Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

Don't know if this is right forum - please move if needed...

In Colorado, they have $5 max bet limit casinos. The majority of the poker games spread are $2-5 limit (one $2-$5 blind, max raise $5 capped at $30 per betting round) and $5-$5 (two $5 blinds, capped at $30 per round).

As you may imagine, these low limit "crap shoots" are basically 5-6 people seeing a flop and chasing middle or low pair, gutshots, and 2 outers to the river (at least one always calling any river bet).

Presently the casinos have upped their rake to $1 per $10 pot up to $5 per $50 pot (basically 10% up to $50).

With the high rake, along with a $2 bad beat bonus take and an average of $1 tip per pot (16% avg house vig)... and the "no fold em call to the river suck-out players" is this game even beatable in the short or long term by competent proper poker play (if so, how big of an advantage would you need to have to overcome this)? Or, would it be better just to play basic strategy Blackjack (with very player friendly rules) with a house advantage of only .35% (as per wizard of odds)?

Thanks in advance!

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

How dare you sir. The poker game is better and it's not even close. That being said, pick up a copy of Sklansky's Small Stake's Hold'em first and read it.

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

Is your edge > -.35% playing poker? If so, then poker is the better game.

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

Really? Even with a house take of an avg 16% per pot. Any mathematicians out there?

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

The house avg take per pot is approximately $8 (with tip and bad beat) off the table per hand. They get in about 40-50 hands an hour. That's an avg of $320-$400 off the table per hour!!! That's like 4 people losing a rack every hour just to the house! Once again, is this game even beatable? If so, how much of an advantage do I really need to have to beat this game?
Should I just play blackjack to satisfy my gambling fix?
(no nl poker or higher stakes available in Colorado [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img])

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Even with a house take of an avg 16% per pot. Any mathematicians out there?

[/ QUOTE ]

my >-.35% number already includes the rake.

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
max raise $5 capped at $30 per betting round

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean? Does this mean that if someone in EP bets $5 and there are 5 callers, everone else must fold.. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

So CO has a 6bet cap?

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

If I took my 664 poker hours and played perfect blackjack and lost the perfect 0.0035% rate at 40 hands per hour and $10 per hand, I would be -$930 YTD. The same hours, with LA's bad rake at games ranging from 2/4-4/8 with some time @ O/8 and in LV, +$215 YTD, all rakes and tips included.

At the end of the day blackjack IS EV-. At the end of the same day, LL poker MAY BE EV-. YMMV.

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
max raise $5 capped at $30 per betting round

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean? Does this mean that if someone in EP bets $5 and there are 5 callers, everone else must fold.. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

So CO has a 6bet cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm sorry, it is a 6 raise cap. They cap the raises at $30 per round.

Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I took my 664 poker hours and played perfect blackjack and lost the perfect 0.0035% rate at 40 hands per hour and $10 per hand, I would be -$930 YTD. The same hours, with LA's bad rake at games ranging from 2/4-4/8 with some time @ O/8 and in LV, +$215 YTD, all rakes and tips included.

At the end of the day blackjack IS EV-. At the end of the same day, LL poker MAY BE EV-. YMMV.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be ahead playing blackjack too, you never know. 1 year is too small of a sample size for the probability. Maybe you have a -ev in small stakes poker too, you're just runnin well. Who knows? That's why I'm calling out for some hard probability percentages to compare.

I know .35% Blackjack is still -EV, but is it less than "no fold em" low stakes limit poker with the a house vig of approx 16%. How much (percentage wise) better than my lose opponents do I need to be to beat this game AND the house?