#51
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
play tight and dont tip
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
The live game that I usually play in, is the 8-16 at Canterbury, it frequently is 5 to the flop for multiple bets, and how it works for me, is that I sit there, and get blinded off for a while, then I get some stupid beat, then I win a pot that it would take a trick pony to jump over, and maybe get a little heater to back it up, and suddenly I have a pile of chips that is a couple racks bigger than I started with.
The high rake in your situation, means that you don't want to get involved in a bunch of marginal situations, but you probably can wait until you get a good starting hand, and then you just hope you are lucky enough to pull a big pot. The game you play in, heavily favors hands with reverse implied odds, because a lot of money goes in preflop, and the bet sizes don't increase, and there is probably less action on later streets, so you don't get paid as well for sucking out, as you do for being ahead all the way. Be patient, and good luck. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ 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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ 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). [/ QUOTE ] Yes, basic strategy isn't hard to learn, it takes only a couple of weeks, and counting a couple of months... But doesn't Colorado state law cap the maximum bet at $5? So re: blackjack, how does one get more money on the table when the odds are in your favor (that is the count is favorable?) Is one allowed to spread to two hands, 3 or 4 hands? A -.35% ev house advantage vs basic strategy sounds like a 2 deck game with H17, DAS, RSA (dealer hit a soft 17, double after split & resplit Aces 4 times)...to beat that game with just counting requires at least a 1-6 spread and penetration to at least 62 cards at the start of the last hand...more likely 1-8 with penetration to 66 - 70 cards...and good counters often get away with higher spreads and find better pen in Reno, Vegas, Tunica, etc. So i think to get the required spread you will need to spread to additional hands on high counts...you'll stick out like a sore thumb...so i can't see how an ordinary bj player could beat the game for much for any length of time. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
He's not talking about beating the game, he's trying to figure out which is a better gamble for his time and money.
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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). [/ QUOTE ] Yes, basic strategy isn't hard to learn, it takes only a couple of weeks, and counting a couple of months... But doesn't Colorado state law cap the maximum bet at $5? So re: blackjack, how does one get more money on the table when the odds are in your favor (that is the count is favorable?) Is one allowed to spread to two hands, 3 or 4 hands? A -.35% ev house advantage vs basic strategy sounds like a 2 deck game with H17, DAS, RSA (dealer hit a soft 17, double after split & resplit Aces 4 times)...to beat that game with just counting requires at least a 1-6 spread and penetration to at least 62 cards at the start of the last hand...more likely 1-8 with penetration to 66 - 70 cards...and good counters often get away with higher spreads and find better pen in Reno, Vegas, Tunica, etc. So i think to get the required spread you will need to spread to additional hands on high counts...you'll stick out like a sore thumb...so i can't see how an ordinary bj player could beat the game for much for any length of time. [/ QUOTE ] It's 6 deck, Stay on soft 17, Late Surrender, double any 2, resplit aces, double after split, 3-2 blackjack (free deck of cards if you're suited). You can play the whole table if you'd like. Zero floor pressure. Looked it up on wizard of odds and it says its about .35% with perfect basic strat. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
Hey jackhigh, which do you have more fun playing? In the end, I find poker a lot more fun to play than blackjack. Maybe your decision can be based on that alone.
I used to play blackjack until I concluded it was unbeatable at my local casino (quit up $24 after 92 hours on the $5 table). I've been giving 2/4 limit a try (+0.58 BB/hr over 740 hours but running very good I think), not convinced it's beatable with $3 rake + $1 jackpot + $1 tip. But I'm having more fun at poker; in the end, so long as it isn't costing you a ton of money, that should probably be the deciding factor if it's just for recreation. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
He's not talking about beating the game, he's trying to figure out which is a better gamble for his time and money. [/ QUOTE ] the tips are obviously the answer to the question, play right and HE is better |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
Hey jackhigh, which do you have more fun playing? In the end, I find poker a lot more fun to play than blackjack. Maybe your decision can be based on that alone. I used to play blackjack until I concluded it was unbeatable at my local casino (quit up $24 after 92 hours on the $5 table). I've been giving 2/4 limit a try (+0.58 BB/hr over 740 hours but running very good I think), not convinced it's beatable with $3 rake + $1 jackpot + $1 tip. But I'm having more fun at poker; in the end, so long as it isn't costing you a ton of money, that should probably be the deciding factor if it's just for recreation. [/ QUOTE ] not to hijack but have you considered moving up? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low Limit-Limit Holdem vs Blackjack, which is better?
[ QUOTE ]
not to hijack but have you considered moving up? [/ QUOTE ] If I win another 50BB and can kinda maintain the current win rate for a while (I think I'm definitely running hot lately) I'll consider taking occasional shots at 4/8. Looks like the general advice is to move up levels ASAP if appropriate. 4/8 also has a kill game which is a little more scary. Back with regards to the OP though, I still have a lotta fun at the 2/4 table (the table the other night was so juicy it was ridiculous). In my opinion fun should play a huge factor in what games you play. |
|
|