I missed the first one,so I was happy to finally be able to watch. It comes off great,but they need to show more action. Seriously; one hand,commercial...And now were back with hand 6! The elim format is awesome,and I'll be fighting like hell with the rest of you to get on there! Until blackjack has a true world series,I can't see it getting much better for blackjack on TV than this...way better than the alleged WSOBJ!
second show Ok, saw the show and somehow it just didn't have the same effect as show #1 - at least for me. What the heck was Jimmy Pine doing using his secret bet when he did and for 60 grand? He COULD'VE gotten eliminated! I also didn't understand the woman using her secret bet when she did? I don't think they showed enough play and I really thought the commentary was lacking compared to last week. Overall high quality I'll give it a B- compared to last weeks A+++
Episode 1 won't happen every week I thought it was fine. Really, how often can something as perfect as the first episode happen? It was like the equivalent of an extra innings baseball game with two great teams, one taking the lead in the top of the inning and the other coming back and winning it in the bottom. But, just like baseball, most games are just good until you get that next magic one. They don't happen every day.
K42 Thought you'd be in the air somewhere by now. Just cause the counter got chopped don't mean a thing. Everyone here has always said how counting don't matter in a tourney. The other thing to consider is what you're seein is the infant stage of this whole deal. Some of the brainiacs have incorporated so much from so many different areas that it gives them the edge. But soon, with the online play, you'll see a lot more experts giving it a go. Unless most are brain dead. Then those who can cipher and have a perceptual knack(you know, like on intelligent tests, or SAT's) will really be in the money.
Pine could have been eliminated earlier I didn't record this show, however as I recall on the elimination hand the player 1st to bet with the very fewest chips had to hope for a swing. He was delt a stiff 15 along with Pine and even though the dealer had a low card he should have hit (I would have) and hope for a good total and then hope the dealer fills her hand but not beat his total and thus beating all the stiffs that stood. As it turned out he would have gotten a 5 for 20 beating the dealer's 17. ..................BlueLight
Episode 2 Thoughts Well, clearly, the moved the most exciting episode to the first shown, so the rest of the season probably won't be as exciting. But overall, a good match, and it's good to see David Matthews win a big event like this. What I liked: ------------ - Good choice to institute a mercy rule for when the winner is decided in hand 28. - We learned a new "move". The holding back of $1K for a hidden double down card. I'd be curious as to the genesis of this move and I haven't seen it online or on TV before, but it seemed that everyone knew of the move at this table. - I think that the features have been done pretty well on each player. - Thanks Joanna for talking to us in the booth. I think the players should all be requested to do confessionals. What I didn't like: ---------------- - I thought they were really patronizing to the "internet qualifier". I hope that doesn't continue throughout, as the person who wins the St. Kitts final table (you know what I think about Aruba) will have proven that they can play a mean game of EBJ. - Speaking of internet qualifiers, while I understand their reasoning, I really wish the UBT didn't feel the need to lie to us. We know that the "internet qualifiers" didn't qualify by playing on playubt.com, as the shows were filmed months ago and playubt.com wasn't live until last week. Also, we are not watching the final table for a tournament that took place "17 miles off of the Las Vegas Strip". Unless someone explains otherwise, it seems to me that the Lake Las Vegas tournament was a practice tournament. And each of these "final tables" are really invitational qualifiers. Otherwise, why is everyone associated with Bet21.com and Ultimatebet.com represented exactly once? - I really like the whole SAFE flags appearing over people's names when it's official. It shows that someone put a lot of thought into doing the math as to when someone is officially safe. But they made a mistake last night. At one point, Dave Matthews is dealt an 11 after betting small enough to lock out the $60K player ovder anything but a BJ. However, if David chooses to double his 11, he is not safe. I was disapponted not only in the mistake, but failing to point out the good decision that he made. - It sure seems that the spokesmodels are just tacked on to the show...not that I'm complaining that much, but...
That move was first seen in World Series of Blackjack I, but I can't recall who should get credit for it. I believe either Micky Rosa or MIT Mike was the first person I saw use it. It's a staple of the new face-down-double games. During my match, I somehow didn't even think about the fact that my mike was still on while in the booth, or I would have discussed my bet. Doh! This one you're wrong about. There were 7 Lake Las Vegas events, with 63 players in each. Round one and the semifinals were played in LLV, and the finals were played in LA a week or two later. What you are seeing really is the final table of a 63 player event. Aside from the mistake, I think the "Safe" flag is a brilliant addition to the production.
Like I said, I was just speculating here. But something still seems a little fishy here. It seems to me that you are saying that the same 63 players played in 7 tournaments. However, looking at the LVA schedule of players, there are only 2 men that I can tell that appear in multiple episodes (and I know one of the episodes is a special "legends of bj" episode). I did notice at my second look that there were members of the UBT team that don't appear in any final tables, like Anthony Curtis. Were there some rules in place limiting people from qualifying to multiple final tables?
Sixty-three player in each event Toonces, they held 7 tournaments last year with 63 players in each event. In each tournament they would have a different 63 players for the most part, (some players played in all 7 events). I am not sure how many total players were invited to play last year. They filmed two shows per day for four days if I remember correctly. Then they filmed the semifinals in the evening time. I don't believe they had any restrictions about how many times a player could win, but I am not sure. Then they held a two Legends tournaments where the players were selected for the final TV tables for both men and women.
Special move What was the double down move that toonces refered to earlier? Sounds interesting... Cheers Reachy
Let's say you are trying to pass someone and you have to act before them. Instead of betting your entire bankroll, bet everything but $1,000. Then, if the situation comes up where you would want to take a single hit, double down for your last $1,000 and you get your card face down. Your opponent will not know if you busted, or what your final card total is to decide whether he needs to also double down, surrender, etc. This works equally well if it is a Secret Bet hand or not. There is another advantage to this that sometimes happens that I'm not even sure that most noticed. If I am LB1 and but max on the hand before an elimination hand, then LB2 is forced to correlate with me, lest he end up at LB1 if both win or both lose. If I hold back $1,000, LB2 can bet small, and both LB1 and LB2 get something out of it. LB1 has a better chance of avoiding elimination if both win, and LB2 is not eliminated if LB1 loses.
I Like IT !!!!!!!! I like this. I like this a LOT . I'm printing this post for my toolbox. Depending on the rules at a given tournament, this could work well - not just WSOB or UBT.
buying a hidden card Smart move, already being added to my armoury as we speak. Could you explain the 2nd point though because I'm missing it? What I don't understand is why, as LB1, would I want LB2 to get anything out of that particular scenario? As LB1 I want LB2 to lose as many ways as is possible don't I? As usual though I'm almost certainly missing a fundamental point here :laugh: ! Cheers Reachy
OK, this is a a Toonces Exclusive Strategy I haven't seen written anywhere else yet. Here's the scenario: Hand 15 (2 advance): Player 1: 75,000 Player 2: 65,000 Player 3: 31,000 Player 4: 19,000 Let's say that the button is on Player 4. Alternative 1a: Player 4 goes all in. Player 3 bets small. This is a very bad decision for Player 3, since he is screwed in hand 16 if Player 4 loses and drops to last if Player 4 wins. Therefore, Player 4 should assume this scenario will not occur. Alternative 1b: Player 4 goes all in. Player 3 bets big. This is the best thing for Player 3 to do under the circumstances, but Player 4 is still stuck in last, even if he wins. (note that Players 1 and 2 are thrilled about this, since it's much more likely that 2 challengers will lose on the same hand than different hands). Alternative 2a: Player 4 bets all but $500. Player 3 bets big. This is essentially just as bad for Player 4 as Alternative 1b. Alternative 2b: Player 4 bets all but $500. Player 3 bets small. This scenario has potential for Player 3. If player 4 loses (without doubling down), Player 3 will survive hand 16 and have another 9 hands to move up to 2nd place. If player 4 wins, he will have the advantage in hand 16, but winning a hand is less likely than losing, so Player 3's chancing of surviving past hand 16 are best here. It's questionable if this is the best overall play for 3, but at least it's in the running. But note how much better this alternative is for Player 4. This is the only likely alternative that Player 4 is in good shape if he wins his bet. The ones who lose out in this alternative are the two leaders, who now have to dodge two seperate surges by there opponents, plus the increased likelihood that the game will continue past hand 16.
As usual I'm missing something I still don't see why player 3 would bet small when player 4 bets his stack minus $500. Wouldn't they be better served betting about $17K taking the low and the high covering both a max bet double and BJ with the option to surrender back to the low? With Player 3 betting small he has really reduced his odds of winning by giving up the high. So what I don't see is whose strategy you're talking about, Player 4 or Player 3? Cheers Reachy
I'm not necessarily arguing that Player 3 should bet low, but rather that it's in Player 4's interest to make it a logical alternative for Player 3. As for your question, it may be that Player 3 doesn't want to take the high and the low here with a middling bet because losing this bet might allow him to survive hand 16 but cripple him for the rest of the tournament. In this case, it would leave Player 3 with $14K, miles behing the leaders. What I'm basically saying is that by not threatening Player 3 with an Early Elimination, this is an opportunity for Players 3 and 4 to implicitally collude against Player 1 and 2.
