - and "information" and how you analyze it and react to it - is also important - that is a game of "skill" - to my reasoning -

there is also a "skill" in betting - we all know that that is important to bj tournaments - bet sizing is a critical "skill" - but your "skill" at bet sizing doesn't affect the play of the game - nor does it convert a game of "chance" into a game of "skill" -

given how bad most players are - let's be honest here - a player who properly sizes his bets, to any extent - can have an advantage over a player who is completely clueless - and simply ploppies out chips at random - that is "skill in tournament play" - maybe that is a good way to put it - I really do distinguish that from "skilled play" - in the sense that a poker or bj player acts in his/her playing decisions upon the cards dealt and information available -

maybe the distinction I am making is the difference between doing well because you play well - and doing well because everyone else plays so very badly - the first is "skilled play" - the second is simply "not being an idiot" -

so I see more "skilled play" opportunities in games where random chance is less of an influence and using information and altering your play is more emphasized - thus poker is a more skillful game than bj - bj is a more skillfull game than ebj - and ebj is a more skillful game than craps -

given the option - I do not play poker tournaments because I am totally dead money at poker - poker requires skills I have not developed - I enjoy bj tounaments - well - because they're fun - and - because I have been doing well in my play - developing my game - and winning money - these are skills I am developing - so I want a tournament format which decreases the impact of random chance - and increases my ability to affect the outcome through 'skillfull play' - and I would think any skilled player would want the same - maybe I am wrong in that last assumption -

 

...just stop...

...sorry -- again, not trying to flame or start a problem -- but your analysis is just completely flawed here. Playing CRAPS and playing in a craps TOURNAMENT are two completely different things, in the same way that BJ cash games and BJ tourneys involves two totally different sets of mathematical skills. The fact that craps is a purely negative EV game (what you mean by 'luck based') has NOTHING TO DO with the incredibly complex correlations, decisions, and SKILL that goes into playing a craps tourney. Unfortunately, this point really isn't up for discussion, since its been an accepted fact in the AP community for well over 20 years now. You can't just reinvent the wheel on this simply because you can't accept or see these facts.

also, the same applies to EBJ vs traditional blackjack tourneys. There is a reason why the majority of the world's acknowledged, best bj tourney players have flocked to this format and proclaim it a much more skillful game, and it has nothing to do with any kind of TV/corporate/gimmicky considerations. The fact is, the skill it takes to win a traditional tourney is just a baseline for the EBJ format. Variance is increased at certain points, but so are the new skills tricks and tactics we have found to harness these devices to in fact gain an even greater advantage over the field. True, anyone can win any tourney on a given day, but in the EBJ format a skilled player has a much bigger advantage over an unskilled player due to all the additional tools and devices available to him/her, as well as the greater complexity of positioning, 'big picture' aesthetics vs immediate concerns, and the like. EBJ is like playing 4 traditional tourneys in one, as well as loading up the pros' arsenal with all manner of ways to extract additional edge over unskilled (or simply unfamiliar) opponents.

Besides, Wong bettors in traditional tourneys wait until the last 5 hands to make a move anyway, so this new format still allows plenty of time for that. Wait 3 hands, then make your move. i'll be waiting for you. Nothing i love more than the predictability of Wong players -- and nothing easier than to beat them, time and again.

-hd.

 

What's wrong with Wong?

Hollywood:

First, I want to thank you for using the word "traditional" when talking about non EBJ tournaments. At least I feel like my previous post did some good.

Now, the real reason for this post. I've noticed from your last post on this thread and several other posts you made over time that you seem to have a dislike for either Wong or Wong's methods. I, on the other hand and as an armature, have found Wong's teachings to be extremely useful - although not complete. My log shows that I have finished first, made the final tables, made the semi-final tables, and generally advanced many times more than the "average" player. On average, the tournaments I play in have about 175 players, sometimes a lot more and sometimes less. No minis, weeklies or on-line tournaments included in my log - I simply don't play them.

Now my question:
Why do have this aversion to Wong or his methods? Is it personal or strictly based on theory? Don't get me wrong. I'm not asking this to be a smart ass or anything like that. I truly want to know.

As a side note, If you respond I will not be able to get back to you until tomorrow at the earliest. Going to sleep after I post this. Got to get up at 4:00am for a "traditional" tournament tomorrow.

 

...this illustrates my point exactly. Wong provides a solid backbone to traditional play, but he is less than complete on advanced play (as well as other tourney formats).

the essential fallacy of wong is that he assumes that you will be playing clueless players. as the level of competition increases, his methods become increasingly less effective. at the highest level, they actually hinder you greatly -- i love playing wong players because i know their next bet or play before they do. talk about positional advantage!

my 2nd book is on Advanced Tournament Strategy. For the longest time, I thought the best course to follow would just be to pursue an 'update to wong,' taking into consideration such huge factors as the surrender option and adding in additional levels of aggression for higher skill opponents and focusing on developing the mid-game more... the more i worked however (and the more tourneys i played against the world's best players, something i've been fortunate enough to have experienced countless times at this point), the more i realized that i wasn't approaching strategy from an 'adapt wong' standpoint at all, but from a whole different perspective altogether.

as soon as i cut this cord, my game play really expanded exponentially. wong still works in many situations, but those specific areas are really shrinking. now i prefer to think of wong's ideas as just one piece of a much larger puzzle. i think we're all grateful for his amazing contributions to our game, but it has certainly evolved in the 20+ years since he tackled the problem (even before EBJ) and very soon i think many of these newer ideas will become public knowledge (my book, Ken Smith's book, and others) to the benefit of the game & those of us who love it so!

-hd.
ps good luck in your tourney tomorrow!

 

OK, RKuczek--although I disagree with most of what you say, and your own post seems to point out many of the skills required to do well in EBJ, I respect your opinion.

But I have one other question--could you explain what your tag line ("Any sufficiently advanced strategy is indistinguishable from luck") means exactly? And I assume that is you talking?

Just trying to understand...

 

multiple responses

first - the tag line is a paraphrase of a quote from the great science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke - who said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - meaning if you lack the concepts to understand something - it might as well be magic - same thinking applies to tournament bj - if you play a sufficiently advanced strategy - that most players can't understand the basis of - then as far as an observer is concerned - it just looks like luck - a goal worth working towards -

Hollywood - you don't have to keep saying that you're not trying to get a flame war started - you're debating - that's what we want here - especially from established players - I'm not trying to win an arguement - I'm trying to get to the truth - doesn't matter if I am right or wrong - I just want to keep improving my game - but I can't get around the fact that craps is a game of random chance - which the player has no control over - that's simple fact - the only "skill" a player can bring to the table , since he can't affect the outcome of the dice roll through his play - is skill in bet sizing - I am not knocking this as a real skill - it is - and is critical in all tournament play - but - some games offer the player a chance to affect outcomes through play - not just through bet sizing - so have an additional skill component - which to my way of thinking, makes them a better game for the skilled player - as you have additional ways to work the game and affect the results - I do realize that a "skilled" player can use, say, a secret bet effectively at times - especially against a player with lesser skills - but - secret bets restrict information flow - and I do think a skilled player ultimately benefits from unrestricted information - because he uses that information better - so again - the less random chance determines outcome - the more a player can affect oucomes through his actions and decisions - and the less restrictions on information flow - the more "skillfull" the game - and the more advantageous it should be for the skilled player - provided the player is truely skilled at PLAYING the game - not just at BETTING - two complimentary skill sets -

next - I have never read Wong - since I have a math backgound - and as a methodologist - and have played bj before - and know bs and have counted - I didn't want to "infect" my learning the game with the preconceived notions of others - I don't play "Wong" from what I have read in others' posts about his strategies - I even use a highly modified playing strategy in tournaments - based on - but quite different in some ways - from basic strategy - all of which seems to be working - I have been playing bj tournaments for almost a year now - small tourneys - call them minis or dailies or weeklies or whatever - but have managed to get in two or three or four a month on the average - and am better than 25% to the final table and a few thousand ahead on the money - am obviously doing something right - small tourneys aren't necessarily easy - if you need to get through two tables - both single advance - seven players at a table - to reach the final table - that's 1/49 to get through - raw odds - and some of the players in these tournaments are fairly decent - I have played a pretty good number of Laughlin minis - since I go up there on business regularly - and have run into some prety decent players there and elsewhere - I will probably read Wong soon - and will read your book when you get it out - Hollywood - maybe it will explain what looks like you playing cluelessly and sometimes just lucking out on tv is actually a "sufficiently advanced strategy" :laugh:

final comment - in on-line ebj - I am starting to play much more agressively from the start, quite often - and have found that seems effective - more likely to bet conservatively after the first elimination hand - than before it - ebj does take a different approach - I just don't think the game is inherently more "skillfull" -

 

Beyond Wong

Hollywood:

Thanks for your detailed answer to my "Wong" question. I understand now where you are coming from. You have some very valid points and like others am looking forward to yours, Ken Smith's, etc. books on tournament strategy to fill in the "gaps" in Wong's book. Indeed, to take strategy "beyond Wong".

 

A New Hope

Just when I was ready to throw in the towel there come thoughtful and intelligent thought provoking posts that give me hope that somehow there is a glimmer of hope remaining in the cyber world. Apparently the inside references to Noman and my rye attempts to [(shit) should have read whit and sarcasm] and sarcasm in my last pontification were lost to many – I guess there is only one (1) Noman and it is obvious that is not me!

Since that time there have been many great points that I would like to address:

Toolman: Agreed: I will refrain from the term “old-fashioned” and adopt the terminology traditional when mentioning TBJ and suggest the initials TBJT (traditional Blackjack Tournament) be utilized. Yes I admit guilt when opting for the “other” term because I felt that some of the more experienced posters needed a reason/cause to rally them from their posting slumber. My original choice was to use the terms dinosaur and infant - due to the comparison about evolution but I felt that would have been over the top. Thanks for pointing that out.

Toolman: The subject of Wong. I will not attempt to answer for HD. Apparently he fired his old ghostwriter and is now posting on his own as evidenced by the much more coherent multi-syllabic words and phrases . I have just finished a great book on BJ by Arnold Snyder, “Blackbelt in Blackjack - Playing 21 as a martial art” I highly, highly highly recommend it if you are SERIOUS about continuing to grow and mature as a BJ player. There are so many little nuggets and pearls jam packed in between the covers that I have placed in on my shelf right next to Wong.

Now MY opinions about Wong and his work and why it doesn’t work any longer [as a strict stand alone technique] when playing EBJ.

(Disclaimer: If you disagree with me fine, just don’t insult ok? Can’t we discuss this with point/counter point or PM me but for the good of this thread and site please refrain from juvenile 1-line crap – thank you)

Anytime a new technique or strategy is written about and published the masses flock to implement it into their arsenal. Any technique that is a proven one then becomes diluted and its effectiveness diminished until the inherent value it once possessed has been neutralized by the masses. That, in my opinion, is what has occurred with Wong. For years TBJT players with experience do what to newbie’s? Recommend the earliest, most tried and true reference to TBJ players – Wong. So now when you play pros like K. Smith, HD, TX or Joep they ALREADY know what you are going to do before you do it! They been there and done that school of thought.

Their countermeasures have been designed and calculated to take advantage of your and mine reliance upon Wong’s methodology. Therefore the pros devise and invent an improved version of Wong and the level of play evolves to the next level, (Wong 2.1). These variants usually proceed at a slow pace and result from clever observations and hours/months/years or practice.

It is my contention that HD’s new book will reveal some of hit strategy based upon data that has been generated from live and simulated experiences. Here’s the rub – will he play what he hawks/sells? Hell no! HD has already, or is in the process, of evolving to the next level (Wong 3.1 if I may take the liberty) because if he plays what he writes then you and I have insight into his “secrets” thoughts and strategies which in a sense nullify them!

RK: Craps and BJ. I don’t drink and drive and I don’t mix these two. Why? No experience to comment and I’m just not that intelligent. Besides craps is a shitty subject to me . Whenever I get the “craps” is just cleans me out and runs through me Yes I think I’m punny! A legend in my own mind! I will take some time to comment on your post later as I appreciate your viewpoint and mostly the time involved for a coherent response. BTW - What is your on-line player name?

Monkey: What can I say except I enjoy your insight and learn from your posts immensely. Great observations about “Wonging” Just be careful when asking HD to sign the book – be specific about what he signs it with! They don’t call HD a “bad boy” for no reason! Eeeewwwww!

 

Rk

As a general rule you really shouldn’t dismiss the strategy and or techniques of a person that you haven’t read or studied. Reading about something doesn’t mean you have to incorporate that into your style. It simply gives you a better understanding of your opponent. Just my thoughts on this.

Your style and system seem to be working for you – congratulations. Keep documenting and tweaking and soon you too will have a “system” to sell – if you want.

How do you define skill? Let us take a look shall we?

So it is my assumption that we need to discuss factors that affect one’s ability to do skill plays rather than attempting to dismiss a game as more or less skilled. For example an increase in variance is likely to introduce factors that may less the player’s ability to make skilled plays.

It is also my contention that the number of players involved in a match has a direct influence upon the outcome and ability of player’s skill levels. Therefore as the number of players are eliminated via EH in EBJ the skill level becomes more important/applicable.
Once again this is my assertion and I have no facts &/or statistics so people convince me otherwise!

 

Hear, hear. I like the tone that's been set here the past few weeks, and kudos to Ken for helping keep it that way. Let's bring back the healthy debate & discussions, its what this community is all about!

-hd.

 

K-41 and a half:

With all the tangental posts, bannings and CO2 sprayings, I'm left with only one response......HOT CHOCOLATE! Not even a drip of Hennesy?

How can one solve the world's problems, discover ultimate truth and disect(ha ha) the intricacies of penultimate BJ Play, "traditional" or "new age" without the aid of good old alcohol.

As a starting point...in the words of Homer Simpson..."Ah beer! The problem and solution to all of life's problems."

But a great Brandy shared round the table in a deep discussion! Oh wait a minute, all those great German philosphers were merely drunks.

Instead of stein after stein they should have had a cup of creme de coco.

Good discussion and Good Fortune to you.

 

fgk42

I am not "dismissing" Wong - I just wanted to look at tournament bj without preconceived and preprocessed notions - at the Golden Acorn Tourney today - I found myself "Wonging" with a long stream of minimum bets in the early hands at two tables - because I just kept getting bad cards - sometimes it is the way to play - but I didn't read the books early on - because I didn't want my perceptions pre-set - I do plan to read Wong's book soon - and will be reading Hollywood's second book when he gets it out - I think I have enough experience now I can use them as input - and exercise judgement as to what I want to incorporate into my game -

the online names I use are RKuczek; REK1744; and REKuczek

as far as "skill" goes - I break it up into two components - skill at BETTING - which applies to any tournament game - even where you are dealing with complete random chance - and skill at PLAYING - where you can affect the outcome through your actions -

a game where you can affect the outcome through actions is a SKILLFULL GAME -

the ultimate skillfull game is CHESS - every player has 100% perfect information - there is no random element at all - and all outcomes are determined by players' analysis, decisions, and actions - that's a game of skill -

the greater the RANDOM component - the less SKILLFULL is the game - the more restricted the INFORMATION FLOW - the less skillful is the game - playing skill demands the ability to make reasonable conjectures about potential outcomes of your decisions - the more probability drift causes the actual outcomes to skew unpredictably from the latent probabilities - the less skillfull the game -

I am not saying that skill is unimportant in ebvj - I am saying it is inherently a less skillfull game by the above standards - because it is less predictable - more randomized - and information is hidden - therefore - while BETTING skills still apply - PLAYING skills have less impact on the outcomes -

however - there are ways to use the skewiness of ebj to advantage - one is to bet more agressively in the first 7 hands - the reason for this is that you - at the majority of tables - will see fewer than the normal proportion of stiffs in these hands - so the odds actually shift in favor of the player - second - surrender much more - surrender 12s - surrender 13 against a 2 - etc - much heavier surrender - because at the majority of tables - this will prove to be a beneficial strategy - because of the effects of probability drift - that's where you can bring some skill back into your play - by adjusting to the changed probabilities - but I still say - it is inherently a less skillful game -

we can agree to disagree on that