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

[fishyak]

With standard deviations you will never be able to figure it out. By the time you have enough data, your skill levels will have moved.

But if you are 16.01% better than the average no fold'em hold'em player in a 16% rake world, you are now EV+.

[Gap23Razor]

right now, i'd say play no limit hold em for low stakes...and maybe the no limit Fast Tournies a la Arnold Snyder are a good opportunity now (see his book The Poker Formula)

really, bj v poker depends on where you live, how much money you have, how much time you have, and how cold hearted you can be about taking money from someone that may not be able to afford losing...those are important factors

good blackjack games are only in a few places...and for good selection of low limit bj games to go to Reno Nevada...Vegas has a few good low limit shoe games, but most good games there call for you to be playing $25 and up games on the strip and be willing to go up to $300 to $400 per hand if you a just counting...and you need a big bankroll for that...there are a few other places with a few good games around the county...Gulf Coast, Indiana, Palm Springs, parts of Arizona and New Mexico, a couple of places in Atlantic City...again mostly shoes offered...but most places offer really bad bj games (high house edge, bad pen, continuouse shuffle machines or fake 2 deck games) that can't be beaten by just counting...there are other ways to win, but they require extensive training or scouting and only a serious player can commit to them

low limit hold em poker is more widespread, as most states have some form of legal poker play...it probably best you learn low no limit right now imho as it offered more frequently in casinos that spread poker, newbies want to play no limit rather than limit.

[jackhigh]

[ QUOTE ]
With standard deviations you will never be able to figure it out. By the time you have enough data, your skill levels will have moved.

But if you are 16.01% better than the average no fold'em hold'em player in a 16% rake world, you are now EV+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really attainable? If all the cards eventually "even out" - and in these small stakes "riverfests" you can't really outplay anybody and must always show down the best hand- how can anyone have much of an edge? A 10-16% house vig would make this the the absolute worst game in the house - worse than Keno? Am I missing something? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[leo doc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With standard deviations you will never be able to figure it out. By the time you have enough data, your skill levels will have moved.

But if you are 16.01% better than the average no fold'em hold'em player in a 16% rake world, you are now EV+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really attainable? If all the cards eventually "even out" - and in these small stakes "riverfests" you can't really outplay anybody and must always show down the best hand- how can anyone have much of an edge? A 10-16% house vig would make this the the absolute worst game in the house - worse than Keno? Am I missing something? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
You are mistaken in that "you really can't outplay anybody." (See SSHE's section on playing in very loose games.) fishyak is spot-on, if you're 16.1% (or more) better than the other players, then you'll be +EV playing poker because it'll be THEIR money paying your rake. In BJ, over the long term, it's YOUR money going to the house since they have the .35% advantage.

[NoSetNoBet]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this really attainable? If all the cards eventually "even out" - and in these small stakes "riverfests" you can't really outplay anybody and must always show down the best hand- how can anyone have much of an edge? A 10-16% house vig would make this the the absolute worst game in the house - worse than Keno? Am I missing something? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're describing a game in which everyone plays very badly, and you're asking if it's beatable? Are you suggesting that it would be easier to win in a game where your opponents play well? Are you serious?

LOL, please read SSHE by Sklansky and Miller. "Outplaying" your opponents in these games is so [censored] easy its sick.

[youlosepork]

play tight and dont tip

[KitCloudkicker]

jackhigh, so you want to play a game where you're guaranteed to lose in the long run?

and this low limit "crap shoot" argument has been presented and debunked so many times that honestly i get tired of reading it.

[mikeca]

Good poker players are tight. They do not enter very many hands and they do not win very many pots, so they pay a much smaller percentage of the rake then the other players. Yes there is a lot of money taken off the table by the rake, but it is the bad players that play 90% of their hands and win lots of pots that are paying most of that rake. The rake makes them bust out of the game more quickly but as long as there are more bad players to take their place when the bust out, you should not care.

If you are good enough and the other players are bad enough, you can still win with this rake, although clearly it makes it a little more difficult.

[Bob T.]

You want some numbers, let's start with the BJ game.

House advantage .35, HPH, about 70, and your average bet would of 5$.

Volume, would be 70H X 10$/h, or $700.

House, edge, $700 X .0035 = $2.45

If your going to tip at poker, I assume, you won't be a complete stiff, and you tip at BJ also. If you tip $2 an hout, your hourly cost would be $4.45.

Not many BJ games, are offered, that actually have that small of an edge, ( you can see why, if you think about how much the house makes on that game/hour, given how much they could make on the same space if it was filled with three slot machines ) Additionally, most BJ players, even the regular ones, (or maybe especially the regular ones) don't come close to playing a theorhetically perfect game. I frequently see players that have a house expectation well over 2%. And amusingly, they are usually the ones that are most willing to give other players advice.

Now, a quick look at your assumptions about the poker game.

[ QUOTE ]
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)?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said that the house took a 16% vig out of each pot. That isn't close to true. First, all of the $8 doesn't actually go to the house. $2 goes to the jackpot pool, most of which, eventually gets returned to the players. (Some , might even argue that a lot of dealers tips get returned to players through the playlist) Play long enough, and you will probably get your fair share of jackpot money. So, now the vig is down to 12%. Second thing to consider, is that that number assumes, $5 rake, and about a $50 dollar pot. From the reputation of these games, I would guess that pots that are only $50 are fairly rare, and maybe the avg pot size, is closer to $100. Now the rake is closer to 5%, and most games with a 5% rake, are pretty beatable, if you play reasonably well. Again by reputation, the colorado games, are filled with players that hate money, and so if you can find some ways to develop an edge which shouldn't be that hard. I think the games should easily be a lot better than the BJ game.

Finally if I was playing strictly for entertainment, I would rather poke sharp flaming objects into my eyes, than spend any more than a neglible amount of time at a blackjack table. But I might be jaded, I've probably only had to watch 30 or 40 million hands of BJ, and I would guess that after maybe the first 10 million, not much interesting happens.

[jackhigh]

[ QUOTE ]
You want some numbers, let's start with the BJ game.

House advantage .35, HPH, about 70, and your average bet would of 5$.

Volume, would be 70H X 10$/h, or $700.

House, edge, $700 X .0035 = $2.45

If your going to tip at poker, I assume, you won't be a complete stiff, and you tip at BJ also. If you tip $2 an hout, your hourly cost would be $4.45.

Not many BJ games, are offered, that actually have that small of an edge, ( you can see why, if you think about how much the house makes on that game/hour, given how much they could make on the same space if it was filled with three slot machines ) Additionally, most BJ players, even the regular ones, (or maybe especially the regular ones) don't come close to playing a theorhetically perfect game. I frequently see players that have a house expectation well over 2%. And amusingly, they are usually the ones that are most willing to give other players advice.

Now, a quick look at your assumptions about the poker game.

[ QUOTE ]
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)?


[/ QUOTE ]

You said that the house took a 16% vig out of each pot. That isn't close to true. First, all of the $8 doesn't actually go to the house. $2 goes to the jackpot pool, most of which, eventually gets returned to the players. (Some , might even argue that a lot of dealers tips get returned to players through the playlist) Play long enough, and you will probably get your fair share of jackpot money. So, now the vig is down to 12%. Second thing to consider, is that that number assumes, $5 rake, and about a $50 dollar pot. From the reputation of these games, I would guess that pots that are only $50 are fairly rare, and maybe the avg pot size, is closer to $100. Now the rake is closer to 5%, and most games with a 5% rake, are pretty beatable, if you play reasonably well. Again by reputation, the colorado games, are filled with players that hate money, and so if you can find some ways to develop an edge which shouldn't be that hard. I think the games should easily be a lot better than the BJ game.

Finally if I was playing strictly for entertainment, I would rather poke sharp flaming objects into my eyes, than spend any more than a neglible amount of time at a blackjack table. But I might be jaded, I've probably only had to watch 30 or 40 million hands of BJ, and I would guess that after maybe the first 10 million, not much interesting happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Blackjack games here in Colorado are actually very player friendly. According to Wizard of Odds they are about .35% and yes I do play a "perfect" basic strategy (not hard to learn).

I agree with what you're saying about playing when the pot gets larger to neutralize the high take. However, then your edge decreases proportionately to the amount of players trying to hit their gutshots (getting the proper odds to do so!) so it's a Catch-22 situation. Remember, it's still at least a 10-16% take, it only decreases to "5%" if the pot grows by way of more opponents to beat - so it's really not a true "5%" game.

Oh well, I'll tighten up and just try and live with a very small advantage... and play some BJ when I want to pound some Corona's! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]