For the past seventeen years, a number of blackjack professionals have met annually at an undisclosed Las Vegas location to swap war stories, renew acquaintances, and to challenge each other with various contests. This shindig is called the Blackjack Ball and is hosted by Max Rubin and Barona Casino. Although I’m a couple of decades removed from being a professional blackjack player, I am fortunate to have been invited the past two years. This is at least partially explained because my Gambling with an Edge co-host Richard Munchkin lobbied for my inclusion. Thank you, Munch!
Every year, there is a competition among the players. Max Rubin begins by reading off twenty-one tough questions. The top five scorers on that test move to the final table. One person is quickly eliminated from those five and the remaining four earn some money for the people who “own” them.
Before the competition, there is a “Calcutta” where players bet on who is going to win. Arguably the best player there, James Grosjean, was “retired” from playing because he had previously won three times. His “consolation prize” is that the rest of the players are fighting over the “James Grosjean Cup.” Munchkin had won twice himself, so one more win and he would also be retired from further competitions. The highest bid for an individual in the Calcutta was for Munchkin — because everybody knows he does well in these contests. There are also different groups you can bid on. I’m not going to list names because I’m sure not everyone wants to be “outed.” (Every person I name in this article has given me permission to use his name). I was in the field — which means “none-of-the-above.” The price for the field was about 50% higher than the price for Munchkin himself — but the field consisted of about twenty players. Each player had the right to buy himself back from whoever bought him in the Calcutta. I declined to bet on myself. I figured I had a decent shot during the test portion of the competition, but I didn’t feel that I had the blackjack skills necessary to win if I got to the final table.
I had an advantage in the test because I had actually submitted one of the questions. Readers of my columns should get it right, because it’s very easy. But I promise that some will miss it. Go ahead and try: True or false: In the Jacks or Better game returning 99.54% with appropriate play, full houses return 8-to-1 and flushes return 5-to-1. That’s the whole question. Do you think it is true or false?
I told you it was easy. It’s also tricky. The game we are talking about is 9/6 Jacks or Better, where the 9/6 refers to 9-for-1 and 6-for-1. But, as you know, 9-for-1 is the same as 8-to-1 and 6-for-1 is the same as 5-to-1. So the answer is true! Did you get it right?
I ended up with fourteen correct answers, which was higher than anyone else. I was very surprised at this. It turns out that I would have won even if I didn’t have inside information on the video poker question, so nobody had hard feelings about me submitting a question and then getting it right. Munchkin scored thirteen, which put him in second place. Two players scored twelve (Wally Simmons and “JT”), and two other players tied with eleven (Anthony Curtis, publisher of Las Vegas Advisor, and Henry Tamburin, publisher of the Blackjack Insider.) Since the final table was limited to five players, a playoff was held between Anthony and Henry to establish the fifth person in the contest. They alternated naming any of the thirty-six states that currently have legal blackjack tables according to Current Blackjack News, including the ports of cruises to nowhere. They got well over twenty states named correctly before Henry erroneously selected Maryland and was eliminated. (It wasn’t a terrible guess. Blackjack was recently approved in Maryland, but so far there are no tables in operation there.)
Then they had to find a way for five players to become four — so they had a card-counting-for-speed contest. Since I hadn’t counted cards for twenty years, I figured I couldn’t do it nearly as well as the others, so I just guessed. It turned out to be a bad decision on my part. The count I needed to do was pretty simple, but I guessed wrong, and was eliminated. In hindsight, I should have taken my time and gotten it right.
There were a variety of games played among the final four contestants. First was a game called “Winner Take All Showdown Poker.” Each player was forced to bet $250 of his $1,000 starting chip-stack. Max dealt each player six cards and the players then arranged them in three sets of two. They each turned over their first set and the lowest player was eliminated from this contest. They then turned over their second set of two cards and one more player was eliminated. Finally, the last two players turned over their cards and the high hand took the pot. It’s not at all obvious how you should arrange your cards. You can hope to be dealt AAAAKK, which would be a guaranteed winner, but otherwise, it’s a tricky problem. Wally won this one.
Next they had a contest where each contestant had to give a signal to someone in the crowd. Munchkin called for Darryl Purpose, his long time partner, and they crushed this one. They’ve been signaling to each other for decades and have their personal signs down cold — with probably three different ways to signal anything. Nobody else at the table had a regular partner with whom they had worked out signals, so this one was an easy victory for Munch. In fact, Munch was so smooth that most of us didn’t even see him signaling to Darryl.
There was then one hand of blackjack to be played. Munchkin was in the worst position, because he had to bet first and play first. So right or wrong, he bet the minimum and surrendered. This is only going to win outright if the dealer makes a good hand and everybody else loses. But even when it doesn’t win, he ends up losing the least amount possible. Anthony Curtis was in the best position, so he bet everything and stood pat on a 19. (This could have backfired. Each hand is about 50-50 whether the player or dealer is going to win. Anthony was risking everything on a 50-50 bet while Munchkin was betting almost nothing on the same bet.) The dealer busted, so Anthony won the most.
One more game had to be played for this “round” and at the end of this game, the low man would be eliminated from the contest. JT was in fourth place going in, so the onus was on him to make a big bet and win that bet. (If he made a small bet, he’d be drawing dead whether he won or lost that bet.) The game was to estimate how many cards were in the discard tray — within four. The bet was secret and so was the guess. Everybody other than JT ended up betting the minimum. If JT got close to the number of cards in the discard tray, he would advance to the round of three. If not, Munchkin would continue. Wally and Anthony were locks at that point. As it turned out, there were 34 cards in the stack. Wally nailed the number on the nose and everybody else lost. This meant that JT was out and the other three advanced. (Standing near the table I silently guessed twenty-eight cards. I would’ve failed as well.)
There was an easy card-counting game — where all three players bet everything they had. Wally seemingly got the wrong answer but then appealed because he was certain that he was correct. His deck was counted and it was discovered that there were only fifty-one cards in it instead of fifty-two, so Wally was given credit for getting the right answer.
They then had a chip stacking contest. They started out with ten chips on the table and each player drew a card. If he drew a six, it meant he had to stack six more chips on the stack — with one hand. They kept going until the stack fell. By the luck of the draw, Wally was next-to-play both times the stack collapsed. So he ended up winning $300 in chips from both Anthony and Munchkin.
The next game was a contest to see if you could cut exactly fifteen cards from the bottom of the deck. This was particularly important to both Anthony and Munchkin because the low man would be eliminated. Wally was sitting pretty because he had won the previous game. Wally cut twelve. Anthony cut thirteen, and Munchkin nailed it with exactly fifteen. At that point, the current lowest score, Anthony, was eliminated.
When it finally became heads up, the game was a regular five-handed blackjack tournament, except that the second and fourth hands were “Blackjack Switch,” a variation where the “front cards” can be interchanged. Wally, who had to bet and play first on the first hand, bet everything he had. Munchkin bet half of what he had. This was a savvy bet by Munch. There was a 50% or so chance that Wally would lose the hand which would make Munchkin the winner of the whole match. And if Wally won, Munch would still have enough chips to mount a comeback. Anyway, Wally stood on his hard 16 versus a dealer 6 (the only reasonable play he could have made), and Munchkin was dealt a natural blackjack. (A little luck is a very welcome occurrence in any tournament!) When Max (the dealer) turned over a 5 as his hole card followed by a 9, the Blackjack Ball was over and Richard Munchkin was now a three-time champion. Way to go, Munch!
There was probably another contest lined up to be used if necessary. My guess was that it was going to be chip shuffling, where you make two side-by-side stacks of chips become a single stack — all with one hand. Whether that was the actual last game or not we’ll never know, because Wally was out of chips before it ever came to that.
Sixteen years ago at the very first Blackjack Ball, the three finalists were Wally, Anthony, and Munchkin (eventually won by Wally). At this year’s seventeenth Blackjack Ball, the same three guys were the last three standing, and Munchkin came home with the victory. Anthony was third this year, second last year, and has been in three or four other final tables. He has yet to win, but he has more final table appearances than almost anyone else.
Even though I came in first place on the written part of the test, I’m not a favorite to repeat next year. There were a lot of true-false and multiple-guess questions. This year several of my out-and-out guesses were, fortunately, correct. That’s not something I can count on happening next year. At the same time, since I read so much in preparation for both the radio show and writing my columns, I am likely to do pretty well. (That’s probably also why Anthony Curtis makes it to the final table so often.) I’ll start practicing some of my other blackjack skills, so that if I do make it to the finals again, I might be able to stick around a bit longer. At a minimum, I know I’ll have a better chance to win than Munchkin. His third win made him ineligible for future contests. If and when another player eventually wins a third time, perhaps Max will organize a special three-man challenge between Grosjean, Munchkin, and whoever the third player turns out to be. That would be fun to watch!
I had a great time at the Ball. One of my goals was to get at least three more guests for my radio show from those attending the Ball. I was able to do that. Within the next few months, we’ll have Barry Meadow (author of Blackjack Autumn), Mike Aponte (former MIT team player and current blackjack teacher and consultant), and Laurance Scott (a man who plays a winning game of roulette) on Gambling with an Edge. Although I knew the first two names, I didn’t know the men behind the names. Now I do and the rest of you will be treated to excellent radio guests in the near future.
An additional guest will be Max Rubin himself. Max has agreed to appear on the February 14 radio show to discuss many interesting things that have happened during the seventeen years of the Blackjack Ball. February 14 is Munchkin’s wedding anniversary, so I’m unsure if he can join us that night; however, I do have Arnold Snyder as a guest co-host. How bad can that be? I’m really looking forward to that show!