I'm one of the fortunate ones to get the World Series of Blackjack for free. I saw the one with Stanford last night. It was the best episode of the WSOB that I have seen thus far. Stanford was encouraging the player next to him to split 10s and when the guy hit and got a 21, he told him that he should have doubled it. I guess he was trying to put him on tilt. It was the most lively group that I have seen at a blackjack table. If Stanford had a big bet out, and the rest didn't, they were totally screaming at the dealer to get 20s and 21s. The guy at first base got 4 bjs. He got 3 bjs in a row. Jimmy ended up winning after the guy at first base, Previn, bet too much money on the last hand. Jimmy bet 100 dollars on the last hand. Stanford and the female finished last. The Casino guy, Nick, was next to finish. Then Previn, and Jimmy won. The whole table was talking trash to each other. It was very much like a poker game.
Stanford Wong finished last at his table
- Thread starter john
- Start date
"Jimmy ended up winning after the guy at first base, Previn, bet too much money on the last hand. Jimmy bet 100 dollars on the last hand. "
Jimmy got luckey!
I believe that for the final hand Previn had around 9700 and Jimmy had 12400. Previn was to bet first. I do agree that Previn bet too much by going in for 5000 (I believe he should have covered Jimmy's lead), but Jimmy bet too little by only betting 100.
Previn would have won 1st if Previn won and Jimmy won.
Previn would have won 1st if Previn won and Jimmy lost.
Jimmy would have won 1st if Previn lost and Jimmy won.
Jimmy would have won 1st if Previn lost and Jimmy lost.
If Jimmy would have bet enough to cover Previn's gain from winning his hand if he also won, then he would have covered three of the four above situations.
If the above was the actual standings (I don't remember the exact numbers) then if Previn bet 5000, Jimmy should have bet 2400 and win 1st if both won!
I think I got the senerio right but I'll have to re-watch it.
Pill
Jimmy got luckey!
I believe that for the final hand Previn had around 9700 and Jimmy had 12400. Previn was to bet first. I do agree that Previn bet too much by going in for 5000 (I believe he should have covered Jimmy's lead), but Jimmy bet too little by only betting 100.
Previn would have won 1st if Previn won and Jimmy won.
Previn would have won 1st if Previn won and Jimmy lost.
Jimmy would have won 1st if Previn lost and Jimmy won.
Jimmy would have won 1st if Previn lost and Jimmy lost.
If Jimmy would have bet enough to cover Previn's gain from winning his hand if he also won, then he would have covered three of the four above situations.
If the above was the actual standings (I don't remember the exact numbers) then if Previn bet 5000, Jimmy should have bet 2400 and win 1st if both won!
I think I got the senerio right but I'll have to re-watch it.
Pill
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
My prediction is on BJ21. No name brand will win it, not a big name.
Re: What Channel is this on? *LINK*
Game Show Network. This is something that we get with the basic DirecTV service.
See link for schedule or go to www.gsn.com
Pill
Game Show Network. This is something that we get with the basic DirecTV service.
See link for schedule or go to www.gsn.com
Pill
JOHN HUSTLER
New Member
Anything thing can happen in that series? Wong is still one of the greats. I could split 6's against and ace all day and win that thing. Its a short term event remember, it means nothing.
Rob McGarvey
Well-Known Member
Exactly My Point
With only 30 hands to play, the greats really can't shine. The winner is not always a champion, a true great, s/he is just a winner. Winner of some decent money mind you. It really proves nothing but does sell TV commercials. It turns our artform into a sport. Knowing this, the odds are with me simply because there are more less than great players than there are really great players.
With only 30 hands to play, the greats really can't shine. The winner is not always a champion, a true great, s/he is just a winner. Winner of some decent money mind you. It really proves nothing but does sell TV commercials. It turns our artform into a sport. Knowing this, the odds are with me simply because there are more less than great players than there are really great players.