player vs player blackjack - vsJack.com

[vsJack]

Thanks for the comments Tthree.

I think you are pointing out the most interesting part of the game. We want to make a game that is entertaining for the average player. Often those tools become ways for AP players to find an edge.

We are discussing this intensely at the moment. Which would make the game "better", doubling all hands or allowing more splitting. Doubling is easier to understand and use. But splitting could be more fun and a lot more strategic.

I would love to hear your (and other people here) thoughts on this. If we set up some demo version of the game would you be interested in testing it?

[Gronbog]

This game was mentioned on another thread (http://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sho...ayer-vs-Player) and I was asked to review a video tutorial on the tournament format (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEe3i...layer_embedded). I did watch the video and I do have a couple comments and questions:

• It appears that there is an escalating betting requirement, but it was not clear to me whether this is a minimum bet (like the blinds in poker) or a mandatory bet amount. In a blackjack tournament, most of the skill lies in bet sizing and sometimes, even late in the round, making a small bet, or a bet smaller than what your opponent has bet, is the right strategic play. An escalating minimum would take some of the skill out of the tournament. A mandatory bet amount would take most of the skill out of it.
• The rotating 3d table view was cool (in my opinion), but it had the effect of making some of the other players' hands difficult to see. There are times during tournament play when you play your cards differently depending on your opponents' hands (both completed and yet to be played). It is critical that your opponents' bankrolls, bets and cards are clearly visible at all times.
• I didn't see anything about how many hands were in each round. You want enough hands so that each player at a full table would be the dealer an equal number of times if no one is eliminated early (at least twice) but not too many, as each round would then take too long to play. 21 hands is a good number when a full table is 7 players. 18 if a full table is 6 players. Whatever you choose, base it on a full table, but don't change it if the table is not full.
• I didn't see anything about what the starting bankroll is or what the minimum-maximum bets are (other than the mysterious escalating bet). These can have a huge influence on how the game is played. Low maximums encourage a more aggressive game (reduced skill component). Maximums which are too high can make it into a bit of a lottery (also reduced skill component). Ideally the minimum should be low (less than 5% of the starting bankroll) and the maximum should be much larger, but not too large. Say 50% of the starting bankroll or less. This allows for a wide variety of strategic bets (increased skill component).
• Seat all players randomly and not sequentially. Seat position during the final few hands is critical and random seat assigment is the only way to make it fair.

I hope Norm doesn't mind, but there is a thread over at blackjacktournaments.com where someone was asking about what tournament players like/dislike about how tournaments are run (http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/...ead.php?t=7887). Some of it applies to live tournament events, but there is a fair amount there about good/bad tournament formats and rules in general.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I need to re-read this thread - but it feels to me like the rake is prohibitive.

[Frostbyte]

I need to re-read this thread - but it feels to me like the rake is prohibitive.

My thoughts exactly. Online poker has a miniscule rake, as this should, because a) you're going to get far more hands per hour than live games and b) the marginal cost of each additional table is essentially zero.

[dharmaprija]

Have been to the site and for entertainment purposes the game is enjoyable. If I were to invest stake in it I would have issues with being dealer. A concerted effort on the part of other players, i.e. betting $100 each when they see my BR is only $20 for example, would end ones play immediately. I believe in CA the House covers a portion of bets when an individual is playing as dealer. I think that the game should be made "countable" via utilizing 6 simulated decks, which would allow for Skilled players to compete with one another based on their counting skills and system. This would also change ones strategy when assuming "dealer" duties. If you're facing a +7TC as dealer you know what you might be in for. Now imagine your the dealer having that TC of +7, facing an opponent who only has ONE UP CARD SHOWING as well and you both have a 3 showing. Your opponent STANDS...what do you do? The counts high, your % of landing a paint and busting is high, your opponent must(of bluffs) be sitting with 13, hit to win or stand for push? BAM the opponent had an ACE and his 14 crushes your 13. Those rules(all players showing just 1 card, having a countable shoe) would make it more interesting to me. I think one should have the opportunity to "pass" on being dealer as well. I am not a big fan of the fact that one can simply continue to draw cards as dealer AFTER also having the advantage of seeing what your opponent(s) hand total is. In B&M casinos that is one of the factors that help reduce the houses edge, the fact they cant continue to hit. When i played it seemed like, "Oh well, my opponent has 19, I have 18, there is NO CONSEQUENCE/HINDRANCE for me to simply continue to hit and try to "luck out" and beat them. Something odd about that. No skill, No challenge, No strategy to it, just hit. Now if you could only see an opponents UP card then you would have some drama.

[steveistheman84]

i think it's a great idea. i already play this at the bar with my buddy and whoever. we play single deck, reno rules, min bet .25, max bet $1 (or 2 hands at .75). i use hi-opt-1 w/A side count and full indices, whereas he uses a lazy inaccurate hi-lo, with "feel" indices, and incomplete basic strategy. when dealing, we take off 10 cards, deal the rest until there is only the remaining 10 or less.