What is the value (% advantage) of guaranteeing you will get to bet last?

Bob Nersesian said...

I was interested in the legality of this situation and called Bob Nersesian. Well Bob just called me back and I explained the situation and he told me that if the casino didn’t have an issue with it why should anyone else?

Also quoting Bob he said “Nothing un-ethical was done, if you play you play to win and as long as it is within the rules or the casino allows it, how can it be unethical”!

He also told me that selling the button was no worst then using the surrender trap or any other maneuver we use on all the time on lesser players. Anytime we can get an edge without cheating and within the rules we were crazy not to take advantage of them.

Legally he said he would have to read the rules, but believed the casino would have covered them selves. Also that both parties involved agreed to the price of $3,000. So player 2 put the value of the button at $3,000, end of story.


Thanks Bob.

 

Advantage

The whole basis of tbj, poker, craps tournaments, or any other game that is parimutual pool based - including horse and dog racing, not to mention investing in stocks and derivative instruments, is that a more skilled player has an advantage and will therefore win more often in the very long run. This, of course means that a lesser skilled player is at a disadvantage and therefore will be expected to lose in the very long run. The winners get their money from the other, lesser skilled, players, not from the casino. They do so by taking advatage of the skill gap.

TBJ players work hard to learn skills, precisely so that they can play at an advantage and take money from the other players. TBJ players also caculate EV to see if the game is biased towards the players benefit, and choose tournaments that favor the players.

The difference here, maybe, is one player, being more experienced, sought an advantage over a less experienced player through getting that player to agree to sell the right to bet last on the last hand - which is an advatage that is not developed through the play itself. It is a 'move' that changes the 'rules'/'format' of the play, to a particular individual's advantage. By getting a less skilled player to agree to a 'rule change' which is to their disadvantage.

This is different from using a surrender trap or other playing technique which simply takes advatage of another player's lack of skill during the course of play. This is a change in rules that affects the outcome of the game, favoring one player over another.

But, as long as all players at the table agree and are willing to do so, and the change does not violate a stated tournament rule, then this is an extension of the skill edge a good player has. In that respect, is it any different from poker players putting on a straddle? or deciding to run a hand twice? Both of those situations affect the game outcome and the risk/reward for individual players, yet they are accepted.

 

Not nonsense, here's why...

Masonuc your questions were answered, but the discussion on if the deal should have been allow is actually not nonsense. You have opened up an issue that I've never thought about and as a TD I found that part of your orignal post the most interesting.

I like to think the TBJPA rules cover most any situation and leave nothing up to inturpertation so that there would be no issues. This was something new that I didn't have covered in my match play rules. This is why I have discussed it so much.

Members who have contributed to the TBJPA rules are: Ken, S. Yama, Dr. Bass, Swog, Joep, Rookie, Chipsmcoy, Monkeysystem, Eastxpro, Bradley Peterson, Acemachine, Norm, The Legend, and Toolman, (sorry if I left anyone off the list) so you can see several players have helped me over the years trying to design the best tournament blackjack rules and when a new situation comes up I don't think it is nonsense to cover it in future rules.