"The Low Man Out"

The very next day I came back from that tournament I wrote about it and submitted it to the Powers That Be for any suitable usage, but was told that at that time the company was pursuing patents and trademarks....
I guess, no harm posting it now. Hope you enjoy reading it.


“The Low Man Out”

There we were, 64 extraordinary blackjack players gathered in a country club to do a “dry run” of a blackjack tournament, preceding one that’s going to be televised and played for a big payoff and prestige.
The players were a mix of luminaries of the game, some of historic proportions, and avid blackjack tournament players. This was a group of winners with an aggregate win that could equal the GDP of a small country! This was unarguably the best-ever assembly of such competitors ready to match their wits and try their luck in a blackjack tournament.

In the first round, two players advanced to the second round from every table of seven players. There was a brand new idea employed: “Low man out.” The round consisted of playing 30 hands, with a novelty: on hands 8, 16, and 25, a player with the lowest bankroll, no matter how much it was, would be taken away from the competition. Everybody hoped that this would create more engaging rivalry throughout the round.

I was at the table with six other players. There was only one player that I didn’t know. The ones I knew you could write books and make films about…oops, there are already books and films about them, as well many books written by them. No problem, the tougher the fight, the sweeter the victory.
To protect the (not so) innocent I will call them: Abe, Ben, Cy, Don, Ed, and Frank.
Early on, one player had gotten into the lead by winning big doubled bet, and another received a blackjack with a nice size bet out. The other five clumped relatively close together. The first test came in hand number eight. Frank got a legitimate double down, but when the dealer made a hand, he was the only one with a stiff (losing) hand and he bid us adieu. There were six of us left.

Next obstacle coming was hand number sixteen – another low man out, and unfortunately I had the worse position – I was betting first in that round. I tried to improve my bankroll so I would be in the middle of the pack prior to that hand, but whenever I made a bigger than minimum bet, I lost. At the same time my worthy opponents managed to collect additional chips.

We all started with bankrolls of $25K, minimum bet was $500, increments of $100, and maximum bet was $25K. Around hand number thirteen the leader had over $50K, second most money had over $45K, and I had about $21K. My focus was on three other players with bankrolls of $30K to $36K. My hope was to overcome at least one of them at the conclusion of hand number sixteen, in order to survive the rule of “low man out.”

I noticed surprised gazes from my opponents when I settled with small bets on hands 13th to 15th – and I didn’t try to make catch-up bets.
Here is the reason: If I made bets that could make a difference, they would have to be at least a third of my bankroll; Let’s say six, seven, or more thousands. My opponents of course, would correlate with matching bets or just slightly smaller bets. If we all won, I would still have the lowest bankroll going into the elimination hand. But even worse, look what would have happened if we all lost. They would still have around $30K and I would have less than $15K. Since they would have more than twice what I had, even if I won my all-in bet on hand sixteen, I wouldn’t be able to overcome them, even if they lost their (small) bets. My only hope was to swing (I win - while my opponent loses) at least one of them, which statistically has a small chance of occurring. If this small miracle would happen before hand sixteen, I still could be out of the tourney if I lost hand number sixteen. So, it was definitely better to wait for that small miracle until the elimination hand.
My goal had become to have more than half the bankroll to as many competitors as possible. That’s why I couldn’t afford to make bigger bets on hands 13th to 15th.

On hand number sixteen I had bet all-in, almost $20K. Abe, out of $31K bankroll had bet only seventy-five hundred, and Ed, who had about $35K bet only $3K.
Here was my chance. If I win my hand I would have more than either one of them.
I received a good-looking nineteen, Abe had a total of twelve and Ed had an eleven, the dealer showed a deuce. That gave them a chance to correct their mistakes, and they eagerly exercised it. Abe doubled down his twelve and got a seven for a total of nineteen, so did Ed. When the dealer drew cards and busted, we all got paid and once again started to count our chips. I had almost $40K, Abe had $46K, Ed had just over $40K, but suddenly it turned out that Don amassed only $38K and he was the “low man out.” We clapped to honor his competition and departure from the table.

More of the same was the theme for me in the following hands. I found myself in a very similar predicament before the next elimination hand (hand number twenty-five).
This time, Ed, with the bankroll of about $48K, bet first and used a secret bet. I had $26,200, and bet maximum $25K. Abe had a “safe” and unreachable (except for my blackjack) $60K and bet a couple grand. Ben’s bankroll was minimally shy of $50K and he had bet $6K, and finally Cy had $52K and bet $1,5K – just enough to cover my winning a double down.

..................Me........Ed........Ben........Cy
Bankroll........26,2......48........49,5.......52
Bet..............25,0.......X..........6,0........1,5
Cards...........10,8.....10,10.....10,4.......10,3

Of course I was hoping for a blackjack, but at the moment all I could work with was a hard eighteen. Ben had hard fourteen and Cy had a thirteen. Ed had twenty, which meant that if he bet five grand or more I couldn’t catch him. The dealer showed a Ten up. Not good, but it ain’t over till it’s over. Take a minute and think, what would you do in my place? Would you stand, hit, or double down?

This was where tournament experience, knowledge of statistics, and analyzing hundreds of various situations comes in handy. If I stood, to survive the low man out, I needed to win and Ben or Cy had to lose (or Ben push). Mathematically, the correct play for Ben to avoid swing, was to stand on any hard twelve if opponent (me) had eighteen and the dealer showed a Ten. Cy was a good player and I knew that he would also stand if Ben stood stiff. My only chance would be if the dealer finished with a seventeen. That’s a whopping 12%! Actually, composition of the remaining cards was normal except for four extra sevens gone. With almost two decks into the shoe, this lowers chances for the dealer having seventeen to around 11%. I had an additional chance that Ben would hit his fourteen and bust, followed by the dealer busting. But what were the chances of Ben hitting?
My other option was to double down my eighteen …not that unusual move in blackjack tournaments. One wins doubling a hard eighteen against the dealer Ten up almost 16% of the time, and then one of my opponents needed to lose or push.

What to do, what to do?

In this tourney, the dealer gave double down cards face down, even on busting hands. I thought that my double down could encourage Ben to play closer to basic strategy and hit his fourteen (hopefully busting), as he might have felt that I bust out most of the times, anyway.
I said “Let’s go out or win with a style.” and asked the dealer for a double down card. Ben, as expected, hit and busted. I was one (a very small) step closer to realizing my plan. Then, the dealer turned over her hole card – it was a Ten for total of twenty.

Now my only chance was to have a trey as my double down card. That would be winning in style. The dealer’s twenty and my double on eighteen resulting in twenty-one! I needed a three, three, three. I asked the dealer to turn over my card slowly…
…and it was a four.

Well, I came, saw, and though I didn’t conquer (at least not this time), I enjoyed it a lot.
It was a rare occasion to compete, to try new techniques, and to socialize with the best of the best. Kudos to the organizers and congrats to the winners.

This new rule of “low man out” levels the field to some degree by taking away from skilled players but adds a tremendous amount of excitement. This creates a form of blackjack tournaments that should be presentable (and watchable) on television. Will it be enough? Time will show. Hopefully, it is a move making blackjack tournaments following in the footsteps of poker popularity.


S. Yama

 

Will History Ever Repeat Itself

You are so right Mr Yama never again will there ever be such a talented and feared (by the casinos) group of players in the same room at the same time.
The only hope of that ever happening again will be at a UBT sponsored tournament .The UBT policy is anyone and everyone is welcome to showcase their tournament talent without fear of expulsion .

 

Yama has said a few times that the elimination blackjack lowers the skill requirement. I don't get it.

Elimination BJ is a BJ tourney with multiple pseudo-final-hands, I don't seem how it can require less skill than a tournament where you could bet the minimum bet 20 to 25 out of 30 hands and potentially be playing optimally.

I know that when I'm finished playing one round of a UBT tourney, my mind is spinning about a million miles an hour. It's not that way in most BJ tournaments I've played. (And I don't think it's just me... other pros have said the same)

It's also telling to see the final tables of the UBT, and how the poker pros, who made up a huge part of the field, failed to compete with the BJ pros... without revealing too much of the winners, let's such say, poker players were under-represented at the end... another sign of the skill factor, I would think.

On the flips side, the commentary of your hands is very well-written and interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

low man out

Here in Oklahoma we used to play a format like that. A $15 entry Wed night and Sun afternoon and evening. 6 players per table, 10 hands low guy out, 10 more hands next person and one more time for 3 left. Then, put the 3 people from 2 tables together and do it again. Till you have 6 and one wildcard for the final table. A lady got 9 BJ out of 10 hands and was still low person out, didn't increase her bets enough to make it. It was still crazy to see. Fun little tournament.

 

Skill, Luck or Neither?

BJMailman,

What or how would you label this particular lady that you write of? Lucky, to have gotten those hands? Unskillful, to not have wagered enough? Something else? If the skill factor was lowered for her and others due to her luck of getting such tremendous cards, was she not victorious, and in the example, even eliminated from the tournament, regardless of the skill factor being reduced, allegedly, I'd potentially argue, for not only herself but the other players as well, because even with this reduced skill factor, wasn't it indeed the skill of others that yielded their superiority over her? (Unless the others only got 8 blackjacks out of 10 hands or something crazy like that). How did the others employ skill here when the playing field was not only leveled, but truly heavily titled in her favor?

 

9 out of 10 BJs - really?

This statement intrigued me so I did a little calculation. Now I’m not a mathematical genius, but assuming the chances of getting a BJ are 1 out of 21 hands, I figured the odds of getting a BLACKJACK 9 out of 10 hands are: 21 * 21/2

Now let’s calculate this out:
21 * 2/21 = 397,140,023,290 OR 1 chance in over 397 BILLION (that’s a billion with a “B”)

How many years would it take to deal 397,140,023,290 hands? To calculate this we have to make a few assumptions:
1) A competent BJ dealer can deal 400 hands per hour (including him/her self).
2) Let’s guess that there are 10,000 full time BJ dealers in the USA.

In one year, the number of BJ hands dealt would be:
400*8*250*10,000=8,000,000,000 (8 billion)

Therefore, to deal 397,140,023,290 hands would take 49.6 years.
(397,140,023,290 / 8,000,000,000)

Imagine how many times one can win the POWER BALL LOTTERY with 397 billion tries!

Witnessing something that occurs once in 50 years among all the nation’s casinos is more than “crazy to see”. It approaches impossible!

 

low man out

I think sometimes you guys over analyze things. We were all winning our first 10 hands, increasing our bets, but she didn't. You guys probably have played enough to have seen some pretty impossible things. I've seen all the aces in a 6 deck shoe behind the cut card, 5 BJs dealt and an ace under dealer 10, 9 card 21. I'm sure a lot of you have some interesting stories.

 

Effect of removal

Toolman,

Please give yourself even MORE credit. I don't believe that you accounted for effect or removal. After all, this is/was a bricks and mortar casino, or so I was led to believe.

 

9 BJ's in 10 hands impossible?

Anything is possible even though not probable. I was playing a live table in LAS when the dealer drew to 21 with 5 deuces and an ace in a 6 deck shoe game. Although I didn't calculate the odds of that occurance, I would be interested if someone else wants too to compare the odds in this thread. I guess beating the odds occasionally is why 1 person can win $300,000,000+ in a lottery with millions of tickets not winning.

 

Depends on shoe composition

Monkeysystem:

You are assuming a full shoe. Probabilities will vary widely depending on the composition of the shoe.

For example: If the shoe was 1/2 used with no 2s out, then the probability would be in the low 1 in 100,000 area.

 

More Skill

I have to throw my hat in for the 'more skill' category when concerning elimination-style blackjack, not less. Every elimination hand is, in effect, a final hand -- where the specific art of mathematical bet correlation rules the day. For those of us who know such calculations, have innovated new ones, or have focused on unique ways of approaching said elimination hand, the edge over typical/average/unskilled/luck-based opponents is certainly significant, even more so than the significance found in typical bj tourneys with only ONE final hand. i'd have to agree with David Mathews, etc -- as well as with my own experiences with the format -- that this new style of play only increases the advantage of tourney pros. I for one cannot wait for the website to go live with actual tourneys, as i suspect quite a few of us will be making quite a significant supplemental income off the lesser-skilled opponents we will regularly face.

As far as Yama's excellent 'low man out' concept, it reminds me of a really useful term Ken Smith coined during the UBT last year -- LB, which stands for Last Bank (or Last Bankroll, to be more precise). Like the BR moniker Stanford Wong popularized years ago to designate the order of BankRolls, highest to lowest (BR1, BR2, BR3, etc), the LB designation indicates the order of bankrolls starting from last place & working forward -- LB1 is last place, LB2 is second to last place, etc... something many of us found very useful in dissecting, studying, and implementing new elimination-style strategies for use in the UBT last year.

just my 2 cents...

-hollywood dave.

 

Why we all see that 1 in 1,000,000

Not to get off the main subject of this thread but to look at probabilities another way. If you play 8 hours per month for 5 years, you'll play about 25,000 hands. Each hand you play has on average 2 other players and the dealer. Therefore, in 5 years you'll see about 100,000 hands (25,000 *4).

Now with seeing 100,000 hands, you'll see, on average, the following occur:
Any given 1 in 100,000 shot - probability of seeing a preselected sequence = 100.00%
Any given 1 in 1,000,000 shot - probability of seeing a preselected sequence = 10.00%
Any given 1 in 100,000,000 shot - probability of seeing a preselected sequence = 0.1%
Any given 1 in 100,000,000,000 shot - probability of seeing a preselected sequence = 0.0001%

Remember, these percentages assume that you see 100,000 hands and you specify your 1 in XXX before you play. If you don't specify the sequence, probability of seeing a 1 in XXX come out is naturally much higher - I think, but can't be sure, that you would multiply the percentage by 10.

Anyway, time to go to sleep.

 

Well it looks like we have two very different discussions going on in this thread. For the record, I think the person who posted about one person getting 9 BJs out of 10 hands, might be mistaken. I think that's a little unrealistic, but it doesn't really matter. Point is, she got a lot of BJs, and won a lot of hands. That's cool.

Back to the skill vs. luck discussion... I'm referring to some of the comments of S. Yama in the end of the post of this thread that reads:

Since this also deals with a post that Yama made a while back on of the other forums here, let me quote that here as well to consolidate. We could discuss here or there, but this seems as good a place as any.

There are a few things I would like to address here.

Yama says, "without going into details how I come up with them, let me skip directly to the numbers." I don't mind the fact that we're not seeing the numbers Yama derived. He is a pre-eminent BJ tournament pro, who's reputation and skills are well-established. He doesn't have to show me the numbers for me to accept his conclusions... well, not usually.

At times I interchange the terms "pros" and "amateurs" instead of "skill" or "luck", but I feel that the terms mean the same for this discussion.

Let me define a couple terms. I just made these up.

"critical decision hand" [CDH] -- hand where a meaningful choice of how much to bet, or how to play a hand, will have significant impact on the ability of the player to advance

"meaningless hand" [MH] -- not truly "meaningless" but a hand where a critical choice is not required. In other words, a hand where a minimum bet, and basic strategy play, will not significantly impact the player's opportunity to advance further in the tourney

Here the numbers that he "came up with" don't jive with a logical view of the game. I would argue that a traditional BJ tourney format has fewer CDH's. In fact, in traditional tourneys, there are probably fewer CDH's, than there are MH's. In an elimination, UBT-style, tourney, I'd argue it's vice versa, and there are more CDH's than MH's.

What does this mean? More opportunities, per round, per tournament, for knowledgeable pros to exert their skill upon others. More opportunities for amateurs to make mistakes. A pro can even plan out well down the line, by looking at permutations of where the elimination hand will be next time, and the time after, and adjust his play accordingly.

At it's base level, a UBT-style tournament is a traditional 30-hand round tournament. It's just that new elements are put in to increase the pressure, and in my opinion, increase the number of CDH's. It is illogical to say there are more critical decisions required in a UBT tourney, and that favors amateurs over pros (or luck over skill, if you will). I don't buy it.

The secret bet option also favors the pros, IMO. While I saw many non-pros "waste" their secret bet, I saw the pros maximizing the potential advantage from this option. A pro would know how to use it a lot better, and therefore, by definition, it favors them.

Another "skill" that's not being considered, in my opinion, is mental stamina and stress-handling ability. A UBT round is a continual exercise in mental activity from hand 1 until the player is eliminated or advances. A UBT round, is one hand after another of calculating bets, counting chips, and doing mental "backflips" if you will. It's very taxing, and, a challenge for many people who aren't used to or mentally capable of the non-stop mental activity. Being able to remain focused and competitive over the many critical hands, is indeed a skill, IMO.

One argument I'm willing to accept, or consider at least, is that if the bankroll and max bet is set so that you can bet all your chips on the first hand, that this may introduce a larger luck-factor, than if the max bet is a smaller percentage of the starting bankroll. I think that this element may give the non-pros more ability to compete with the pros. Anybody can make a max bet, win the hand, and be in a super-strong position to advance. Since UBT wants to allow the "anbodys" of the world to have a chance, this makes sense, to build into their tournament structure. It also gives the added "poker" element of allowing people to go "all-in" more frequently, which they think is good for TV.

I know that I'm taking a big risk is disagreeing with a pro like S. Yama. This is something that I've given a lot of thought so I'll take my chances. Also, it's important that the reader knows that I had success in the UBT and was able to compete in the final events in Los Angeles. In other words, I perhaps have some "personal" reasons that I'd prefer that the skill is recognized. Hopefully, that didn't bias my opinion, but I'll let the reader be the judge of that.

In conclusion, I think that the only increased luck factor could be the max bet in relation to starting bankroll. I see the elimination hands as introducing a greater skill element, not a lesser one as S. Yama states. The elimination hands require many more significant bet decisions, per round, and per tournament, and this can only favor the skilled players, or "pros", if you will. To be fair, Yama does conclude his original post with "It will be definitely much more interesting to watch a sustained competition at some, but not really big, expense of skills." While I disagree about there being any "expense of skills", his opinion is that it's "not really big" so I guess we're not too far off in our opinions.

David

 

Awesome post

very well thought out & compelling reading...thanks, dm.

i think time will definately support these conclusions...for now, we obviously have a very small representative sampling of results (from the first season of the UBT last fall) from which to observe, so there is definately room for error. However, the results there cannot be ignored -- poker pros won far fewer final table seats than their original numbers in relation to the field at large would have suggested (one reason to have so many in attendance, since many still advanced through to the finals), and those of us blackjack pros who really took the time to focus and develop new strategies based on the elimination format had far better results than the norm.

By way of example only, the West Coast Grinders in attendance for the UBT played a total of 30 preliminary rounds from which we should have expected 3 final table appearances; in reality, we made 7. That's twice the expectation & i have to believe a significant reason for that was the unique approach we took to the elimination format -- much more so than just the luck factor.

Again, time will tell, but i for one believe this format only enhances the success ratio of skilled players, not detracts --

-hd.
www.WestCoastGrinders.com
*the rise of the new guard*

 

Response to Dave

Stann, not Matthews.

For the benefit of the readership of this forum, as well as accuracy, I was a member of the group that you refer to during the Ultimate Blackjack Tour events that you derive your results from. However, AS YOU KNOW, I had to leave that group due to problems with, inaccuracies character wise, back stabbing and double crossing of one, AND ONLY ONE, member of that group. So, for the record and the benefit of this sites readership, I am no longer a part of that organization.

This "unique approach we took to the elimination format" that you refer to was not something that I used to achieve my two final table appearances. As you and the members of your group know, I did my own thing. Therefore, you really can't crow about this "unique approach we took to the elimination format" achieving 7 final table appearances.

 

Response to Dave

Matthews not Stann,

Tremendous post my friend. No wonder you play so well!

 

Anytime you want to actually have a real conversation to discuss the issues you so clearly have, rather than continuing to propigate this juvenile and baseless witchhunt against me in the public sector, you will find me a ready conversationalist. I believe you still have my number, if you haven't burned it at the stake by now.

It is not my desire to bring to light any personal issues between us online. That is why i mentioned the Grinders' accomplishments at the UBT collectively and from a strictly numerical standpoint; like it or not, you were in the group at that time, and despite the individual differences in our play, you also know there were many similarities, arrived at in late night training sessions, countless conversations, unique ways of guaging the aggressiveness of certain points/positions of the game, and the like. Ultimately, we agree on the fundamental truth of elimination blackjack enhancing the advantage of pro players, rather than detracting; the mathematical data i supplied merely supports this theory.

-hd.