I was thinking of one online sports betting place I visited many years ago, where odds where like
Bayern München vs. BVB: 1: (Bayern wins) odds of 1.2
2 (BVB wins) odds of 2.3
0 (draw) odds of 3.2
(With less matched teams, it might be 1: 0.5, 0: 3.5, 2: 6.0)
It’s not straight odds for all outcomes. So if I bet 1 Euro on 1, 1.5 Euros on 2 and 2 Euros on 0, will I come out ahead? Like I said, higher math I no like.
Your reasons parallel mine for why I like the game. I started a few years before the boom with schoolmates and it was amazing just how interested people became in poker, once Moneymaker did his thing. #2 is especially funny, as it’s one of the major attractions for me—trying to figure out range combinatorics on the fly and comparing that to the pot odds, as well as to my betting plan on future streets, all the while trying to confuse my opponent as to what my range is, and within the few seconds you have to make a decision: it’s quite the mental exercise. In addition to the psychological reasons you cite, I also like the emphasis in poker on making good decisions, rather than being strictly results oriented. I don’t have total Zen detachment towards results, but the effort I make towards that goal is helpful in other things, I feel.
How are you figuring the 85% chance of returning funds? Are you meaning that the tourney organizers pay out .85 for every 1.0 in entry fees? I thought, for the typical tournament, a player had a ~10% chance of cashing (WSOP 2011) to 30% (10 person SnG, pay top 3)? Granted, if they are in the very top of the finishers, they’ll get a LOT more than their entry fee.
The poker tourney I played in last night had a $45 entry fee. Of that, $8 went to the casino to cover fees, and the other $37 is put into the prize pool. So, if equal distribution is assumed, each player would be returned 37/45 or 82% (OK, my estimate was off). 82% is lower than a lot of other games, but firstly it’s “Budget Poker Night” and they have to take a bit more of the the percentage to pay the dealers a decent amount and secondly the casino is really only grinding out a little over $3 an hour per player, if the average stay is about two hours.
Beef, in your opinion, how much of an edge does a poker professional need against other players in order to overcome the rake live? 1 big blind per 100 hands? 2? 5? Does a typical poker pro have that kind of a sustainable edge against other pros? (I’m not talking Patrik Antonius vs your typical NL 1000 TAG. Though, I’m curious, in that situation what edge would you guess he’d have?) How many unskilled players are required in the game in order to be donating enough to keep it going? From what I’ve read, one can be enough if the game is big enough and the whale doesn’t mind donating. Obviously, the answer is going to depend on rake structures, but what do you need typically?
Yeah, but I don’t think a lot of people are trying to make a living off of “Budget Poker Night,” fortunately for me. It’s mostly locals, judging from the amount of local sports team gear worn around the tables. Still, I think you’re right, and a lot of this will shake out soon. Of course, if the online poker ban is reversed (and you know the big casino players are lobbying in the background to do that and get their own sites up first) it’ll change even faster.
Uh oh; sounds like it’s time for some product placement! Just a matter of time before we get a movie that tells us gambling in Vegas is sexy and fun!
I typically don’t think of win rates as in pre-rake win rates, but post-rake win rates. But you can get a pretty easy feel for how much rake you’re paying simply by averaging out the number of hands you win per hour on average. It’s also generally more common and useful live to calculate BB/HR, as it comes up with a more useful hourly wage, and it’s not like you can multitable to maximize it. I also tend not to evaluate no limit games in BB/HR because they often play bigger than their stakes (average preflop raise in a $1-2 game for example is probably $12-16 and often gets 5 callers).
Usually for any reasonable stakes you’re hitting max rake, which is typically $4 to $5. I tend to win between 6-7 hands per hour at a live game - this being a mix of 6-10 handed games, and I’m more loose/aggressive than typical ABC poker would suggest, but I’m generally playing $24-35 an hour in rake before making a cent for myself - add another $6 to that if you include the mandatory dealer tip, which is pretty much the same as the rake anyway. It’s actually really frustrating since my actual hourly rate is in that same ballpark, meaning that if I didn’t have to pay rate, I’d double my salary or more.
The best strategy to avoid rake is to play uncapped $1-2nl or $2-5nl games that play bigger than you’d expect for that limit, play very tight, and collect one or two big pots an hour. Boring as hell though, but viable - there are usually people who will pay you off. There are two ladies at a nearby locals rooms who do this over and over again, and even locals who’ve seen them do it 100 times still give away their money against obvious aces. They’re not actually good at poker at all, and yet they manage to beat those games. Not for much.
Anyway - you’re looking at paying the casino $20-30 an hour before you make anything for yourself. Obviously as you get bigger in stakes, it becomes less a factor - it’s only half a bet at a $30-60 game, but it’s killer at the lower stakes.
I would say that the “typical” pro can’t have an edge against other pros, since you’re essentially asking if the average person can be above average. Generally the pros will avoid other pros when they can knowing that if they do have an edge, it’s very small, and due to the typically aggressive play between two pros, the variance to edge ratio is very high.
But if you’re at the top tier of the games you’re playing, then yes, you can have an edge on players who are good enough to beat the game but not quite as good as you. The metagaming involved can get elaborate at times.
To give a non-technical example that’s easy to understand - there’s one very aggressive pro who’s a regular in the game I play, and we’ve sort of got an ego match thing going. Very often, I’ll be in games where I assume the other 8 players are too dumb to notice anything, and I will deliberately play suboptimally against them in ways that that other player (who isn’t in the hand, but is watching) will notice. And then I will use his knowledge of that suboptimal play, and turn it around on him.
Most of that has to do with technical mathy type stuff, but to give an easy to understand example - against everyone but him, when I have a hand that I really want to be called (because I’m extremely strong), I’ll just sort of nonchallantly flip a stack of chips out as my bet. In other situations, I’ll neatly stack them. I’m pretty confident that most of the time, he’s the only person observant enough to pick up on this. So when a pot gets down to him and I, and I want to bluff him out of a pot, I’ll use that same chip throwing technique, to which he’ll react as “every time I’ve seen him to do this, he’s been extremely strong - so I better fold” - and it’s worked every time the situation has been right to pull it out. I try not to abuse it too much and get exposed.
I don’t want to give the false impression that, like in the movies, poker is all about the subtle physical tells - but that’s an example I can use that wouldn’t require a lot more explanation to laymen.
Poker at different levels is often difficult to comprehend by people who understand and play at lower levels. Players like Antonius and Dwan make plays all the time that seem like they’d fundamentally bad poker plays at the lower levels - and often that makes people amazed that these bad players somehow keep winning - but they don’t really understand the depth of the metagaming going on at that level, the levels of thinking.
If Antonius simply wanted to beat some $5-10 nl game somewhere, he’d use a different playstyle that’d be much more straightforward and boring. It’s hard to project what sort of edge he’d have, since I’m not sure how he’d adjust.
One will do it at all but the lower stakes. Again, it also depends on how big a game is playing - I’ve seen $1-2nl games where the average amount of money on the table is $800 per player and the preflop pots often exceeded $200. That can get pretty crazy. In that scenario, one donator is enough. In live poker, you get a pretty wide range. It’s not often anymore that you get someone entirely clueless (although this was common even 3-4 years ago), but usually at least 5 players at the table would be losing players without the rake at the lower stakes.
I’m actually kind of a bottom feeder. When I first got good at poker, and I played mostly for the intellectual challenge, I kept moving up in limits as fast as I could, seeking out the best competition I could in order to try to defeat them. Which is satisfying to my ego and sense of challenge, but rough on your bankroll.
At some point, if you’re in it for the job rather than the money, you realize that dominating players who are significantly worse than you is where you need to be, rather than trying to challenge and squeak an edge on really good players. I played as high as $10-20nl and $50-100 limit (long ago, when I had a big bankroll) but the stress of that is insane. You have to be on the absolute top of your mental abilities for hours and hours without even the slightest slip up or you’ll get trashed. And even the normal swings when you play well are stomach churning.
I kind of cracked - ended up taking a few years off poker and when I came back I decided I could be happy enough squeezing a small steady amount from low limit easy games. I haven’t played anything above $2-5nl and $15-30 limit (and even then rarely, only when there’s an especially soft game) in about 5 years.
I actually spend the majority of my time playing $1-2 games with a high buyin cap or uncapped. Which is not exactly glamorous for a pro player. And after living off my bankroll for a few years, I never rebuilt it to the point where I could play higher stakes. But I can beat the low stakes consistently for about $25/hr and they’re pretty low stress, so I’ve decided that’s probably a better route than reaching for the sky and getting stressed to the point of cracking psychologically.
So… all of that was probably overly verbose and not particularly relevant to the thread. Whee.
Doyle Brunson said exactly the same in Supersystem years ago: he’d play the grinding game against bad players, and make “bad” plays against good players.
SenorBeef, have you done an “Ask the Poker Pro?” It would be interesting and could pull this conversation off of this thread.
My husband and I occasionally go to a couple of casinos that are a reasonable driving distance. My mom loves the casinos and we take her with us more often than not. My older sis also enjoys the slots. I like to shoot craps but for the most part we stick with the slots. We use discretionary money and see it as entertainment. I have a coin/money bank - when I win the $$ goes in there to use for fun money or the next trip or whatever. We also meet up with my BIL & SIL, they enjoy the slots the most as well.
I don’t know, I guess it’s just a way to get together when it’s cold, hang out for a few hours, get something to eat and have a good time. I agree that there are some messed-up looking people there. I’m always amazed when I see people playing two machines at a time, that’s just sad. The smoke is also disgusting, we try to stick to the non-smoking section or head to less crowded areas.
We are 44, 45, 50, 51, 55 and 77 so I guess we do fit the casino demographic. For some reason my husband and I usually balance each other out and sometimes we lose a little, sometimes we win a little, sometimes we leave nearly even. We both use the ‘pocket method’ taught to us by mom so losses are minimized that way.
Sounds like you answered your own question. Why did you bother to hit “Submit”?
I might win a lot of money, sure. Also, monkeys might fly out of my ass. I’d give you about equal odds either way, honestly.
I wonder if the short attention span feeds into your enjoyment of the casino environment. There’s always an "ooh shiny! " to draw your attention back that someone with longer focus would just tune out.
Long ago lite-gambler from the UK, here; I was playing ‘bandits’ (one-armed bandits, slots) very early and got bored/disillusioned a few years ago after a few decades. I vividly remember spending my rent money on them in my third year at Uni. After seeing a counselor I realized the error of my ways, although I was still pretty skint at the time.
I had a whale of a time In Vegas a few years later (also got married there, in the Little Chapel O’ Flowers - wasn’t meant to last) mainly on the slots but tried the tables for fun. I didn’t enjoy the ‘fun’ on the tables when everyone else was hollering, and I lost lots on the blackjack table in short order. The free drinks were a comfort.
I mainly played on the machines, but when I was off work, sick, I gambled on tennis, football (soccer), golf and won more than I lost. A few times I’ve played big horse races I’ve come out ahead on accumulators but I’m not really into the nags otherwise. Bandits were my weakness but I’ve not played for several years (crossed fingers).
The lottery is gambling. It’s not as glamorous as losing your wallet at Caesar’s Palace, but it’s the same fundamental thing except it’s usually directly run by the government and it’s easy to do casually at your local convenience store.
I’ve only gone to a casino a few times (although at 38, I’m neither middle-aged nor young,) and I don’t really like it. The slot machines were almost fun in that the sights and sounds reminded me of an old-school video game arcade, but except you don’t actually play video games there 
Although I would have tried it if there would have been pinballs involved in the games of chance like Pachinko, it was this close to being enticing.
Poker, too, was this close to being enjoyable. Even if online gambling were legal, I can see something about interacting face to face with your opponents once in awhile. Except that the only poker game to be had most places is Hold-em. Which not only am I not good at* but it gets boring if thats the only game anyone wants to play.
But online you can find any sort of poker game.
*Compared to most other poker games: I’m actually around break-even at hold 'em in casinos.
I’d say that in the US anyway, the perception has changed primarily with the perception of Las Vegas.
Back in the day, people thought Rat Pack, major headliners, glitz, glamour and the “high life”.
Somewhere along the way, Vegas marketed itself as more of a lower-income / family destination for shows, etc… and generally speaking, younger people with money don’t want anything to do with family-friendly places, or lower-income places.
I also think there’s a lot to be said for the “video games have taken the place of the old card games / dice games.” The only reason the soldiers back in the day were playing craps and poker is because they didn’t have xboxes and playstations (which they do now), and I’d suspect today’s soldiers gamble a lot less than those in the past, as a result.
(yes, that means I agree with the poster earlier in the thread)
I played computer games since I was a little tyke. We owned a Commodore 64. We graduated to computers shortly thereafter. I played games involving toothbrushes, and skiing down a sepia hill avoiding ASCII trees, games with princesses kissing frogs and mazes with disappearing walls. Each of these games involved somewhat limited skills, even if it was just pressing arrow keys.
In a casino you have games but they have one button that you press. One number that you pick. A card that you play. Those games that I played at the age of eight called for more skill than gambling. Plus there’s the added knowledge that you will most likely lose all of the money in your pocket. Boring and dumb!
Notably the games that use more skill have more of a following with people my age, and younger.
Edit: I was going to make the point earlier that if gambling had a video game attached to it, it might be more enticing. I did spend a lot of time when I was in Vegas looking for video arcades.
It’s also just seedy. Even the best casinos look rundown and miserable. They’re loud and obnoxious with people faking having fun to keep the patrons happy.
There is absolutely nothing in it for me, and even when I went to Vegas last summer I didn’t gamble a penny. I’d rather play Skyrim 
When I went to Vegas I booked at Circus Circus because they advertised a video arcade. Well, they do have one, but it’s 90% full of modern racing and fighting games, not the classic arcade that they implied 
No argument, whatsoever. Also, the overhead in breeding, raising, boarding and training horses, building and maintaining racetracks is multitudes of manufacturing a slot machine or a blackjack table that will produce more profit.
Stretching for an irony: The Daily Racing Form was where Walter Annenberg earned his first fortune. But where Annenberg really got rich was by owning TV Guide which he sold for $3 Billion. Recently TV Guide was sold for $1. Talk about timing.
TV Guide was to the Racing Form what the internet and cable guides are to TV Guide.
Blackjack versus the casino is a real grind because you have to concentrate on the cards while acting as though you aren’t counting, and robotically repetitive. Blackjack tournaments versus other players can be very profitable and more relaxed since the casino doesn’t care if you count during a tournament. Poker tournaments can also be profitable. Live games are a grind unless the table conditions are great.
I don’t see a lot of younger people at casinos because they’re spending their money on education and booze. I didn’t gamble while I was in school either, and had somewhat of a negative view of casinos, then I guess my old fart switch kicked in.
Free SHIT drinks. I’ve seen my dad milk a nickle machine for an hour to get a “free” Bud Light. :rolleyes: I’m talking shots of Patron, etc. Though you have to be gambling at a bar machine to truly know what you’re getting.