World Series of BJ show 3/18/04

[Easy E]

I watched about 2/3 of this show tonight. Michael Konick and Anthony Curtis were the "name" players, with Max Rubin as one of the play-by-play announcers and in-house expert. There was also a Harvard grad/professor, an amateur woman and what I think was an experienced woman BJ player (who was being sweated by her husband? the entire time)

The format evidently is that there are satellite rounds to get into the championship table (of 5 finalists?). They deal 30 hands of blackjack. There is a button labeled "First Bet" that travels around. The players must bet in turn, based on that button position- evidently a key part of tournament strategy is what to bet as an offensive or defensive weapon against the other players.

Prizes were- 1st place: $10K and entry into the final table. 2nd place: $5K and entry into a wild-card table (evidently one winner from that table gets an entry into the final championship round)

One of the funniest moments in the show was the following: Michael Konick evidently thought his incredible poker reading skills could be used to read the dealer. He would stare her down for a long time, evidently trying to get a read on what her hand might be. He was not very good at it- he would say "I know you have a 17 or 18" and the dealer would later turn up a 13. After a few of these expert reads, he stood on a hard 17 against the dealer's Jack- this after another stare-down.
When the dealer turned over her hard 18, Mike announced to the table "I put her on an 18" with this smug all-knowing look on his face. Max Rubin, voice dripping with sarcasm, responded from his area with something like "Right, Michael!" and then "Sure you did, Karniak!" (however you spell that great mind-reader illusionist's name). It was CLASSIC, especially since Michael should have hit his 17 if he had indeed read the dealer's hand.

I really think that the dealer was getting pissed off about the staredowns and was sending false tells just to throw him off!

Michael did seem to know how to play tournament strategy, however, based on Max Rubin's comments. The staredowns and bad "reads" were pretty amusing, however.

In a lot of ways, it seemed more like the WBJT than the WSOBJ. The set, the attractive interviewer in the gown, the two announcers, the bet and card display all reminded me of the WPT setup, if not to the same degree of richness.
There were a lot of poker-type concepts, including the talk about position and the MK staredown fiascos. Max Rubin used the term "all-in" as well.

Anyway, mildly entertaining and somewhat enlightening to watch tournament BJ strategy being played. Max Rubin's constant commentary, mistake highlighting and bet suggestions were good, the color commentator (whoever he was) wasn't too bad. The show really didn't have a lot of energy, however.

Now I'm off to watch the 2003 US Championship on ESPN

[MaxPower]

Konik showed a lot of smarts in the way he bet, especially when he realized he could lock up second place. I don't know much about tournament strategy, but I was impressed.

It was a well produced and entertaining show, but blackjack doesn't have the same appeal as poker.

[Wake up CALL]

I turend to the 2003 US Championship on ESPN just in time to see Phil get drawn out on and roll on the ground in the dying cockraoch position. Thank you for this Easy, any opportunity I get to watch Helmuth suffer is entertaining to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Army Eye]

The betting strategies at the end was about the only interesting part I thought. Still seems silly to me to play blackjack in a tournmanent format.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
The betting strategies at the end was about the only interesting part I thought. Still seems silly to me to play blackjack in a tournmanent format.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, BJ is a great tournament format for card counters. I'd love to see what mason has to say about this. It's boring as watching paint dry to watch, but if you think about it, there is a huge skill level in counting cards and bet variation based on the count. A tournament is a great way to determine who is skilled at this, IMO. Of course, luck always helps, but you see what I'm saying.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
an experienced woman BJ player (who was being sweated by her husband? the entire time)


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, she was blind and her husband was calling out the cards for her.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
A tournament is a great way to determine who is skilled at this, IMO. Of course, luck always helps, but you see what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it? I thought BJ was a game of <1% edge for perfect execution, with huge variance. Seems like a nearly brownian motion gamble to me.

I'd rather see a computer tournament for this, with the winner being taken over a sample of 1M tournaments. There might be some skill in that.

eastbay

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A tournament is a great way to determine who is skilled at this, IMO. Of course, luck always helps, but you see what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it? I thought BJ was a game of <1% edge for perfect execution, with huge variance. Seems like a nearly brownian motion gamble to me.

I'd rather see a computer tournament for this, with the winner being taken over a sample of 1M tournaments. There might be some skill in that.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about an edge against the house and remember card counting isn't allowed in a table game of blackjack (if you get caught). So, in a tournament, you aren't playing against the house. You are playing against other player, there is no house to compete. So, it now becomes purely a game of skill (of course luck factors in). The players are now able to use their skills to determine the outcome, in addition to luck. The same as a poker tournament.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A tournament is a great way to determine who is skilled at this, IMO. Of course, luck always helps, but you see what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it? I thought BJ was a game of <1% edge for perfect execution, with huge variance. Seems like a nearly brownian motion gamble to me.

I'd rather see a computer tournament for this, with the winner being taken over a sample of 1M tournaments. There might be some skill in that.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about an edge against the house and remember card counting isn't allowed in a table game of blackjack (if you get caught). So, in a tournament, you aren't playing against the house. You are playing against other player, there is no house to compete. So, it now becomes purely a game of skill (of course luck factors in). The players are now able to use their skills to determine the outcome, in addition to luck. The same as a poker tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I misunderstand the format of a blackjack tournament. Don't they play against a dealer who plays a fixed strategy, whether it is "the house" or not? That is absolutely nothing like a poker tournament.

eastbay

[Easy E]

You're welcome.