I hate to even go here, because Michael is one of my favorite people in all the blackjack world, but I think he'll agree that he lost this match by making a critical mistake. On hand 25, he was in the lead, betting first: Michael $164,000 Dave $100,000 Ken $128,000 Michael bet $25,000 here, where a bet of $37,000 is better. Holding back more chips than me is worthwhile, but it costs too much versus Dave's possible double-up, especially since he only has to go $1000 under my current bankroll with his unbet chips to cover Dave's all-in. After the bets were made, Michael had an opportunity to fix the problem by doubling for less (and that would have concealed his card if it mattered as well).
Yes and no Micaell was unlucky having the button to begin with, than he had to get swung by two players. Even if he makes the bigger bet he was unlucky, the final results would have probally been the same. Yes there is skill to some degree, without a doubt, I will never say other wise, but I still say luck is the bigest factor. This is just my opinion, but I stand by it 100% until I am proven wrong. But so far no one has taken me up on my bet of skill vs luck. Also no one has anwsered back about how many seasoned tournament players have won the freerolls and bigger online events at UB, Bet21, & UBT? I have to belive that the seasoned tournament players have been shut out so far, so much for skill over luck! I think luck is ahead about 25 - 0. MMmmm maybe this luck factor is bigger than I thought. Finally how many non-seasoned tournament players played in last years UBT? ZERO - as was posted last year that it was the GREATEST collection of tournament players ever. So as I posted earlier how could a anyone but a seasoned tournament player win any of these shows? Joep can't count these shows when the deck is stacked with 100% seasoned tournament players. Every player is skilled on these shows, that is how they were selected. Now if you change your mind and say that they weren't all the best than maybe you will have a vaild arguement, but wait if that was true then it would mean that a less skilled player would have had to of beaten a skilled player so I guess I would still prove my point.
Michael didn't get swung. He won the hand. If he made the larger bet, Dave would have been eliminated.
Ken, Thanks for the honest answer - you are a class act. I missed the first 10 minutes so I didn't know that there were 63 players present. Of those 63 how many were BJ vs. poker players? In YOUR opinion how IMPORTANT is luck in Elimination BJ vs. Regular BJ Tourney's?
I believe what you saw yesterday was skillful play by both players.The one on one battle was great to watch.The skill that I was referring to was their ability to take whatever the other player offered them .If Ken only bet his lead than Dave bet enough to pass him even if Ken doubled down . Some players not as aware of the chip situation might not make an optimum bet there. The last hand doubling down scenario that you refereed to as just luck,goes deeper than that both players realizes the situation , Dave realizes he had to act on his hand or he was locked out Kenny realized that once Dave doubled down they he must also.I cant not tell you how many times I have seen players in that same situation play the hand totally wrong and hand their opponent a free pass to the next round or in this case thousands of dollars. In the "LONG RUN" skill will always and I mean always BEAT THE FIELD You just cant have 2340 post and expect all of them to contain skillful ideas :joker: Anyone who really believes that there is no skill in blackjack tournaments is living in the dark
The show didn't make any mention of the tournament structure, so you didn't miss it there. Of the 63 players, I would guess it was two-thirds blackjack, one-third poker players. Luck is absolutely mandatory to win any event. In my case, I got really lucky twice... All-in on hand 11, I drew a four-card 21. Then, when I pulled my secret bet subterfuge, it was all for nothing if Dave wins his big bet on that hand. Even luckier, and not shown on the show, was the last hand of my semifinal table. There were 3 players left going into the final hand: Me, Hollywood Dave (again!), and Joanna W. I was in last place going into the final hand, betting on the button with no secret bet. I had to get a swing to be one of the two players who advanced, and it happened for me. This luck vs skill debate just seems to go on and on. Here's my best take on it: I think skillful players can play about even with the 10% vig on single-table sit and go events. In the multi-table S&Gs, the good players have an edge, even with the 10% vig.
Lost Cause I'm starting to believe it a pure waste of time responding to Tex and his "Off The Wall" post. Was he watching the same show as all of us? When did Miami John Cernuto become a seasoned tournament player ? When did Alex Brenes become a seasoned tournament pro ? And how many tournaments did the Internet qualifier Michael Postle have under his belt ? The poker players are new to this venue and their results are reflected of that as time will tell. This tournament is and was a good example of the rewards that come to players who have honed their tournament skills and along the way got the right cards at the right time , Thats a combination that all should fear even if you are from TEXAS.......
I doubt anyone believes that. Certainly I don't think anyone here has said anything like that. I'd say that the tendency towards hyperbole in this debate has masked the fact that it all just boils down to a couple of questions - How long does the 'long run' have to be before you can reasonably expect actual results to reflect theoretical advantage. How big is that theoretical advantage? Simple questions to ask, but difficult to answer other than by analysing the results of hundreds, if not thousands of tournaments. My own gut feeling is that if I were to take on a master such as yourself or Ken, head-to-head over a marathon sequence of Sit&Gos, I'd probably lose about 60% of the time. However, in any given run of 100 games there's a reasonable chance I might finish ahead. (At least, I have to hope so )
Not All But ONE Colin As Rick said even if he spelled biggest wrong " but I still say luck is the bigest factor". As you can now see some of us still believe that there is no skill Living in Texas must be living in the dark :laugh: Joep
Well, I took that to mean that in any given event luck is the biggest factor, which I'd say is true to the point of almost being a statement of the obvious. And indeed, I've speculated that luck might still be the dominating factor for a sequence of up to 100 games, which is perhaps more excessive than anything Rick has said! But, unless your superstitious, you have to assume that luck visits us all equally, and therefore those few key moments where skillful play changes an outcome add up to a long term edge. I can't help thinking that you and Tex have such fun being on opposite sides of an argument that you don't spot when you actually agree!
Joep I am just going by what you posted last year about having the best group of players EVER. But if those players weren't seasoned tournament players they must have beaten seasoned tournament players to get to the finals correct? Now would that fall under luck? I guess it would have to since they were playing against skilled players to make the final table. I agree that Skill is very important, I have never have said other wise, I only have said that "I believe Luck has a biger part in the out come than you want to admit". My spelling isn't the issue here Joep, but with your lack of proff to support your claims I can see why you would want to change the subject. Until you show me proff were skill dominates luck I will keep my same opinion.
Ranking System Well soon enough we will have an overabundance of new, open to the public blackjack tournaments that will decide once and for all if skill does, indeed, win out in the end. But just as we all agree that luck is involved to a certain degree, the fact that skill is involved as well means that those who harness the mathematical skill of the game (while experiencing roughly the same luck as one another, especially in the long run) will naturally WIN more frequently. in the equation x+y=z, in which x=skill, y=luck, and z=results, it only follows that z will always be higher when x is higher, no matter what % of the total makeup belong individually to x and y -- y being, of course, a constant for all of us. and soon, i suspect, we will have a ranking system in place to show just this. Sorry, Tex, but for as much as everyone appreciates your efforts to bring more tourneys to the public, your ranking system will never gain the credibility it requires if you continue to pander to the lowest common denominator, ie providing a structure by which those who don't have as much time or money to play in enough events receive overinflated results to rank them higher than they would in a straight Accumulation format. The ONLY FAIR WAY to provide a true ranking system involves awarding points commesurate to place, buy-in, and player field -- the three factors that determine how difficult it is to win an event. Someone beating 200 players to win a $2500 event should naturally receive a higher ranking than the winner of a 50-person, $50 event. The ranking system should seek to truly SET THE BAR, not LOWER the bar so that anyone can reach it. -hd.
I agree with a lot of what you say Hollywood... It seems like several players are getting off track with the whole point (ranking) system I am trying to start up for the TBT. It isn't going to be a $300 entry vs a $50 entry, all the tournaments will be equal entry fees, format, rules, and open for all. Where I see a problem is with an accumulation format. I am not wanting to know (or reward) a player who ends up with the most points at the end of the year only because they get to play in more events. Hell a newbie that has the time and funds could be ranked high up just because they have more chances to play over a better player who can't get off work for as many tournaments. Personally I want to know who are the most SKILLED players and not the ones who have free time and deep pockets or the luckest. I say luck is a bigger factor than skill for winning a tournament, but I agree that a skilled player will advance more consistantly in more tournaments. This is what I am trying for with my point system, to reward the players who advance through out the 13 scheduled TBT events (once they are set). I think that the better (more skilled players should be up at the top of the standings), but I still stand by my statements that luck is a bigger factor for Winning (when I say winning I mean getting 1st place for the tournament, not just advancing in the tournaments). And further more I never said this is the way the point system will work only that it is what I have come up with for now. I have said time and time again that I am willing to change it if better ideas and suggestion come in. I do want to stay with this type of format for the ranking, so we can see who really are the most SKILLED players after all that is what I feel a ranking system is all about.
Congrats, Ken! It just goes to show you...nice guys don't always finish last. Well done by all involved. It was an exciting and enjoyable program. GM
my impressions The show was 90% BS and commercials, and 10% BJ The ratio of BS to BJ will have to change for any chance of long term success. The last hand was awesome. I pray that it wasn't contrived. My question.... How were the players selected ? Was it based on personality and reputation, or did they qualify in some sort of elimination tourneys. Secondly, what did Ken win ? Maybe I didn't watch closely enough, but it wasn't clear to me. Perhaps JOEP can answer these questions, because he seems to know everything.
Toonces Review of UBT Episode 1 Well, I must say that the UBT did an interesting job of using poker television shows to revamp the UBT production. The basic philosophy is to take the WSOB telecast, cut it down to 5-6 hands, and all kinds of lights and sounds (I think the "hit" sound effect is hilarious) to get to the all in hands. What I liked: ------------ - Great idea to use definitions in the lower right to explain things without slowing down the show. - Interesting decision to cut down the number of hands shown so dramatically. I think it does work for the show and it's format, even if it makes it harder to follow the general flow of the match. - Good choice to sex up the dealer. But, is there really enough work for TWO hot spokesmodels? - Wow...very visual set! But is it practical to transport it to offsite final tables? - Good job with the onscreen graphics in mostly keeping with the WSOB graphics. I wish I could see chip counts at the time that they change the player rankings on the right side of the screen, but I understand why they were left off. - A brilliant decision to do the on-screen commentary in postproduction instead of live. Poker has to use post-production to integrate the hole cams to the footage, while I got the impression that WSOB commentary was live. But the commentary in this episode allowed Max to give more thought-out analysis as well as point out things that will be critical later in the hand. What I didn't like: ---------------- - I would like to hear the players justify/explain their bets in the confessional "secret bet" room. - A lot of the lights, sounds, and schtick reminded me of King of Vegas, and few people wanted to be reminded of that show. - I miss the 30 hand feel that the WSOB had. I think they had to do it that way, but I never got the feel like I knew who was on fire, who was scraping by, and when the momentum was shifting around. I wonder if people will feel like there just being transported in to the all-in hands, like a 1-hour final table of WSOP coverage. - You need more sponsors other than Bet21.com. While the commercials are done well, you don't want the show to feel like an infomercial, or people will think they are getting fleesed. - I'm very confused about the format of the preliminaries. So we saw the outdoor events at an unnamed resort (Lake Las Vegas?). Is this the final table to come out of that event? If that's the case, where will all of the other final tables come out of? How many of these "invitation-only" events were held? OVerall, the plusses outweighed the minuses. The show was compelling even though I know future episodes won't be as exciting as this one. The real star is the Elimination BJ format. It completely changes the strategies and makes all 30 hands meaningful, whereas in the past, the first 25 hands were there for novices to make mistakes. Let's hope this really does catch on.
