+EV on "Let it Ride?"

[spikeanut]

Anyone familiar with this game. It is a poker based game against the house. The pay-out seems fairly profitable since you have the chance to pull back your bets, and hands of two pair and higher pays better odds. Just curious.

[radek]

http://wizardofodds.com/

[WayAbvPar]

The house advantage is crippling. The movie of the same name, however, is awesome.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The house advantage is crippling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not "crippling." The house edge against someone who knows how to play is about 3.5%. However, it is possible to have some long bad streaks since you get a nonpaying hand almost 80% of the time.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The house advantage is crippling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not "crippling." The house edge against someone who knows how to play is about 3.5%. However, it is possible to have some long bad streaks since you get a nonpaying hand almost 80% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the fact htat blackjack is generally .5%-2%, 3.5% sounds pretty crippling to me.

[Skipbidder]

Yes, all the casinos made a huge mistake offering this game. I recommend that you take all the money you can scrounge up in order to play this game. If that doesn't work out for you, I recommend Keno or the Big Wheel.

Or else, you can just drive to the casino and throw money out the window on the way there. Then turn around and drive back and pick up as much of your money as you can find. Approximately the same expectation.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The house advantage is crippling.

[/ QUOTE ]It is not "crippling." The house edge against someone who knows how to play is about 3.5%.

[/ QUOTE ]Considering the fact htat blackjack is generally .5%-2%, 3.5% sounds pretty crippling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, how's this. "3.5% is about average among casino games."

I get it; you know how to play blackjack bs. But the existance of one game with lower rake doesn't make this one extraordinary. Calling it "crippling" is misleading, especially considering that the speed is dramatically slower. Your loss per hour should be right in line with some blackjack games.
-Sam

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The house advantage is crippling.

[/ QUOTE ]It is not "crippling." The house edge against someone who knows how to play is about 3.5%.

[/ QUOTE ]Considering the fact htat blackjack is generally .5%-2%, 3.5% sounds pretty crippling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, how's this. "3.5% is about average among casino games."

I get it; you know how to play blackjack bs. But the existance of one game with lower rake doesn't make this one extraordinary. Calling it "crippling" is misleading, especially considering that the speed is dramatically slower. Your loss per hour should be right in line with some blackjack games.
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]


ty sir

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The house advantage is crippling.

[/ QUOTE ]It is not "crippling." The house edge against someone who knows how to play is about 3.5%.

[/ QUOTE ]Considering the fact htat blackjack is generally .5%-2%, 3.5% sounds pretty crippling to me.

[/ QUOTE ]Ok, how's this. "3.5% is about average among casino games."

I get it; you know how to play blackjack bs. But the existance of one game with lower rake doesn't make this one extraordinary. Calling it "crippling" is misleading, especially considering that the speed is dramatically slower. Your loss per hour should be right in line with some blackjack games.
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

Just don't take the side bet.

[CORed]

Well, if you think you're getting your money's worth in entertainment, by all means play. But a 3.5% house advantage is a deal breaker for me.

[ckmo]

it depends if you can drink fast enough to overcome the 3.5% house edge. its tough but it can be done.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a poker based game against the house. The pay-out seems

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time you're in a casino, look around... then ask yourself this question

"Did they build all of this by offering +EV games?"