hard18: Tournament Question

[hard18]

I am new to BJ Tournaments and would like someone to point out the flaw in this logic.

In a BJ Tournament in which you have a Basic Strategy edge(2:1 BJs for example) why not just go for the lead on every hand? Example hand one bet the min. and on hand two if you arent the leader bet whatever it would take to be the leader if you win your bet at even money and so on until the end of the round. This assumes that only one person will move on from the round. If two people move on always go for second. Thanks in advance for the help.

Good Luck
hard18

[Parker]

> I am new to BJ Tournaments and would like
> someone to point out the flaw in this logic.

> In a BJ Tournament in which you have a Basic
> Strategy edge(2:1 BJs for example) why not
> just go for the lead on every hand? Example
> hand one bet the min. and on hand two if you
> arent the leader bet whatever it would take
> to be the leader if you win your bet at even
> money and so on until the end of the round.
> This assumes that only one person will move
> on from the round. If two people move on
> always go for second. Thanks in advance for
> the help.

It is much more complex than that. For starters, in every tournament that I have ever been in, "first base" rotates around the table, and players must bet in order - sort of like a poker game. So, in many cases you must bet without knowing exactly what it will take to gain the lead.

Remember, you are playing against the other players rather than the dealer. If the rules give you a positive edge, then they give everyone at the table a positive edge.

In addition, in many cases your bet will be constrained by table limits or how many chips you have left.

Sometimes you may even hope to lose a hand. For example, if you bet last and everyone else has bet the table limit, a viable strategy might be to make a small bet and hope that the dealer draws a blackjack or draws to 21.

Tournament strategy is complex, and radically different from regular blackjack play. Anyone considering tournament play should obtain a copy of Casino Tournament Strategy by Stanford Wong. While it covers several types of casino tourmaments, over half the book is devoted to blackjack tournaments.

In order to have an edge at a tournament, you must read and study this book.

Why? Because it is a sure bet that there will be others at the tournament that have done so.

[Magician]

> I am new to BJ Tournaments and would like
> someone to point out the flaw in this logic.

> In a BJ Tournament in which you have a Basic
> Strategy edge(2:1 BJs for example) why not
> just go for the lead on every hand?

Having the lead on every hand is not the goal. You need to have the lead after the last hand. Going for the lead on every hand seems far too risky. You will be doubling up on most of your losses (just like a martingale progression) and probably tap out quickly most of the time. Whether you have a BS edge or not makes little difference for this strategy, and for tournament play in general.

As well as his book, Stanford Wong also has software that you can use to try out strategies like this.

[Parker]

Casino Verite has an extremely versatile and useful tournament mode.

[Norm Wattenberger]

Thanks, and a few words:

Tournaments are a long overlooked area of advantage play. The neat thing about tournaments is that the casino really doesn?t care what you do. There is no heat. And, they don?t even look for a direct profit in nearly all cases. The advantage is actually for the players. Tournaments are a ?loss leader.? They want to attract people to play a high advantage game knowing full well that most of them will also lose at other games. To the casinos it?s like Bingo. They make little money at Bingo; but the Bingo winners lose the money back at slots. And their losses are fixed. These are low-variance advertising costs.

Unfortunately, the million dollar BJ tournament at the Hilton may not have been considered ?successful.? Who knows if it actually was. How can you measure the losses of the tournament players at other games against the gained image of LV Hilton. (And they can use an image upgrade.) (And yeh I was barred at LV Hilton quite awhile back.) It is like all advertisement. It is not possible to accurately measure the total effects of an advertising campaign. Meanwhile, advantage players can take advantage of tournaments.

norm

[Parker]

> Thanks, and a few words:

> Tournaments are a long overlooked area of
> advantage play. The neat thing about
> tournaments is that the casino really
> doesn?t care what you do. There is no heat.
> And, they don?t even look for a direct
> profit in nearly all cases. The advantage is
> actually for the players. Tournaments are a
> ?loss leader.? They want to attract people
> to play a high advantage game knowing full
> well that most of them will also lose at
> other games. To the casinos it?s like Bingo.
> They make little money at Bingo; but the
> Bingo winners lose the money back at slots.
> And their losses are fixed. These are
> low-variance advertising costs.

> Unfortunately, the million dollar BJ
> tournament at the Hilton may not have been
> considered ?successful.? Who knows if it
> actually was. How can you measure the losses
> of the tournament players at other games
> against the gained image of LV Hilton. (And
> they can use an image upgrade.) (And yeh I
> was barred at LV Hilton quite awhile back.)
> It is like all advertisement. It is not
> possible to accurately measure the total
> effects of an advertising campaign.
> Meanwhile, advantage players can take
> advantage of tournaments.

All true. It's hard for the casinos (or anyone, for that matter) to measure the intangible benefits of such a high stakes tournament. Look at the World Series of Poker, which just may have saved the Horseshoe, at least for the time being.

What I found interesting about the Hilton tournament is that they made it clear that even players who had been backed off or barred there were welcome to enter in the tournament. Hence Stanford Wong played as Stanford Wong, Anthony Curtis entered under his own name, etc.

Imagine the reaction of your average nobody recreational blackjack player who finds himself sitting at the same table with the likes of Wong and Curtis. A little intimidating, perhaps, but still a thrill to know that you're going up against the best.

[pocketrockets]

optimum bet is the kelly bet, except when you can no longer win with it
your strategy is ok, as long as you realize that you shouldn't chase wild betters until you have to because they tend to wipe out and if you're trying to pass someone, you have to bet contrary, which of course you can probably only do if you bet after they do - the point is betting and betting position is critical

> I am new to BJ Tournaments and would like
> someone to point out the flaw in this logic.

> In a BJ Tournament in which you have a Basic
> Strategy edge(2:1 BJs for example) why not
> just go for the lead on every hand? Example
> hand one bet the min. and on hand two if you
> arent the leader bet whatever it would take
> to be the leader if you win your bet at even
> money and so on until the end of the round.
> This assumes that only one person will move
> on from the round. If two people move on
> always go for second. Thanks in advance for
> the help.

> Good Luck
> hard18