World Series of Blackjack
Reality90064
watching it? I don't know anyone offline who is. Thought I'd look here.
Victoria
> I'm enjoying World Series of Blackjack on Game Show Network. Is anyone else
> watching it? I don't know anyone offline who is. Thought I'd look here.
I am watching it and kind of enjoying it. I think the second segment,
at the end had better bet calculations for a tournament but I am
waiting for those last hand or two moves where someone doubles a 15,
or even a natural or splits 10's because it is their only way to get
enough money on the table to advance.
Noticed that the dealer is now playing it up for the camera by slowly
turning her cards sometimes, adding suspense.
Davy...@douchebag.com
out how much to bet is pretty interesting.... and the personalities of the
players adds to the fun....
Rusty Martin
(Reality90064) writes:
>
>I'm enjoying World Series of Blackjack on Game Show Network. Is anyone else
>watching it? I don't know anyone offline who is. Thought I'd look here.
I watched the first episode, and was amused that Anthony Curtis was the first
one eliminated.
Unfortunately, they skipped hands, so it was impossible to follow the count
throughout the round, so I lost interest. Haven't watched any subsequent
episodes.
Rusty Martin
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads
nothing but newspapers."
--- Thomas Jefferson
Reality90064
to expand the show then to skip so many hands.
I'm hoping they change the format a little.
Rusty Martin
(Reality90064) writes:
I caught about 5 minutes of one of the espisodes last night.
One of the hosts, I'm pretty sure it was Max Rubin who should know better,
confirmed the incorrect adage "the player should always assume the dealer has a
ten in the hole." Which of course is one of the stupidest things you can say
about blackjack.
If we're assuming the dealer has a 10 in the hole, why do we stand on 17 vs
8,9,X?
Very dumb.
Seeker21
>
>I watched the first episode, and was amused that Anthony Curtis was the first
>one eliminated.
That doesn't surprise me. A good tournament player has an above-average
probability of being eliminated before the final round.
I was kibitzing Curtis in one of the preliminary rounds at the LV Hilton's
million-dollar tourney. He fell well behind the leaders and went into the 1/7
- 1/3 - all-in progression recommended in Wong's book. He lost all three hands
and made a fast exit, but at least he gave himself a chance to get where he
needed to be. Many players would have just chugged along with conservative
bets. They would definitely survive to play the final hand, but going into it
they would have essentially no chance to advance to the next stage.
Side note to anyone looking for an easy way to win at blackjack and who can't
see anything in this post except that it says something favorable about
progressions: Progressions don't change your expected value. They are
worthless in regular blackjack play. They have merit only in tournaments and
then only under the right circumstances.
Seeker
BB Chang
>
> That doesn't surprise me. A good tournament player has an above-average
> probability of being eliminated before the final round.
Why is that? I would think that being a good tournament player
includes being good at reaching the final round. :-)
Billy
Seeker21
In regular blackjack play there are gradations of possible results: You can win
a lot, win a bit less, win a little, lose a little, etc. A distinguishing
feature of tournament play is that there are many circumstances in which there
are only two relevant categories: winners and losers.
In many tournaments, the first round has six or seven players at each table, of
whom two will advance to the next round. Finishing third is no better than
finishing dead last. Finishing with more chips than you started is a complete
failure if you aren't one of the top two. People who don't understand
tournament strategy will sometimes play too timidly, thus surviving to the last
hand of the round but having no chance to advance.
Example: Six players, two will advance, betting limits $5-$500. With two hands
to go, the bankrolls are:
$6,000
$1,300
$500 (you)
$450
$300
$200
As it happens, you bet last this round. The count is slightly negative.
Everyone in front of you bets $5. What should you do? Bet it all! In the
teeth of the negative count, and depriving yourself of the chance to split or
double, you bet it all, with a good chance of being eliminated right now. The
reason is that if you make a smallish bet now, you'll see the last hand all
right, but you'll have no chance of catching the player who now has $1,300, so
you'll have no chance of advancing. Note that, for the same reason, the player
with $450 made a huge mistake in betting only $5. He's doomed. Nevertheless,
it's the sort of mistake I'd expect to see fairly often in a tournament.
Seeker
BB Chang
I understand that the strategy in a tournament is different, but a
good tournament player would play the strategy that maximizes his
chances of winning the tournament or reaching the next round. It is
still a game of chance, and if you don't get the cards you cannot win,
it is not like chess where Kasparov would always beat me. If you had
written that even the best player still has a high chance of being
eliminated, instead of higher than average chance, I would not argue.
Billy
Seeker21
Anthony Curtis has commented that one reason for his early exit was that he won
only 7 of the first 21 hands. That illustrates your point about the role of
chance -- even the Kasparov of blackjack tournaments (which Curtis might
conceivably be) couldn't win under those circumstances.
Where we differ is in your statement that "a good tournament player would play
the strategy that maximizes his chances of winning the tournament or reaching
the next round." The point of my example is that those will often be two
different strategies, especially as the last hand nears. A good tournament
player is more likely to see the difference and correctly select the former
strategy, thus busting out more often. A player without these skills is more
likely to focus on short-term survival.
You're right to the extent that a real idiot, who's hitting hard 18 against a
dealer 6, is more likely to bust out early than the tournament expert. I was
comparing the tournament expert to the average player, based on what I've seen
in the few tourneys I've played and in what I've read about what tends to
happen in tournaments.
Seeker