Talk:Celebrity Blackjack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Celebrity Blackjack is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
 |
A Television infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. For formatting information see the instructions. |
[edit] Results
Starting this for results of the two series. I'm only planning on putting the final table in the article but if someone wants the whole tournament feel free to whack away. Table 1 winner Shannon Elizabeth playing for Animal Avengers. Otto4711 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Table 2 winner Chynna Philips playing for Tribal Heart. Otto4711 03:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Table 3 winner Dean Cain playing for The Malibu Foundation for Youth and Families Otto4711 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Table 4 winner Caroline Rea playing for Much Love Animal Rescue and Project ALS Otto4711 03:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Table 5 winner Ben Stein playing for Friends of Animals Otto4711 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other Discussion
Why is this a stub? From viewing quite a number of other GSN games, this would be almost as sufficient as it stands.
Why is this in Gambling? While Blackjack can be considered a gambling game, there are no real stakes for the contestants. This is simply playing with producer money...
According to a press release:
"In the second season, the first ten episodes will feature four celebrities playing tournament-style blackjack with each respective winner advancing to the semi-finals. Each player will receive $10,000 for their charity, with the winner of each game receiving $25,000 and a place in the semi-finals, which will consists of two games with five players each."
It is sufficient to note that the players have no risk of loss or potential for personal gain, with the use of "money" as solely a scorekeeping device to determine who "wins." All participants have a guaranteed minimum return on time spent playing the game and the winner has a predetermined payout for that charity. It can be argued that the mere fact that the game is played with bets and with a game known for being a "gambling" game that this show can be part of gambling. However, it can be offered as a counterpoint that any game show that offers the ability to lose current "winnings" based upon a [calculated?] risk should also be considered "gambling"
--Crythias 18:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
