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

[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.

[fishyak]

Leo Doc - Thanks - its nice to be "spot on" for a change.

Jack High - You are clearly struggling with this concept and this forum should remain a place to fix "I don't get it." And the info. to fix your "I don't get it" is right here in these responses.

IMO - 1) Our preflop advantage is huge when playing no fold'em hold'em. 2) Conversely, post-flop grows in importance as it becomes easier to win without a showdown, usually at higher limits.

Jackhigh - It looks like you are trying to put the BJ "edge" and measure it against the poker "rake." Just because both are numbers does NOT make them comparable by size alone.

On the humor side, I think it was Larry White who said: "You know, I can have my wife's boobs fixed, her tummy tucked, her hair colored and her teeth capped and whitened. But there is one thing I can't fix. I can't fix stupid!"

Sorry, Jackhigh - I couldn't resist. Keep posting the things you don't get, but do bring an open mind and a flak jacket.

[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.

[jackhigh]

[ QUOTE ]
lol @ this thread
how can blackjack, a game where you have no edge at all, unless you count cards and the casino tries to stop that, be more +ev than poker where you are in control, can play better hands than your opponents and can outplay them as well?

also jackhigh if you're gonna post this here in a forum where lots of us play live poker, you should probably give some weight to our opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sir, if YOU are going to patronizingly (is this even a word?) respond to my posts, maybe you should at least get the facts of the original post straight.

I'm not an idiot, I never stated Blackjack was postive EV. Obviously if the casino has a .35% edge, it will always be a -ev game. However, maybe I am hypothesising that low limit "no fold em" hold em, with a 10-16% house take, might have an even larger -ev in the long run.

So far, in this thread, I have read nothing but hyperbole and wishful thinking and have yet to read any solid probability based reasoning.

I have read in several well known poker books that this game may not be beatable in the long run due to the high house take (rake, tip, jackpot) - thus my inquiry.

I certainly respect the opinions of most "low limit" posters and yield to those with more experience, however I have been playing low limit $2-$5 spread for over 4 years (in Colorado) so I am definately not new to the game and may have much more experience then some of the low rake tighter internet players. In my experience, over thousands of live hands, it seems like this game is simply not beatable in the long run!

I welcome anyone with probabitlity or math backgrounds to prove me wrong! I would love to be wrong actually, because I love the live game and would love to continue playing knowing I am not just giving money to the casino.

[jackhigh]

[ QUOTE ]


Jack High - You are clearly struggling with this concept and this forum should remain a place to fix "I don't get it." And the info. to fix your "I don't get it" is right here in these responses.

IMO - 1) Our preflop advantage is huge when playing no fold'em hold'em. 2) Conversely, post-flop grows in importance as it becomes easier to win without a showdown, usually at higher limits.

On the humor side, I think it was Larry White who said: "You know, I can have my wife's boobs fixed, her tummy tucked, her hair colored and her teeth capped and whitened. But there is one thing I can't fix. I can't fix stupid!"

Sorry, Jackhigh - I couldn't resist. Keep posting the things you don't get, but do bring an open mind and a flak jacket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think it was just a little boy who said that "the Emperor has no clothes!"
This post just highlights my frustrations with most of your resposes.

Firstly, how "huge" is your advantage when there are 6-7 callers. Most of these callers are not more than a 7-1 dog, especially after the flop as the pot grows.

Secondly, I am not talking about "higher limits" - I am talking "low limit" $2-$5 spread - big difference (experience and house vig wise) my friend.

Open my eyes... give me some mathematical facts! I will most certainly yield to proven probabilities. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BigBadBabar]

hi man, i'm not being patronizing at all. i agree with you that maybe a 2/4 limit game live would be very hard to beat with rake+tip+potential jackpot drop. but i think 4/8 and up, and certainly 5/10, 10/20, etc, are eminently beatable.

in response to a few things you said: you mention we are full of hyperbole and wishful thinking -- i'm not sure how to respond to that. we are all posting rebuttals because we are mostly all (at least i am, maybe i am assuming for the other guys but i doubt it) winning players in limit holdem games live. when you ask for math/probability backgrounds to prove you wrong, isn't it enough that we have been tracking our live play for years (and i assume you have also?) and we are consistent winners? i don't know of another way to prove that it's profitable except to show how i put x money in and come out with x + y. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

what have your results been over your four years of play?

[BigBadBabar]

also, if hypothetically speaking you were not a winning player, that doesn't mean that that same provision would hold true for others. also i suspect you may not have 100% an open mind about this, as your mind seems relatively made up already. however, most of our minds are made up already in the other direction, thus flamewar ensues [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been playing low limit $2-$5 spread for over 4 years (in Colorado) so I am definately not new to the game and may have much more experience then some of the low rake tighter internet players. In my experience, over thousands of live hands, it seems like this game is simply not beatable in the long run!



[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible, and I say this with no malice or ridicule, that you just suck at poker.

[Hyperrrprank]

Jackhigh, take it from a relatively new member of this forum. These guys know what they are talking about. I got nailed asking some questions when I first joined, and had the same reaction you've had... namely "Where's the helpful advice? I didn't come here to get flamed"

Take it from someone who has seen the light... These guys are going easy on you, and all the advice you need is actually right here in this thread. In fact, I think this entire thread deserves a commendation for providing such thoughtful and honest response to a question that feels very green to people who've been playing winning poker for years.

There's not an easy mathematical solution for you, because such a solution doesn't mean anything without knowing the specifics of your starting hand requirements, the behavior of your opponents (more than just loose/passive), and your own post-flop play (which I can say with no malice probably needs work based on the type of questions you've asked and assumptions you seem to have made).

take a deep breath. read the responses again. proceed to win at poker. It's that easy.

If it turns out your game's rake hurts too much, you'll know for sure after honing your play and keeping careful records.

[jackhigh]

Barbar, I am sure you are an excellent player, I am no slouch myself. Overall I am most definately down over the past 4 years.

For the past few years, my winning session totals, on average, always are smaller than my session losses. I have a suspicion that this is due to the high house take.

You play 4-8 and above where the house take percentage is obviously lower than a my 2-5 spread game.

So, I feel my suspicions are most definatey valid. In this loose low limit game, does anyone really have that much of an advantage to overcome this 10-16% vig. If so, how much do they need? Do you have to wait for your freakin aces to be up against 7-2 everytime? When the the pot is laying 7 or 8-1 preflop, almost any two reasonable cards are playable, are they not. When you are getting 15-20-1 post flop to hit your gutshot, don't you call down to the river? Obviously there are times when it's heads-up etc. that's a no-brainer... on average though this game is 5-7 player pre-flop.