If I could make up the rules for a blackjack tournament they would be this. First off you would start with a 100,000 chips. Minimum bet would be 10 and max bet would be 1,000 and they would never change. So you would start with a 100 max bets and 10,000 minimum bets. You would play a 100 hands. The game would be a double deck game. You would be allowed to double on any two cards and after a split. You would be a aloud to hit out split aces or even double down after spliting aces. Blackjack would only pay 3:2 and not 2:1 as it does in some tournaments. I feel these rules would help to take out some of the luck in the tournament and favor a more skilled player.
My ideal blackjack tournament rules...
- Thread starter Cardcounter
- Start date
Ideal rules are a slightly subjective subject, but there is a certain amount of consensus. If you search the forum at https://www.blackjacktournaments.com/, you'll probably find a number of threads discussing the matter.
[I'm assuming we are only talking about table-elimination formats here, rather than accumulation (where you play against everybody, not just those at your table).]
There was a rule-set created, as an attempt at standardisation, and with the aim of rewarding tournament skills as much as possible. You can view it here - TBJPA Rules
Getting to the specifics -
More rounds is generally a good thing, but 100 seems like overkill (and would be impractical due to the time it would take). I think around 30 is ideal. 24 was the number chosen in the TBJPA rules.
Starting with 100 max bets would be very unusual, and I don't think it would be helpful. 2.5 max bets is the TBJPA figure. One of the benefits of a relatively small starting bankroll is that inexperienced players tend to come out all-guns-blazing and either bust out early or are left on the final hand with too few chips to overtake the leaders, even if they go all-in and win. Of course sometimes they build a huge lead, and you have to give chase.
2:1 BJs are evil! :grin:
A big factor is the number of players advancing from the table. In some tournaments it might be 1 from 6, which means just one of your five opponents needs to get lucky in order to ruin your day. It's much better if the top 2 or 3 advance from the table.
[I'm assuming we are only talking about table-elimination formats here, rather than accumulation (where you play against everybody, not just those at your table).]
There was a rule-set created, as an attempt at standardisation, and with the aim of rewarding tournament skills as much as possible. You can view it here - TBJPA Rules
Getting to the specifics -
More rounds is generally a good thing, but 100 seems like overkill (and would be impractical due to the time it would take). I think around 30 is ideal. 24 was the number chosen in the TBJPA rules.
Starting with 100 max bets would be very unusual, and I don't think it would be helpful. 2.5 max bets is the TBJPA figure. One of the benefits of a relatively small starting bankroll is that inexperienced players tend to come out all-guns-blazing and either bust out early or are left on the final hand with too few chips to overtake the leaders, even if they go all-in and win. Of course sometimes they build a huge lead, and you have to give chase.
2:1 BJs are evil! :grin:
A big factor is the number of players advancing from the table. In some tournaments it might be 1 from 6, which means just one of your five opponents needs to get lucky in order to ruin your day. It's much better if the top 2 or 3 advance from the table.
Colin is right. Adding more rounds and changing the bankroll to minimum bet ratio like the OP suggests sound like ideas that he intends to make a tournament more counter-friendly. However, any edge gained by counting through the first 90 hands would be handily offset by the usual tournament strategies employed by tournament experts in the final ten hands.
If you wanted to create a card counter contest you would need a very large number of hands, ideally with each player competing separately with no indication of what other players' bankroll totals are. I suspect that even then, the optimal strategy would be to massively overbet your bankroll, increasing variance. Tournaments are just different animals.
If you wanted to create a card counter contest you would need a very large number of hands, ideally with each player competing separately with no indication of what other players' bankroll totals are. I suspect that even then, the optimal strategy would be to massively overbet your bankroll, increasing variance. Tournaments are just different animals.
Not quite the scenario you describe, but this article is a good read -
SELF-STYLED BLACKJACK TOURNAMENT EXPERTS TAKE A BATH IN RENO
By Peter A. Griffin
(From Blackjack Forum Volume VI #4, December 1986)
© Blackjack Forum 1986
SELF-STYLED BLACKJACK TOURNAMENT EXPERTS TAKE A BATH IN RENO
By Peter A. Griffin
(From Blackjack Forum Volume VI #4, December 1986)
© Blackjack Forum 1986
deep bankroll is needed.
I really like the idea of having a deep bank roll that would make it impossible to bust out on. I have busted out of a lot of tournaments. With that big of a bankroll nobody would bust out and people could come from behind! I just hate the fact that 1 or 2 hands can determine the tournament. A 100 hands would not take that long to play a fast dealer can deal 200 or 300 hands an hour so a 100 hands would take about 2 hours to play because there would be 6 people at the table. In the world series of poker they play for weeks so whats 2 hours?
I really like the idea of having a deep bank roll that would make it impossible to bust out on. I have busted out of a lot of tournaments. With that big of a bankroll nobody would bust out and people could come from behind! I just hate the fact that 1 or 2 hands can determine the tournament. A 100 hands would not take that long to play a fast dealer can deal 200 or 300 hands an hour so a 100 hands would take about 2 hours to play because there would be 6 people at the table. In the world series of poker they play for weeks so whats 2 hours?
Bet sizing is the principal skill involved in tournament play. Yes you will often go bust before the final hand is reached, but the goal is to maximize your chances of winning, not to ensure you play every hand. (Plus ideal tournaments will let you rebuy at least once, starting afresh at a new table.)
If you had an almost limitless supply of chips, then bombing away with a succession of max bets would probably be the best tactic much of the time.
With a more typical amount, those who are too aggressive early on put themselves at a disadvantage, and so do those who bet too little at key times because they are unwilling to risk busting out.
From a player's perspective, the chief argument against such a length is that it doesn't actually benefit skillful play. It's way too short to be a test of card-counting skills, but not really much different to 20 or 30 hands when it comes to tournament skills.
From the hosts' perspective I think it's a question of economics:
Poker tournaments make money, as players are prepared to pay a hefty entry fee.
Blackjack tournaments do the opposite, as players expect at the very least that all buyin money goes into the prize pool, and ideally we want the casino to top it up with some of their own money!
The purpose of a blackjack tournament (or roulette, slots, etc.) is to get people through the door, so that they will hopefully spend/lose lots of money on other activitities within the casino.
The longer a tournament lasts, and the more dealers and tables it occupies, keeping them away from dealing regular games with a house edge, the less attractive a proposition it is to the casino.
If you had an almost limitless supply of chips, then bombing away with a succession of max bets would probably be the best tactic much of the time.
With a more typical amount, those who are too aggressive early on put themselves at a disadvantage, and so do those who bet too little at key times because they are unwilling to risk busting out.
From a player's perspective, the chief argument against such a length is that it doesn't actually benefit skillful play. It's way too short to be a test of card-counting skills, but not really much different to 20 or 30 hands when it comes to tournament skills.
From the hosts' perspective I think it's a question of economics:
Poker tournaments make money, as players are prepared to pay a hefty entry fee.
Blackjack tournaments do the opposite, as players expect at the very least that all buyin money goes into the prize pool, and ideally we want the casino to top it up with some of their own money!
The purpose of a blackjack tournament (or roulette, slots, etc.) is to get people through the door, so that they will hopefully spend/lose lots of money on other activitities within the casino.
The longer a tournament lasts, and the more dealers and tables it occupies, keeping them away from dealing regular games with a house edge, the less attractive a proposition it is to the casino.
I have played a small handful of BJ tourneys and the ONLY one I didn't bust out of I won. It was the final round (mini-tourney) and I calc'd that I needed to chunk my entire chips to have a shot - $1400 - and the dealer promptly threw $400 back at me because the limit was $1000 - and in the next moment I'm looking at 88 and not enough left to split - I doubled for less and caught the 5! Now THAT is the skill. z:laugh:g
The big starting bankroll would be my most important rule change. That way nobody would bust out and they would have a chance to get back in the game until the last few hands. Does anybody know of deep stack blackjack tournaments in reno?
The also have the world series of blackjack on T.V. so that would be an exception where the casino could make money if not of the players for t.v. rights plus they get free advertising.
The also have the world series of blackjack on T.V. so that would be an exception where the casino could make money if not of the players for t.v. rights plus they get free advertising.
Actually, making sure you've understood all of the rules in force can be another major factor. You wouldn't have been able to recover from your overbet mistake if this rule had been in force -
And I think some places would rule that a min bet should be placed for you, rather than a max, if you overbet.
But you're right: figuring out what you need to accomplish, and taking whatever long shot is open to you in order to try and get there is a big part of the final hand(s). Hit a hard 20, if that's the only way you can possibly win.
And I think some places would rule that a min bet should be placed for you, rather than a max, if you overbet.
But you're right: figuring out what you need to accomplish, and taking whatever long shot is open to you in order to try and get there is a big part of the final hand(s). Hit a hard 20, if that's the only way you can possibly win.