Everyone of us want more tournaments, better quaility tournaments, but lets face it very few play at the casinos on the regular tables. Now that is not all your fault, some players can't play (barred from the tables). You notice a little more every year that the tournaments are going to VIP invitationals. Free entry, free rooms, free food, but only for the high-rollers. Why? DUH! Their the ones playing and giving the casinos action. I have players asking all the time why they don't get invited to the VIP tournaments. Lets see you only play $5 - $10 (table minimums) on the regular tables for maybe 2 hours per day, you don't tip, you BITCH about everything, you want free room, food, gift, a banquit, and the casino to add $25,000 to the prize pool, and all that for a $200 entry. Now maybe this isn't the anwser, but what if we changed the entry fees to a poker format? It seemed to have worked for my tournaments. Lets everyone pay an up front fee for the tournaments. I am sure several players will hate this idea, but think about it more tournaments, better tournaments and 100 % entry and reentries returned to the prize pool. Sure we pay a fee, but we all do and have $39 - $49 per night room rates, if we play we're comp out if not we pay, same with the food comps. I want more blackjack tournaments I don't care if I have to pay a fee, most every poker tournament they charge a fee and look where their at now.
This is a controversial point, but I think I'm willing to agree with Tx here. Poker events are typically something like $500+$40. As long as the added fee is 10% or less of the entry fee, I think that's a reasonable way to make blackjack events attractive to the casino. For that fee, I expect the casino to allow anyone to play, aside from players who are disruptive or cheat. No more invitational status, no more eliminating strong players, just collect the fees, and run the event fairly. If casinos had more incentive to run the events, I would hope we could begin to generate events the size of big poker tournaments. Back in the early 90s, the Excalibur tried this idea of a tournament fee, and was sharply criticized. However, I think that most tournament regulars now realize that perhaps the idea is not unreasonable. I'll participate if events structured like this are available.
Good point Ken Ken covered a good point; "EVERYBODY" gets to play! Some of the nicest players around are barred because their called "Tournament Pro's" those of you that know me, know this is a very bad subject for me. I can understand why a casino wishes not to let an advantage player on their regular tables, but why not in their tournaments (especially when they are paying an entry fee). By letting everyone in this only helps fill the tournament up and add more money to the total prize pool. By having a bigger player turn out for their tournaments would or should create more income for the casino as well even if a few can't play the regular tables. Besides the additional players the casinos would benefit by covering their cost possible making a small profit off the top. I am okay with that as long as the players also benefit from the added prize money and extra tournaments. Remember the old saying "A little bit of something is better than a lot of nothing"! Another thing as one who hope to put on tournaments in Texas, Nevada, & hopefully Mississippi soon I plan on making money for my efforts, but I will not play in them if I am making any money from them. I am doing this in hopes of showing the casinos away that it is profitable for them to once again start hosting "OPEN BLACKJACK" tournaments for all of us.
You have my support. I've always thought it very odd that there never seems to be any particular correlation between buy-in and total prize pool in BJ tourneys -- either there is a free VIP situation where only the casino's biggest suckers are invited, or the casino ends up taking a ridiculous % of the total buy-ins... sometimes as much as 50%!! Poker tourneys have it right -- take 10% or so for the house, invite a level playing field of any non-cheaters, and run the event fairly. Its ultimately a sporting event, a competition, and to apply biases as to who can compete or having the suits bilk the entrants out of their $$$ is absolutely unacceptable & reminds me of some underdeveloped 3rd world country dictatorship. I'm hoping that as BJ tourneys continue to evolve with the advent of more televised games, a few strong voices will emerge to denounce this behavior & educate the general public. I for one was flabbergasted when the Stardust wouldn't take my entry $$$ at the 'Come on back' tourney during the recent MDII finals. Some suit came over and told me that I wasn't being permitted to play because the house had a 'short list' of players who 'weren't eligible' to participate. Imagine if the Lakers weren't 'allowed' to play the Pistons after reaching the finals, or Johnny Chan 'allowed' to play the World Series of Poker? -hollywood dave.
Yep! Your right Dave, that was the whole point of the "Come on back" tournament, to get the players back at the Dust!
Why not a range of prices? It has always seemed to me that a casino could benefit by using the same approach in "selling" tournament entries as they do in providing rooms. Provide comped entries to their really valued customers. Possibly offer a discounted entry fee to moderately valued customers (akin to casino rate), and then have a full entry fee for those customers who don't choose to give them any action. In a sense, the LV Hilton has used this kind of model in the past by allowing the use of comp dollars to pay entry fees, or alternative means of qualifying to play by giving some kind of action (e.g. you get a free entry into their next craps tournament by winning a $5 bet on yo on the comeout roll).
To Play or Not to Play TXtourplayer writes: <". . . but lets face it very few play at the casinos on the regular tables."> The decision whether I play at the tables or not is independent of my entry in a tournament. If the best the tournament host offers is a single-deck game paying 6:5 for a blackjack or a 6-deck game in which the dealer hits a soft-17 (and, maybe, also only pays 6:5 !!!) , I will play elsewhere. Please note, I am not disputing your fee-for-play proposal . . . just rationalizing why I may not play at the tournament host's tables outside the tournament. The proliferation of poor games in Las Vegas and elsewhere is accelerating; the more players who play them, the more likely they are to persist.
Everybody Gets To Play ! Unfortunately I'm an unadvantage player, not by choice but just because of my inability to develop the skill. Being able to determine the card count is no different than the skill required to track the chip count of the opponents or memorizing the sucess probabilties of your hand and your opponents vs. the dealers up card. This is a developed skill and should not be banned in casino play or in tournaments. In winning a tournament its not the money as much the challenge of beating best players in the country. How much bigger would a win be if likes of TX, Walt, Ken, Yama and Hollywood were sitting at the final table ! Finally, with the tournament on the line the count may be a +10 but if the situation dictates doubling a hard 19, you do it. So the small advantage of counting is not as significant when playing against the other players rather than the dealer. Lets not stiffle the growth and excitement of tournament blackjack. IG
Philly, that's what I'm saying. Philly said:The decision whether I play at the tables or not is independent of my entry in a tournament. If the best the tournament host offers is a single-deck game paying 6:5 for a blackjack or a 6-deck game in which the dealer hits a soft-17 (and, maybe, also only pays 6:5 !!!) , I will play elsewhere. Philly why do you think the casinos host these tournaments? They want us to play the regular tables and other games. Because we don't play them is why they stop hosting tournaments. I agree some of the games suck, so to reach a compromise with the casinos my idea is why not just add a fee to make it more attractive to the casinos to host more tournaments since not everyone is playing at their games.
BJ/Poker tournaments Rick, I agree with you as long as the BJ tournament entry fee is 5% or less. I play in an average of 4-5 poker tournaments weekly and a 2% to 5% entry fee is the norm. With casinos making money on poker tournaments at 2% to 5% entry fees (or they would not hold them), why should BJ tournaments entry fees be any higher? Also with poker tournaments a minimum pot is usually guaranteed, the pot is not just based on number of entrys where as BJ tournaments are usually not guaranteed. Tournament poker players fill up the host casino poker tables both before the tournament and after they get knocked out because the game rules are the same at all casino poker rooms, only the rakes, comps and bad beat jackpots are different. BJ players are usually not playing at the host casino because of the casino getting greedy and changing the BJ game rules, conditions, ect. They are basically driving away the players themselves by only offering poor playing conditions.
Where on earth on you finding such low entry fees? I play several poker tourneys a week, and the low ones are $20+5 (25%), the middle ones are $75+15 or $100+20 (20%), and the luxury of a 10% buy-in fee doesn't hit til you get up to $300+30 or $500+50! But I can't imagine ever finding 2% -- that would be like $500+10, something that would never be profitable enough for the casinos...
Horray for Hollywood You Da Man, Hollywood, you tell'em!....lol Hope this isn't a bad subject, but I didn't hear about the CA poker championship, how did you do?
ti Holl Tunica and Biloxi-- The (Chris Moneymaker's) River Poker Tour so far held at the Grand and Sam's Town was a $200 buy in, $200 add-on for a total $400 buy in with a $20 entry fee and the next will be at the Isle of Capri in Lula. The Grand, Sam's Town, Gold Strike, Horseshoe and the Hollywood at this time they are all competing for business. And Isle Of Capri in Lula is opening a new poker room with many tournaments with low entry fees.
Ben Affleck won it all! Watch out, this is the year of the Hollywood actor... http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040621/lam117_1.html oh and RE: pokernut -- i didn't realize you were also including the cost of add-ons/re-buys in your % calculations. that's not necessarily an accurate result, considering many will not add-on, re-buy, etc. But i have no problem if a house takes 10-15% of a tourney as long as its run fairly & equitably!! i think that's ultimately the bottom line we can all agree on...
