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

[Hyperrrprank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im going to recommend a thread lock before this gets out of hand.

its up to james though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright,
maybe my argument is a little too abstract.

Here's another scenario:
If there is 7 people calling a $5 raise pre-flop (2+5*7=$49 in pot). Calculating the rake ($5+2 jackpot+ $1 potential tip) how big of a hand (percentage) do I need to be getting a positive ev in this situation pre- flop?

I'm not good at this kind of math, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gah Gah Gah. This doesn't help. First, I can't make heads or tails of what you're asking (was there only one blind in for $2?), but more to the point your EV changes DRAMATICALLY based on HOW YOU PLAY and HOW YOUR OPPONENTS PLAY.

I cannot tell you what percentage of hands to play, except a guess that if you're probably playing too much. No one is going to be able to give you exactly what you seem to want, unless they sit down and watch you play for months. People in this thread gave some good advice, but you seem stuck on getting a magical number that will prove your theory that the game isn't beatable.

Part of your EV is based on whether you can get away from marginal hands, and another is based on whether you can value bet the river when you're likely to be best. I get the impression (implied by your posts) that you view the game as a crap-shot when this many people are in, which makes me think you're getting dragged along with marginal hands. I know nothing about your ability to value bet, raise for protection, or extract the most from your monsters. That means that some hands I would play for value might be bad for you to come in with. No one can give you a solid proof that will work for you unless you're willing to listen to their more general comments without flaming up about this "missing math".

[Xhad]

Well, then it becomes an issue of "your opponents are making hugely -EV mistakes which is +EV for you, but the rake is absurd, which is -EV for you". As far as which is stronger, it's hard to say because anyone knowledgeable and experienced enough to find out is going to move up ASAP. It's probably at least breakeven for a good player if they are as bad as you say.

[jackhigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, then it becomes an issue of "your opponents are making hugely -EV mistakes which is +EV for you, but the rake is absurd, which is -EV for you". As far as which is stronger, it's hard to say because anyone knowledgeable and experienced enough to find out is going to move up ASAP. It's probably at least breakeven for a good player if they are as bad as you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your thoughtful posts. The problem is I live in Colorado and I can't move up (they have a $5 limit). I need to satisfy my gambling fix (at least once a week). Thus my question, .35% blackjack or 2-5 limit (with the terrible rake)?

[Hyperrrprank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, then it becomes an issue of "your opponents are making hugely -EV mistakes which is +EV for you, but the rake is absurd, which is -EV for you". As far as which is stronger, it's hard to say because anyone knowledgeable and experienced enough to find out is going to move up ASAP. It's probably at least breakeven for a good player if they are as bad as you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your thoughtful posts. The problem is I live in Colorado and I can't move up (they have a $5 limit). I need to satisfy my gambling fix (at least once a week). Thus my question, .35% blackjack or 2-5 limit (with the terrible rake)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack. If you're playing poker to satisfy a fix, you'll never be happy playing the way you need to play to beat a low-limit/high rake game.

[ZOMG_RIGGED!]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a crazy a crazy high rake for anyone else? Its an extra $1 in rake and jackpot for anywhere around here

[BigBadBabar]

$7 rake is higher than i'm used to at foxwoods which is $4 in the limit games. foxwoods has no jackpot however. i dunno why he keeps putting in tip as that's not the casino's vig, although most people do tip so i guess factoring it in is fine.

[Xhad]

-I'm used to $3 rake max, 4 with a BBJ which most rooms don't have
-Tipping in a room with an excessive rake makes the fish BUSTO even faster which may or may not be a factor depending on how much traffic the room usually gets; too many fish busting increases the chance that the game turns crappy or breaks
-Not tipping can make one look like a nit and feel like a jerk. The first can ruin table image and as for the second, even if it's not a mandatory consideration for EV it's still probably a factor regarding whether or not OP should play in that game. EV isn't everything, particularly at limits this low.

[fishyak]

If you are playing to win, or at least lose less, are you capable of playing perfect blackjack at -00.35%? Or are you capable of playing 15.66% better than the average player in your 2-5 game? (Assuming a 16% rake.)

I've read all your posts and you keep asking for math to solve problems that can't be solved by math alone. When you present problems with two or more variables, there are no solutions, only relationships at best. Too many moving parts.

After all this discussion - if you still don't get it - the shoes of my joke may fit after all - I can't fix stupid.

[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]