So Whats The Best Game...

[coasterbrad]

Sorry but poker is just as much a game of luck as skill. Otherwise the same people would be winning the WSOP every year.

 

L...o...l. So by this logic, baseball is a game of luck because otherwise the same team would win the World Series every year. Same with football, basketball, hockey, etc.

 

Look at the numbers from the WSOP. Look at the top players. Look at the players final tabling multiple WSOP Events in tournaments with huge field sizes. Also consider that tournament play has higher variance than cash games, but we won't get into that.

 

BeachyBrowns, remember that it is this kind of logic that makes the game so profitable. :)

[Silverscreencruiser]

I'd LOVE to know how you came up with these numbers. At craps, you lose most bets if the 7 rolls and on average that happens 1 time in 6 rolls. That is 16.667% MUCH less than the 50% you state.

 

At poker, the ONLY time you have a 50% chance of winning a hand (before the cards are dealt) is when you're playing against 1 other person. This usually only happens at the final table of a tournament.

 

I know how craps works. I used the term "craps roll" loosely to encompass every single betting scenario, whether a single roll proposition bet or a potentially multiple roll point. If you bet don't pass and you don't lose on the initial roll, the odds are in your favor that you will win eventually. Unfortunately, you lose enough of the time on that initial roll that your chances of winning a don't pass bet are less than 50%.

 

And in poker, I technically should have said "your chances of winning on a hand can be greater than 50%." Although the mathematical probability of winning a hand (going in) is usually less than 50%, you usually stand to win more money than you stand to lose, due to multiple players being in many pots and the fact that you can fold immediately a lot of bad hands. A good player's absolute probability of winning a hand is less than 50%, but his expected value is greater than 1 (meaning he rates to win). An example: If I bet I get a 7 on a roll of dice (odds 5-1 against me) but you pay me 10-1 if I win, my chances of winning are negative but my expected value is positive. And if we play long enough, I will win, just as a good player will win at poker.

[chrisc71]

L...o...l. So by this logic, baseball is a game of luck because otherwise the same team would win the World Series every year. Same with football, basketball, hockey, etc.

 

Look at the numbers from the WSOP. Look at the top players. Look at the players final tabling multiple WSOP Events in tournaments with huge field sizes. Also consider that tournament play has higher variance than cash games, but we won't get into that.

 

BeachyBrowns, remember that it is this kind of logic that makes the game so profitable. :)

 

To a small degree luck is involved in sports.

 

How many times has a bad call changed a game? Do you not consider that luck? Or when a ball is just fair or foul; and a run scores or not depending on which occurs? Is that not luck also?

 

Some are posting that there is no luck or chance to playing poker; that skill rules all. That is simply not the case.

 

You cannot control the outcome since you cannot control the cards; just like any other casino game. Skill may help but it is not everything.

[chrisc71]

 

Poker is not the same. The house and I can both win at the same time!!!!

 

 

Now tell me what part of that discussion you disagree with.

 

Oh, please post the names of 5 people who have made a consistent, substantial living (let's say $25,000 per year or more) over the past 5 years playing blackjack and 5 who have done the same playing craps. I can post the names of over a hundred off the top of my head who have made their livings playing poker over the same span. That math doesn't lie, either.

 

Here is a link to a Poker site that shows how the rake affects your take home.

 

http://www.thepokerforum.com/rake1.htm

 

This part is what I was trying to explain...

 

"

The percentage taken by the house is actually a much greater share of a player’s winnings than it initially appears to be. The House says that the rake is 10%. That’s true, but most people don’t realize that taking a 10% rake of the pot is often like taking 20% of your winnings. So if the pot is heads up and reaches $40 and the house takes $4.00 then it is actually taking 20% of the winnings. Half of that $40 is yours to start with. When you are pushed the $40 pot you are actually only winning $20.00. Yet the house rakes 10% of the entire amount.

That 20% tax is pretty tough to beat. You have to be 20% better than the average of the players against you. If the other players are all pretty good, it’s unlikely that you are sufficiently skilled to be 20% better than they. In my opinion, you’ll normally need a couple of really bad players in the mix for you to show a profit after the rake in a game like this. Compare this with your typically unraked home game. If you’re the best player – even if you’re only 5% better than your average opponent – then you’re in a position to win some money over the long run. But in a casino you’re edge has to be considerably greater."

 

Let's also remember that casinos do not do things for charity. They are making tons of money on poker rooms.

 

Again regarding making a living, when there are shows on some channel all day about craps I will name you people. Not sure what math has to do with it. All I wrote was that there are people and ways to make a living playing BJ and craps but it is not exciting so hence they do not get TV coverage.

 

One more time I never wrote that skill has nothing to do with poker. My assertion is that it is a game of chance that you will lose a certain part no matter how good a player you are.:)

[BeachyBrowns]

To a small degree luck is involved in sports.

 

How many times has a bad call changed a game? Do you not consider that luck? Or when a ball is just fair or foul; and a run scores or not depending on which occurs? Is that not luck also?

 

Some are posting that there is no luck or chance to playing poker; that skill rules all. That is simply not the case.

 

You cannot control the outcome since you cannot control the cards; just like any other casino game. Skill may help but it is not everything.

 

OK, you are just arguing to argue now. You know you don't have a leg to stand on. No one here is saying that luck plays no part in the outcome of each individual hand. At the micro level -- that is, at the smallest of sample sizes -- there is an element of chance in just about everything, from poker to baseball to whether or not you are involved in a car accident on your way to work. There are lots of things you just don't have control over in any situation, and so you could say it's "luck" that one outcome or another happens any given time. No poker player would say luck plays no part in each individual hand, and no one here has been claiming that. I would tell you to read more closely, but you are just arguing to argue; you aren't interested in the actual merits of what's being said.

 

As to your quoted paragraph: the author of that blurb can't even differentiate between "your" and "you're"; that doesn't make him very authoritative, does it? As for what he's saying, refer to my prior discussion of a hypothetical poker game and calculate what percentage of my winnings I have paid in rake, and post it as a reply to this post. Show your work.

[BeachyBrowns]

L...o...l. So by this logic, baseball is a game of luck because otherwise the same team would win the World Series every year. Same with football, basketball, hockey, etc.

 

Look at the numbers from the WSOP. Look at the top players. Look at the players final tabling multiple WSOP Events in tournaments with huge field sizes. Also consider that tournament play has higher variance than cash games, but we won't get into that.

 

BeachyBrowns, remember that it is this kind of logic that makes the game so profitable. :)

 

Unfortunately, "logic" eludes him. Even more unfortunately, he's already said he doesn't play poker, although I'm hoping he will decide to play at my table for a couple of hours just once, so that he can have a chance to show me how lucky he can be.

[chrisc71]

OK, you are just arguing to argue now. You know you don't have a leg to stand on. No one here is saying that luck plays no part in the outcome of each individual hand. At the micro level -- that is, at the smallest of sample sizes -- there is an element of chance in just about everything, from poker to baseball to whether or not you are involved in a car accident on your way to work. There are lots of things you just don't have control over in any situation, and so you could say it's "luck" that one outcome or another happens any given time. No poker player would say luck plays no part in each individual hand, and no one here has been claiming that. I would tell you to read more closely, but you are just arguing to argue; you aren't interested in the actual merits of what's being said.

.

 

No I am not arguing just to argue. I did admit that skill is a part of the game. My whole point is that there is a fee to play poker just like any other game; a fee that no matter how well you play will still be there.

 

Here is another column on the effect of the rake in poker play; hopefully the grammar is OK with you.

 

http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/never-underestimate-the-rake-in-poker-24912

[chrisc71]

Unfortunately, "logic" eludes him. Even more unfortunately, he's already said he doesn't play poker, although I'm hoping he will decide to play at my table for a couple of hours just once, so that he can have a chance to show me how lucky he can be.

 

Wow you are so clever:rolleyes:

[MrCo9]

I know how craps works. I used the term "craps roll" loosely to encompass every single betting scenario, whether a single roll proposition bet or a potentially multiple roll point. (A WHAT???) If you bet don't pass and you don't lose on the initial roll, the odds are in your favor that you will win eventually. Unfortunately, you lose enough of the time on that initial roll that your chances of winning a don't pass bet are less than 50%.

 

And in poker, I technically should have said "your chances of winning on a hand can be greater than 50%." Although the mathematical probability of winning a hand (going in) is usually (Make that ALWAYS) less than 50%, you usually stand to win more money than you stand to lose, due to multiple players being in many pots and the fact that you can fold immediately a lot of bad hands. A good player's absolute probability of winning a hand is less than 50%, but his expected value is greater than 1 (meaning he rates to win). An example: If I bet I get a 7 on a roll of dice (odds 5-1 against me) but you pay me 10-1 (Try 4:1, (that's why "Any 7" is the WORST bet on the table) that's what a casino pays, and you might know that IF you paid attention when you played) if I win, my chances of winning are negative but my expected value is positive. (Except you're using the WRONG payoff and that makes ALL the difference in the world) And if we play long enough, I will win, just as a good player will win at poker.

When you open your casino and pay 10:1 on Any 7, let me know, I'll take a 2nd mortgage out on my house and come play EVERY day. Your #s and logic still make NO sense.

[coasterbrad]

^You just helped solidify his point, MrCo. Silver is trying to explain to you how your expected value (EV) would make it worth while if it were to pay 10:1. Try reading it again.

[EdASRQ]

I'm not sure I want to jump in between you two, ChrisC71 and BeachyBrowns, but, I will.

 

While you have a good point Chrisc71, you also miss your point. I side with BeachyBrowns. For games other than poker, Chrisc71, you are correct for any given short term sample. And that's the problem, the 'sucker' lure. I won $1,200 playing Craps last week, in just over 2 hours! Great! Now everyone will run and play craps. What is not in the picture is that I've played Craps since the 80's and without keeping track of finances I have lost overall, and it's probably roughly 1.36% of every bet I've made - it adds up over time. If you play once, then you are correct that the probability factor doesn't 'apply' (appear to be true). The more you play the more the probability factor becomes apparent. Bottom line - it always applys. The probability of flipping heads on a coin toss is always 50%. As for poker, there is a skill factor - you don't have to have the best cards to win! Poker about reading and playing people than the cards. Yes, the house takes a rake, and it is a greater percentage to the winner, because part of the pot is his money. Poker involves two components - understanding and playing the odds AND understanding and playing people.

 

BeachyBrowns - I avoid poker because I don't play it enough to develop the 'people' skills. I am pretty good at figuring the outs and odds, but, that doesn't do me much good when I play someone who plays a lot against live people. For lurkers... Online play is not the same as live play.

[BeachyBrowns]

You can have a $100 pot but you get $95; most people see that as still losing money. With craps and BJ you can eliminate or lessen to less than 1% the house edge and that is only on losses. And in the case of free odds in craps you get a true payout and the casino keeps nothing.

 

And to the other point; I understand the math always applies but it means nothing in a short time like a cruise. As you yourself wrote there are short term variations, win more/lose more. And that is what most people focus on. Travel Channel had a show on Vegas where they addressed this where two men started with the same money, played all the games and one bet using correct methods and the other just winged it. They came out even. Same goes for a cruise. Someone plays the slots and wins $2000 and does not put it back; that has no correlation to the math.

 

Sorry but poker is just as much a game of luck as skill. Otherwise the same people would be winning the WSOP every year. Being a better player does help but unless you know what cards are being dealt luck is just as much a factor in poker as any other casino game.

 

Poker is not my game but thanks for the invite:)

 

No I am not arguing just to argue. I did admit that skill is a part of the game. My whole point is that there is a fee to play poker just like any other game; a fee that no matter how well you play will still be there.

 

Here is another column on the effect of the rake in poker play; hopefully the grammar is OK with you.

 

http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/never-underestimate-the-rake-in-poker-24912

 

That was NOT your original point! What you were originally trying to say was that poker is a game of chance, just like any other casino game (from your first post: "Also poker is not different since you never know what the cards will be nor if your opponent is better than you. You have a false belief that is the only game where you have an advantage and that is not the case. Anytime you risk money you risk losing it. If you are not looking at gaming as entertainment you are looking at it all wrong."); that you necessarily "lose money" playing poker; that the math governing gambling and odds means nothing in the short term, that it's an illusion to think you can have an edge, or positive expectation, at poker, and that it's silly to think of any form of gambling as anything other than entertainment. You are now backing off your original statement, and you're trying to argue your way out of a deeper and deeper hole!

 

Did you read the first line of the article? "Live poker is the only casino game in which you play against the other players rather than against the house. Poker also involves more skill than any other casino game. These two conditions make live poker a "beatable" game – if you know what you're doing." This is my first post, almost verbatim, and it is the answer to the OP's question, using slightly different terminology.

 

His grammar is fine, but his premise is faulty. He is talking about a 3-6 limit game where each pot gets raked $5. That would never happen; the max that would be raked is $5, and the normal rake is 10% of the pot up to $5. In such a game, most pots are smaller than $50, so the average rake per hand is less than $5, so the money does not come off the table that quickly. Furthermore, I play no-limit, where it is absolutely inconceivable that no one will bust and rebuy and/or a new player will sit down at the table with more money. As a no-limit game goes on, MORE money ends up on the table, not less, even with the rake.

 

Wow you are so clever:rolleyes:

 

I know; thank you.

[BeachyBrowns]

I'm not sure I want to jump in between you two, ChrisC71 and BeachyBrowns, but, I will.

 

While you have a good point Chrisc71, you also miss your point. I side with BeachyBrowns. For games other than poker, Chrisc71, you are correct for any given short term sample. And that's the problem, the 'sucker' lure. I won $1,200 playing Craps last week, in just over 2 hours! Great! Now everyone will run and play craps. What is not in the picture is that I've played Craps since the 80's and without keeping track of finances I have lost overall, and it's probably roughly 1.36% of every bet I've made - it adds up over time. If you play once, then you are correct that the probability factor doesn't 'apply' (appear to be true). The more you play the more the probability factor becomes apparent. Bottom line - it always applys. The probability of flipping heads on a coin toss is always 50%. As for poker, there is a skill factor - you don't have to have the best cards to win! Poker about reading and playing people than the cards. Yes, the house takes a rake, and it is a greater percentage to the winner, because part of the pot is his money. Poker involves two components - understanding and playing the odds AND understanding and playing people.

 

BeachyBrowns - I avoid poker because I don't play it enough to develop the 'people' skills. I am pretty good at figuring the outs and odds, but, that doesn't do me much good when I play someone who plays a lot against live people. For lurkers... Online play is not the same as live play.

 

I appreciate your level-headed response. It is absolutely true that there is no substitute for patience and experience ... you have to play a lot to get really good at it, although a basic understanding of math and odds and a little "card sense" go a long way. Don't worry about being "transparent" or "readable," though, if that's all that's keeping you from playing live games. As someone who has played live low-stakes no-limit a fair amount, I can tell you that most players in those games are largely oblivious to the subtleties of your behavior. Of course, the more you play, the better you get at every aspect of the game, including the people aspect.

 

Good luck to you in whatever game you play!

[Calico Jack Sparrow]

Very interesting banter here.

Just wanted to add, since no one has, that craps and blackjack are games of skill. The fact that people without any play it, is just how the casinos make profit(A fool and his money). There are many who make money and even a living from those games but they don;t have their names plastered all over the place. For obvious reasons. Poker players never get banned from a casino and BJ players do-frequently. No so much craps players.

 

I am an "advantage play" craps player. I'd be a liar if I told you I always win, but I win a lot more often then I lose. When I win, I usually win large. Losses are kept to a minimum.

 

I think I am a good poker player, although I have never played in a live tournament, I have won online. I stay away from poker tables in the casino, because I have very little luck. I get beat on the river more times then I like to remember. Rarely win on it. So, BeachyBrown, I ask you this...Assuming You and I have equal skills; we both go all in; you wanna tell us all again how you win everytime? You don't think that's luck?

We have another name for it-variance. It can kill your bankroll sometimes.:D

[Silverscreencruiser]

.Assuming You and I have equal skills; we both go all in; you wanna tell us all again how you win everytime?

 

On a cruise ship, most of the players will not be tournament level players. A good player will do quite well, over a period of time, because there will rarely be another player of equal skill at the table. If for some reason you do play head-to-head against a comparable player, you both rate to lose due to the house rake. But that's pretty unlikely to happen (even two good players can do well in a typical 7-8 hand table with weekend players).

 

Poker pros don't go on cruise ships to make money for two reasons: (1) the limits tend to be fairly low, and (2) the overhead (the cost of the cruise itself plus transportation to get there) is prohibitive. It's one thing to make a couple of hundred on a cruise to have fun and defray the cost of a the cruise. It's another to clear enough money to pay your total expenses AND win substantial money in addition.

[MrCo9]

^You just helped solidify his point, MrCo. Silver is trying to explain to you how your expected value (EV) would make it worth while if it were to pay 10:1. Try reading it again.

Why don't you try reading it again. I'm MrCo9, not MrCo, Brud. And I read that drivel SEVERAL times, the logic is as failed as the math.

[coasterbrad]

Why don't you try reading it again. I'm MrCo9, not MrCo, Brud. And I read that drivel SEVERAL times, the logic is as failed as the math.

 

I do apologize for leaving off the ever so important number 9. I in no way meant to offend you, MrCo9. My apologies if I did.

 

Let's try to do this with a simpler example. Let's say you are given the opportunity to pick a number, 1, 2, or 3. You wager $1 per guess and obviously have a 1/3 shot of guessing right. If you were to be paid $3 for every time you get it right, you would break even over the long run. If you were to be paid $2 for each correct guess, you would lose money over the long run. If you were to be paid $5 for every correct guess you can expect to make money of the long run. So if I make a bet that is 2:1 against me, but you pay out 5:1 for correct guesses, it would be +EV to take that bet. Can we agree on that?

[MrCo9]

Yes, and ONLY an idiot would offer such odds. When is your casino opening?? I'd LOVE to be on the guest list.

[coasterbrad]

Yes, and ONLY an idiot would offer such odds. When is your casino opening?? I'd LOVE to be on the guest list.

 

I'm not planning on opening a casino unfortunately.

 

What you are failing to understand is that this discussion on those odds is not being offered on craps, or BJ, or slots. The discussion was about poker and how someone can have a positive expected value if they are good at poker. While your odds of winning the hand may be 1/10 if there are ten people playing, your expected value can be significantly higher if you are better than the rest of the players. So your odds are 1:10 but your payout is 5:10, makes it +EV. Craps, BJ, slots, roulette, etc. will never be +EV.

[Casino Player]

I'm not planning on opening a casino unfortunately.

 

What you are failing to understand is that this discussion on those odds is not being offered on craps, or BJ, or slots. The discussion was about poker and how someone can have a positive expected value if they are good at poker. While your odds of winning the hand may be 1/10 if there are ten people playing, your expected value can be significantly higher if you are better than the rest of the players. So your odds are 1:10 but your payout is 5:10, makes it +EV. Craps, BJ, slots, roulette, etc. will never be +EV.

 

HHHHHEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOO coasterbrad: The question is when you go up to a table, how do you know if you are a better player than the others? When you go up to a table you are unable to have an expected value of +EV.

[coasterbrad]

HHHHHEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOO coasterbrad: The question is when you go up to a table, how do you know if you are a better player than the others? When you go up to a table you are unable to have an expected value of +EV.

 

 

That's a great question. There are a few ways to do this. One is table selection, which doesn't really apply on a cruise as there is usually only one table. Even with just one table, you can observe for a while before sitting down, or sit and play very conservatively for a bit to get a feel for the other players. Listening to the other players talk and watching them play will give any decent player an idea of their abilities fairly quickly. One thing to note: if after twenty minutes you have not figured out who the soft spot at the table is, it is most likely you.

[Silverscreencruiser]

Yes, and ONLY an idiot would offer such odds. When is your casino opening?? I'd LOVE to be on the guest list.

 

If a bet is not a fair bet (i.e., one that has an expected value of 0 for both parties), then it's a bad bet for one or the other, and by your definition, whoever agrees to the bet with the odds against him is an idiot.

There's some justification in calling everyone who plays slots, blackjack (without counting), craps, roulette, and every other table game in a casino an idiot, if you choose to use that term, because the odds are always against them.

 

However, if two people play a game of skill, whether it's poker, golf, tennis, pool, or backgammon against each other, one of them generally has a skill advantage against the other. Put several at a poker table, and one or more generally has a skill advantage against the others. There is an element of luck, but in the long run, the good players will invariably win. The only difference between poker and blackjack is that it's possible to calculate the exact house advantage in blackjack but impossible to quantify it in poker. Further, almost everyone realizes the house has an advantage at blackjack, but many people do not realize they are at a skill disadvantage at poker (or exactly how much of a disadvantage they are at).

[mistereks]

Coming in months after this, just to say (if they happen to read this) that I am in total agreement with you and BeachyBrown. You two should just ignore all those who believe their odds of winning at house games are as good as they are at poker.

 

Here's what I would say to them: I've taken eight cruises. On seven of them I have walked off the ship with SIGNIFICANTLY more money than I walked on with. Three times I have paid for my cruise fare with poker winnings. The one time I lost was in large part due to a single bad beat on a hand where I flopped a set of tens and the guy to my right stuck around on my big bets to make three jacks on the river.

 

I am confident, when I board a cruise ship, that I will likely be among the best players on the ship, if not the best player. That's why I win most of the time. I am patient, aggressive when I need to be, and I pick my spots and pick up big pots.

 

Let's hope those intellectually-challenged gamblers decide to sit down at the poker tables and try their luck with us. As I tell them when I'm recruiting them to the table, if you're going to lose, why not give money to your fellow passengers instead of some faceless corporation?

[BeachyBrowns]

 

Let's hope those intellectually-challenged gamblers decide to sit down at the poker tables and try their luck with us. As I tell them when I'm recruiting them to the table, if you're going to lose, why not give money to your fellow passengers instead of some faceless corporation?

 

That's a great sales line! I'm going to use that on the next cruise I go on to drum up poker interest! "Come play poker! Wouldn't you rather lose money to ME than to Carnival Corp.?":D

 

GL and +EV to you, mister!