"The Low Man Out"

skill factor

Joep, I agree with the first part of your message that it was an extraordinary assemble of blackjack players (perhaps matched only by Max’s New Year Balls) but I don’t have to trump up and extol UBT as the best thing that ever happened to bj tournament world.
They are a big business that will do (right or wrong, and no matter how much self-importantly) whatever they feel is best for their business, based on their understanding of it.
I am not resigned to believe that they are “...The only hope of that ever happening again.”

David, thank you for kind words and compassion expressed toward the subject.
Of course the best way to show how three elimination hands in one tournament round lower edge of a really good tournament blackjack player would be best shown by presenting a full (and rather complicated) mathematical explanation. I am afraid that right now and right here is it is not the best time or place to do it. This is because of complexity of the subject and necessity of introducing a lot of new (to most of the readers) terms. It could easily take fifty pages of writing. Even worse, many of the subsubjects partially overlap themselves and are based on previous conclusions, so I would need to make a lot of conditional assumptions. However, I will try to present it in a more descriptive terms. This, I will post late tonight.

But first, let me add three remarks.
One. In the same sentence where I said that elimination rounds lower chances of really skillful players I also said that they level out the field – that meant that bad players would still place badly very often, average players (some skills required) would fair better, above average would perform close to what they represented, and really good players would suffer the most.
Two. My conclusions were not made to diminish the achievements of the winners. They could have played perfectly and their wins could have been representative of their skills. As well as players who had no clue could have been eliminated very fast. Right answers don’t always are product of a right process.
Three. We should separate personal feelings of involvement while playing bj tourney using this format from the effort to objectively assess and render effectiveness of skills in this particular type of blackjack tournament. Thoughtful players needed to work much harder- granted, but the efficacy of their work wasn’t proportional to the amount of hard work put in.

More later,
S. Yama

 

Message for Stann

Not to him.

Because, as a friend of mine stated, "I wrote him back and told him I am done with him". So I do not care to have a real conversation with him or any conversation with him. The only issue that I have with him is that he exists. By his actions and words, he tried to take money out of my pocket, my friends pockets and my associates pockets. And that I cannot forgive. (Also a Brando quote from the Godfather).

Mine is not a witchhunt. If anything, based on all of that makeup that he wears, it is more accurately described as a bitchhunt. Also, a constant stream and barrage of bullshit is not what I consider to be a ready conversationalist.

Many things can be derived from a strict numerical standpoint. Numbers can easily be skewed. I was in one of the training sessions (singular) that was used in this argument. It is just another example of how one can manipulate numbers and then allegedly report them to be facts.

I was in the group at that time but my success was not a result of the group itself or my association with same. My play with the group as a whole should be judged and recorded as a success for myself and its members. However....

<<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>>

.....See above. Sentence #1 is fact. Sentence #2 is not. So anyone that cares to can go on "believing" whatever they care do but I believe that if some individual cares to use my factual results for any self serving or self promoting interests that the public should be given the full and complete truth and facts, not only the numbers that someone wants them to see.

I wish the other members of the Grinders, Joanna, Erica and Victor nothing less than well wishes and success. They are quality individuals.

 

Hi S. Yama,

Thanks for the response. I do look forward to seeing what it is you're going to post about this. I'm also curious about your "conditional assumptions" and wonder if those might be the difference between your opinion (or fact as you believe) and my opinion. I must admit, I can be swayed, given evidence, but it isn't going to be easy to change my mind.

David

 

Ken,

I appreciate and respect you as an individual as well as your words. I also respect the fact that you are the site administrator. I understand that you can edit, censor or delete anything that you desire. (Sir you are welcome to play any other game but not blackjack).

I am not starting a war with that flame. As stated, I don't care to have anything to do with him. I simply don't care to have him use inaccurate, alleged, statistical information about me to be used for his self serving or self promoting interests.