Do you mean the casino will let you count on BJ if you show larger losses on poker ?
No
Do you mean the casino will let you count on BJ if you show larger losses on poker ?
Poker and low stakes blackjack compliment each other very nicely as part of a combined business plan. You can hit a shoe or a few shuffles of double deck on the way into the casino...go to the poker room and play for 4 or 5 hours and then hit another shoe or few shuffles of double deck on the way out.
The Variance is a good bit lower at Poker and you can control it by your chosen style of play (tight aggressive versus loose aggressive or small stack versus big stack). The hourly rate at poker is low compared to higher stakes blackjack but you can play a lot of hours at poker and never have to worry about a backoff. Using some very aggressive hit and run blackjack mixed with poker can boost your daily EV total a good bit. Blackjack variance is not to be underestimated...if bankroll swings are a real concern then you are betting too big. I know a lot of players who might play a few shuffles of double deck before going to the poker room, or who check out the sports book for any opportunities on the way to the poker room. All of that EV adds up and the more +EV things you can do the more you can make. Poker/Blackjack/SportsBetting/Coupon Hustling, etc are all very complimentary of each other.
Well, in all honestly, if you thought the variance in poker was bad, it's worse in blackjack.
What about online vs brick and mortar poker? Online poker would be a strong game compared to bj because of lack of expenses and availability.
Online poker is a complete different game. With online poker you have far more tools available than in room games. And I don't mean exact EV calculations in a split second, but also hand histories of your opponents!
My experience over 5,000 hands is completely to the contrary.
Does that make online poker easier or harder then brick and mortar? One also faces perhaps more cheating online?
Does that make online poker easier or harder then brick and mortar? One also faces perhaps more cheating online?
There is a product called table ninja which does exactly that. Scans all tables to find you the ones with the most fish.I have almost zero experience with Poker games (just online play money games). But hand histories are collected by the official software. Not using that information (i.e for hand ranges, bluff hands, lifetime efficiency) is clearly a disadvantage. I would not call it cheating when you use your personal records for that kind of stuff.
However there are whole websites selling those hand histories, and they are still in business for a reason.
Just make an experiment: Open a online cash game (i.e. with free play bonus money), observe a table with half of their seats available. In the minute you join that table, I guarantee you that table will get crowded. The reason: player without statistics available = high probability of being a fish.
I bet there are tools available scanning a lot of online tables looking for players with weak/no playing statistics, and alert those who will take advantage.
So online poker is becoming increasingly an AI game?
Probably to some degree yes.
But even a bot cannot beat a site if it`s `rigged`:laugh:
Sorry to hear you are running bad.
It sucks especially when it never seems to end.I have had some breakeven 20000 hand stretches and it is soul destroying. Sometimes they can last for weeks.
Today for example lost 3 buy-ins in 15 mins. My AA cracked versus and the best- a two outer beating my two pair on the river.
Why does it always happen on the damn river!!!!!!!!!!!!
Needless to say no more poker today.![]()
Not running particularly bad - it was more a comment on the variance that I have experienced. Over a little under 4,000 hands, just 17 account for c250% of my net loss to date. When half a percent of a sample can skew the overall result by 100% then I fail to see how it can be claimed there is less variance with this than with BJ. In BJ, unless you were being very silly, there's no way that half a percent of hands would account for all of your net losses.
As it happens, my net loss to date is 4.41% of total bet - which means on average I'm overcoming the 15%-ish folding losses but have not yet managed to overcome the impact of the rake taken on my winning hands. Within this there is a recent neg streak where I have lost 45% of my amassed bankroll (c900 big blinds) in just 420 hands. All pennies of course, which is why I don't burst into tears.
With regard to your comment on breakeven, anyone who breakseven after 20,000 hands and maintains the value of their bankroll must be playing at a 17.5%-ish advantage (based on my stats). I suspect very few players acheive this. How much have you bet in these 20,000 hands, and what are the win/loss comparisons?
Your hand sample is not sufficient IMO to claculate you winrate. 50000-100000 hands is.
More like 500,000 hands. Here is some data on the subject.