I just posted a 50K blackjack/slot tournament for Harrahs, Las Vegas March 14 and 15, the actual location of the tournament is Harrahs, Lake Tahoe. Ken, I've been unable to edit the location, perhaps you can correct my mistake, thanks.
The March 14-15 Harrah's Lake Tahoe event is split: March 14... 20k Blackjack (1st is $6000); March 15... 20k Slot (1st is $5500); Also includes a 10k bonus drawing. Total 50k
Also at Harrah's Lake Tahoe April 16-19 is a 50k Blackjack tournament and all it requires is a $10,000 trip loss to qualify. I don't want to qualify!
Thanks Rookie. I was able to manually move the event. It's here: https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/tournaments/dublin-your-luck.2737/
This might not be a bad offer, if you are sure they will keep their word. Play one hand of BJ of $10,000 bet. If you win you walk away, if you lose you get a free tournament entry.
Well, it will require a good stomach but in reality with BJ game of 0.5% casino edge, the player expected loss on this play is only $50. The tournament fee is probably worth $200, so it is a win/win situation
I'm assuming that Dakota means that a $10k actual trip loss is required as opposed to a 10k theoretical trip loss. It's possible to post a 10k theoretical loss while losing much less than that or even winning overall. Even assuming it means a $10k actual trip loss, if your normal play makes a $10k trip loss a possibility, and you would normally play there anyway, then by all means, play your normal game and then take the free tournament entry should that happen. As for betting 10k on one hand, I think that it's an extremely bad idea. Even assuming you are able to manage placing the bet at a good count, mid-shoe, the probability of losing your 10k vs winning, assuming you try again if you push is about 53% vs 47% which is about a 6% disadvantage or about -$600. With a $50k prize pool and almost certainly more than 100 entrants, the EV of the tournament will be less than $500. A huge risk for no reward. Even if the tournament EV was more than $600, it would be an extremely high risk for almost no reward.
It is probably a bad idea for various practical reasons but I do not see how it would be 6% disadvantage. The 6% disadvantage is calculated based on win or loss % , which does not take into account player getting a natural, doubling the hand or splitting. I would think playing off the top of the shoe (no counting) the expected loss should be that of the casino edge (about 0.5%, i.e.. $50).
Yes, hitting naturals and doubling/splitting are what whittles the 6% win/loss disadvantage to the 0.5% EV. I should have been more clear. I figured that the point of the play was to lose no more than $10k, so I assumed no doubling or splitting. Hitting naturals would, however, improve things somewhat. Regardless. No matter how you slice it (one shot or ongoing opportunity) the risk is just too great for the reward. Too much to lose on a single shot and too much RoR if it's an ongoing proposition. One would need a massive bankroll to sustain it.
I agree that it is not practical for many reasons, the foremost of which that the casino will not likely honor a one hand loss. Casinos like people to lose repeatedly rather than at one shot because that assure a loss without much variance incurred by the casino. The reason I commented on it because theoretically it resembled a free loss rebate albeit in much less attractive form.
Although I no longer have the printed tournament information, I believe by recollection this event is limited to 24 participants. Unsure if I didn't want to qualify per Dakota or don't have the BALLS per Billy C, perhaps it's one and the same. The simplified formula to establish a tournament seat value disregarding opponent skill etc. indicates a seat value of $2,083, risking $10,000 on one hand of BJ is not an AP move as I can visualize holding a Q,6 vs. dealer 7. Although using a 0.05% house edge an expected loss of $50 is infinate long term, a one hand bet would yield a real loss 0f $10,000 with a potential $10,000 win, a $50 loss doesn't enter the equation.
Looking at the event listing, it says that the slot portion of the event pays the top 50 players. That's why I guessed at 100 participants. I see The Professional's point that it smells like a loss rebate (tournament EV refunded for losing $10k), but in reality it's a loss rebate that only pays out some of the time (i.e. when you cash in the tournament), so the variance is much higher and I come to same conclusion. Too risky for a one time shot and RoR too high for making this a regular part of your AP strategy without a massive bankroll.
When I mentioned rebate, I meant the entry fee for the tournament, which the player was going to pay any way, and not actually winning the tournament. In other cases of loss rebate, maximizing the benefit of the loss rebate calls for playing games with high variance. In such cases, optimal loss rebate value can be in situations in which the chance of losing is over 70%. RoR point of course is most important, as one does not want to go broke.
gronbog, this thread is confusing as it contains posts regarding 2 seperate tournaments, my post regarding a split 50K BJ/Slot tournament and Dokata's post regarding a 50K BJ tournament requiring a 10K casino loss for entry. There will probably be over 100 participants in the BJ/Slot tournament as you assumed if Lake Tahoe doesn't receive a blast of Canadian snow that weekend, the 50K BJ only tournament is limited to 24 participants.
