What's ultimately more profitable. . .?

[SPX]

Blackjack or poker? I'm watching Rounders right now and it just made me think about the question.

I mean, consider this scenario: You have $10,000. You're going to go to Vegas for a month and devote as much time as you can to playing without becoming too exhausted to play skillfully.

So you have 30 days to do as much damage as you can. If you're as equally skilled at both, which game should bring more profits?

 

[Brock Windsor]

Seems like apples and oranges. Both come down to finding the right game conditions that present you the strongest advantage. I would guess that the best 10% of poker players in the world make a great deal more money than the best 10% of BJ players in the world. Simply because the BJ players are dealing with an opponent that uses surveillance, can limit your bets, ban you, never gets tired. Poker players are just finding fish at the table, and the casino gets plenty of those. All the same if you end up at a table with 1 or 2 pros, they will probably clean you out because of their ability to read your expressions/betting as well as the house rake chipping away at you. Find a poker table with 1 or 2 terrible players, and you will do well. The key is finding a favourable situation and playing that edge. I'd rather find a flashing BJ dealer than a bad poker player. With BJ I can bet according to my advantage where as in no-limit (which is where it seems the fish are) a player could force me to overbet my advantage. It seems BJ is a science where as poker is more of an art.

 

[MartyAce]

I prefer blackjack to be honest if you have the proper bankroll. Poker you will face many different skill levels of opponents. Blackjack you have one opponent who's skill level and strategy are in the open to you.

If it was me I prefer blackjack, for the sole reason mentioned above. No reason you shouldn't do both. It's not like you can play blackjack 24/7 without drawing a little attention to yourself.

As far as profitability go, I dont know if you can compare the two.

 

[toastblows]

I think poker would actually have less risk of loss because its not all about the cards, its also mental against the other people. You can have a crap hand and bluff a win. You cant really bluff a blackjack dealer....

Personally though i couldnt stand 30 days of poker play. Everyone thinks they are KGB or Matt Damon from rounders. And one time i had to sit next to 2 18 year olds who talked about their crotch rockets for 4 hours, and then the guy next to them started insulting them about how his Mustang could beat any motorcycle....uggg. In that case, BJ dealers usually dont brag about their crappy vehicles so thats a plus on my mental state

 

[Cardcounter]

Rake kills you in poker!

A 4-8 game is almost impossible to beat with the casino taking $5-$6 every hand that you win and that might include a $1 tip to the dealer. Only the top 1% can beat that rake in the long run. 1 hour of poker playing 1 hand a minute rakes away $300-$360 from the table. However if you are in 400-800 game you can afford to have $5-$6 taken out of the pot assuming you are good enough to beat the other players the top 10-15% make money there. In blackjack I believe that you have to be better than 99.8% of other player being in the best 10% means you are usually playing a losing game although you will lose more slowly than the rest of the people.
Lets take the top .2% of poker players and the top .2% of blackjack player I would bet that poker players would make more especially if you talk about big buy-in tournament where the winner could walk with a $1,000,000+.

 

[SPX]

It seems to me that the hardest part about poker is estimating your advantage. At least with Blackjack you have a pretty accurate way to know what your advantage is at any given moment.

Still though, it seems that for someone who spends a good amount of time to really learn how poker works that they would generally be in an advantageous situation since most tables are primarily occupied by people like, say, my brother. He fancies himself a poker player, plays in friendly home games frequently and has played a tiny bit in the casino, but he has never read a book on the subject, doesn't know anything about the odds, or positional play, etc.

I think most poker players are like most BJ players. They know the basics, have some experience, and have a relatively decent knowledge of basic strategy, but the finer points of the game are where they are lacking.

I mean, everyone doubles an 11 against a 6, but how many would double their A/7 against that same 6?

 

[SPX]

A 4-8 game is almost impossible to beat with the casino taking $5-$6 every hand that you win and that might include a $1 tip to the dealer. Only the top 1% can beat that rake in the long run. 1 hour of poker playing 1 hand a minute rakes away $300-$360 from the table. However if you are in 400-800 game you can afford to have $5-$6 taken out of the pot assuming you are good enough to beat the other players the top 10-15% make money there. In blackjack I believe that you have to be better than 99.8% of other player being in the best 10% means you are usually playing a losing game although you will lose more slowly than the rest of the people.
Lets take the top .2% of poker players and the top .2% of blackjack player I would bet that poker players would make more especially if you talk about big buy-in tournament where the winner could walk with a $1,000,000+.

$5-$6 out of every hand at a 4/8 game? How is the rake determined? I always assumed it was a percentage of some sort, or perhaps equal to the small blind, or . . . hell I don't know. I've never played poker in the casino.

 

[EasyRhino]

A 4-8 game is almost impossible to beat with the casino taking $5-$6 every hand that you win and that might include a $1 tip to the dealer. Only the top 1% can beat that rake in the long run. 1 hour of poker playing 1 hand a minute rakes away $300-$360 from the table. However if you are in 400-800 game you can afford to have $5-$6 taken out of the pot assuming you are good enough to beat the other players the top 10-15% make money there. In blackjack I believe that you have to be better than 99.8% of other player being in the best 10% means you are usually playing a losing game although you will lose more slowly than the rest of the people.
Lets take the top .2% of poker players and the top .2% of blackjack player I would bet that poker players would make more especially if you talk about big buy-in tournament where the winner could walk with a $1,000,000+.

Could a more poker player please evaluate if this analysis of a 4/8 game is crazy talk?

 

[moo321]

Depends on the game, and how good you are. You also have to consider risk of ruin, and how much you are leveraging your bankroll. Multi-tabling online poker with bonuses or rakeback is the best leverage of a bankroll. But it's also nearly intolerable to do for much more than 10-15 hours a week for most people, and many good live players cannot play multiple tables well.

A good single deck game will probably trump any poker game. A bad 8 deck will probably be trumped by any poker game. What time of day are you playing poker? What time of day would you play blackjack?

Overall, though, I tend to slightly prefer poker. No heat, and I think that a good poker player will win a little more with lower risk of ruin. But, it's also simpler to be a good blackjack player than a good poker player.

 

[moo321]

Could a more poker player please evaluate if this analysis of a 4/8 game is crazy talk?

I don't agree with it. $6 rake is obscene, but I have put in about 50 hours grinding about $15 an hour out of a $3-6 game with $6 rake. VERY soft game, though; averaged 8 players seeing the flop, and 3 players at showdown, so that probably offsets the rake. Also, 60 hands an hour in a live game is extremely fast, and not every hand has the rake capped.

I would guess that an average "good" poker player (i.e. average skills for a pro) could earn about $10 an hour at an average $3-6 game. $13-14 an hour at $4-8. Maybe $16-17 at $5-10. Once you hit $10-20, in many places your winrate will begin to drop a little because of the presence of semi-pros and good players. Obviously, with soft games, you could get well above these numbers.

 

[Geoff Hall]

Poker vs Blackjack

Before the dramatic increase of 'no-limit' games, it was reasonable to expect that a good 'Limit' Hold'em player could expect to win 2 'Big Bets' per hour of play.

So a crude comparison could be to take a good 20/40 player and calculate what the Blackjack player would need to do to deliver the same earnings.

So, a good 20/40 Limit player would expect to earn $80 per hour. A good Blackjack player, say with a 1% overall edge, playing 100 hand per hour, would need to stake $8,000 (or $80 per hand average) to expect similar results. Using 'SCORE' would give a more accurate expectation for the Blackjack player but the game along with the necessary spread could be calculated.

Of course, as stated earlier, the type of games available make a huge impact on the final results.

When I played pot-limit Omaha professionally in the UK, I recorded all of my results along with the hours played. This was over a 30 month period. My average nightly win was £89 and my average amount of time played was just under 4 hours. So, I guestimated that my expected earnings were around £23 per hour ($45) for that game at that particular casino. Not exactly a quick-rich scheme but enough to pay the bills ;-)

 

[Sonny]

I’ll take blackjack over poker any day. In poker you play against the cards whereas in BJ you get to play with the cards. In poker you play by the odds and hope that you get the cards you need. Most of the time you don’t. It’s just too much of a grind. In BJ you get many opportunities to predict and even influence the cards. You can track them, sequence them, cut them wherever you want, steer them, catch glimpses of them at different times, observe inconsistencies, scavenge other player’s hands, and all sorts of other techniques. You can also legally use partners to help you play, which opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The comps are also much better. And when was the last time a poker player got a matchplay coupon or a “first card is an ace” coupon? There are also a variety of side bets available to BJ players.

Basically, a BJ player has the luxury of using information that a poker player can never get. There are so many more opportunities available to BJ players that poker players can only dream about. A great BJ player has a lot more control over the game while a great poker player still has to grind it out. That's not for me.

Of course, if I was really smart I would learn to play both.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I don't agree with it. $6 rake is obscene, but I have put in about 50 hours grinding about $15 an hour out of a $3-6 game with $6 rake. VERY soft game, though; averaged 8 players seeing the flop, and 3 players at showdown, so that probably offsets the rake. Also, 60 hands an hour in a live game is extremely fast, and not every hand has the rake capped.

I would guess that an average "good" poker player (i.e. average skills for a pro) could earn about $10 an hour at an average $3-6 game. $13-14 an hour at $4-8. Maybe $16-17 at $5-10. Once you hit $10-20, in many places your winrate will begin to drop a little because of the presence of semi-pros and good players. Obviously, with soft games, you could get well above these numbers.

That's the problem. You can't afford to have me as an opponent, and I can't afford to have you. Even a pro poker player sitting at a poker table full of skilled BJ players (and I don't think BJ players tend to be great poker players, I'm certainly not!) is going to have a hard time making money, because at least we all know the mathematical part of the game. What would happen if everyone at the table just knew opening hand theory? I don't think it would be a fun time for the pro.

At least with BJ you know exactly what you are up against and can expect to win before you even sit down.

 

[Brock Windsor]

I’ll take blackjack over poker any day. In poker you play against the cards whereas in BJ you get to play with the cards. In poker you play by the odds and hope that you get the cards you need. Most of the time you don’t. It’s just too much of a grind. In BJ you get many opportunities to predict and even influence the cards. You can track them, sequence them, cut them wherever you want, steer them, catch glimpses of them at different times, observe inconsistencies, scavenge other player’s hands, and all sorts of other techniques. You can also legally use partners to help you play, which opens up a whole new world of possibilities. The comps are also much better. And when was the last time a poker player got a matchplay coupon or a “first card is an ace” coupon? There are also a variety of side bets available to BJ players.

Basically, a BJ player has the luxury of using information that a poker player can never get. There are so many more opportunities available to BJ players that poker players can only dream about. A great BJ player has a lot more control over the game while a great poker player still has to grind it out. That's not for me.

Of course, if I was really smart I would learn to play both.

-Sonny-

Many of the same opportunities that exist in BJ exist in poker. Playing by the odds and hoping the cards come is existent in both. In the long run, you will get the cards at the percentage expected in both games. Poker still has flashed cards, marked cards, and theoretically could be sequenced in a hand shuffled game. There are also legal team strategies. For instance in a tournament 4 very skilled players could agree to split the winnings should one of them win. Comps however appear much better for BJ.
BW

 

[moo321]

Before the dramatic increase of 'no-limit' games, it was reasonable to expect that a good 'Limit' Hold'em player could expect to win 2 'Big Bets' per hour of play.

So a crude comparison could be to take a good 20/40 player and calculate what the Blackjack player would need to do to deliver the same earnings.

So, a good 20/40 Limit player would expect to earn $80 per hour. A good Blackjack player, say with a 1% overall edge, playing 100 hand per hour, would need to stake $8,000 (or $80 per hand average) to expect similar results. Using 'SCORE' would give a more accurate expectation for the Blackjack player but the game along with the necessary spread could be calculated.

Of course, as stated earlier, the type of games available make a huge impact on the final results.

When I played pot-limit Omaha professionally in the UK, I recorded all of my results along with the hours played. This was over a 30 month period. My average nightly win was £89 and my average amount of time played was just under 4 hours. So, I guestimated that my expected earnings were around £23 per hour ($45) for that game at that particular casino. Not exactly a quick-rich scheme but enough to pay the bills ;-)

2 big bets an hour in a live game is extremely generous.

 

[Sonny]

Many of the same opportunities that exist in BJ exist in poker...Poker still has flashed cards, marked cards, and theoretically could be sequenced in a hand shuffled game.

There is a long list of techniques that can be useful in BJ but are not applicable to poker. For example, sequencing a SD game is practically impossible. Shuffle tracking is also impossible, not that you would be able to get the cut card anyway. After all, there is no such thing as a heads-up poker game. That also makes steering almost impossible, especially since you can’t steer the cards with the play of your hand. In a SD game you are unlikely to spot flashed cards during the stack and the dealer doesn’t take a hole card so you can’t front load (unless you can catch a glimpse of another player’s cards). Forget about playing the turn. Also, because of all the burned cards, indexing cannot be used to predict the next card. You’re not allowed to interact with the other players so scavenger plays and backlining are out.

There are also legal team strategies. For instance in a tournament 4 very skilled players could agree to split the winnings should one of them win.

But that's true in BJ tournaments as well.

There may be a few techniques that will work in poker, but for the most part you are grinding it out and waiting for the long run without much control over the outcome in the short term. Even the best poker players are only on par with the best card counters in terms of EV and RoR. The difference is that BJ offers many more opportunities to move beyond that level for a motivated player.

-Sonny-

 

[moo321]

Even the best poker players are only on par with the best card counters in terms of EV and RoR. The difference is that BJ offers many more opportunities to move beyond that level for a motivated player.

-Sonny-

This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe a blackjack player playing in the best games might have better EV and ROR; certainly a hole-carder could do better. But online multi-tablers that are using bonuses can be +ev before skill even comes into play. And there are extremely soft poker games to be found in the world. It's hard to make any generalization about one being categorically better than the other.

 

[person1125]

I would have to say poker - but then that depends. What did you mean by 'poker' I would assume No Limit Hold'em?? I mean you have pot limit, fixed limit, no limit tables with Omaha Hi/Low, Hold'em, Stud Hi/Low, Omaha Hi, Razz, etc. Someone my be very skilled in No Limit Hold'em, but put them in a pot limit omaha Hi/Low table and they would be lost. If you are going to play 'poker' I would say become very good at one type and stay with it. Since No Limit Hold'em is all the rage right now you would probably find some terrible players with good opp for you.

One of the best quote I read was I believe made by Daniel Negreanu (I'm not positive on who said it). He said Poker (and blackjack this is my add on) are like sex. Many people think they are good at it, but no one really knows what they are doing. :grin:

 

[moo321]

I would have to say poker - but then that depends. What did you mean by 'poker' I would assume No Limit Hold'em?? I mean you have pot limit, fixed limit, no limit tables with Omaha Hi/Low, Hold'em, Stud Hi/Low, Omaha Hi, Razz, etc. Someone my be very skilled in No Limit Hold'em, but put them in a pot limit omaha Hi/Low table and they would be lost. If you are going to play 'poker' I would say become very good at one type and stay with it. Since No Limit Hold'em is all the rage right now you would probably find some terrible players with good opp for you.

One of the best quote I read was I believe made by Daniel Negreanu (I'm not positive on who said it). He said Poker (and blackjack this is my add on) are like sex. Many people think they are good at it, but no one really knows what they are doing. :grin:

Limit hold'em is great for multi-tablers online. Pot limit omaha is probably the best game if you can find it live; literally just play the nuts, and you'll get callers. No-limit holdem is also good in live games where you can get reads. Stud can be a good game, because its often old people, but the variance is higher than holdem. But, obviously, you should probably focus on the game you're best at.

 

[darrislance]

Poker vs Blackjack

I prefer Poker over Blackjack.

With AP blackjack there is a mathematically correct way to play every possible hand and I find this somewhat boring and robotic. Poker is much more subjective; there is no one specific way to win. "Every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser." Plus I find it much easier to beat other players vs beating the casino. I'll admit blackjack is intriguing; beating a game that 99% percent of people cannot. The whole cat and mouse game can be really appealing and can give a great sense of accomplishment if successful.

The future of blackjack is uncertain and constantly changing, while the future of poker is strong and expanding.

They say, all gamblers are losers in the end. As Kevin Blackwood says, "It's very possible to win at blackjack and still lose at life."

"When the game is over, the pawns, rooks, kings, and queens all go back into the same box" -Italian Proverb

Good Luck To All!!