Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
First off, thank you for posting this very long and detailed account of your tournament. I enjoyed reading it.

And of course I'm always happy when a radio listener decides to jump feet first into posting on this sometimes obnoxious forum.

I do have a few comments/questions for you, though:

1) What are your complaints of shadiness? If I read it correctly, it's the addition of no-chip-touching, no deal making, and blocking view of the final 2 tables -- even though none are in the rules, right?

2) Regarding the no-chip-touching, I don't see that as so bad. As someone else pointed out, there were likely complaints, and other players felt it was unfair to them. I can understand this on-the-fly rule change.

3) Regarding the no deal making, I actually understand that, given the extra prize for winning both events. Deal-making circumvents that requirement to some extent, so again, I feel the casino has the right to disallow that, even if not explicitly mentioned in the printed rules.

4) Regarding the final-table-blockade: Again, this was understandable in order to keep things fair.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think they did much wrong.

Props to you for figuring out correct blackjack tournament strategy so quickly, though.

Thanks Druff.

1. Yes on all 3 points.

2. I agree that there was probably a complaint since the dealer would give everyone each players' chip count only prior to hand #15. During the rest of play it was up to the players to eye the stacks of their opponents to get an estimate of their remaining chips. Most players were oblivious as to why keeping hand-by-hand tabs on your opponents' chip stack is a critical part of tournament strategy. I would rather have had a player ask me to lift my hands during play so I'd know which player was aware of tournament strategy. My only point here was that, from what I could observe, I was the only player riffling chips during play.

3. I understand the no deal making to some extent. I've only reached the final table during 1 poker tournament -- and that tourney was a free roll put on by my local Florida poker room. Once everyone made the money deals were discussed several times, assisted by the floor staff, and finally agreed upon when we were 7 handed. Assuming the car promo wasn't a factor, I'd think that once your 180 blackjack tournament guests made the final round of 10 that agreeing on a deal would be fine -- even if some of those entrants did pay to enter the tourney (though from what I saw this was very small and most likely limited to only the 30 players in the second chance round.) With the extremely top-heavy payout structure a deal was very attractive. So, had no car been involved, or I wasn't a part of Sunday's finals, would you think that a deal would be squelched by the Caesars?

4. Once I had asked someone how much cash I could get in lieu and they said $30k, which was no where near the $47k sticker, I figured that they weren't insuring the car. If someone won both tournaments that the casino was on the hook for the car. You've seen these $100k half-court shot drawings where the university picks some guy in the stands to make the shot, but the university isn't paying the $100k -- just buying the insurance from some other company. I don't think Caesars did that. This gave them more incentive to form the human blockade. Wouldn't you want to use my winning the car on billboards and in ads to promote future tournaments?

As I said, all are minor, but after listening to Bart's story it just got me thinking. I enjoy the show and thought a post was a way to add my voice to the discussion. Thanks Druff.