Having played poker significantly over the last three years I have noticed that most of those playing this game a dim eye roulette and see it immediately as a game which is less possible to win at poker. Most of them, when I tell them about roulette mention that this game depends on chance. As if that was not the case of poker ...
All mention of the fact that when you play roulette, it "plays against the casino," while when playing poker, "plays against other players." It seems in their eyes, easier to win against nine opponents who want at any price, and by all means, take their tokens, as against only one, the casino, which shot after shot, plays Similarly predetermined. A bit like blackjack, the dealer must follow the letter of pre-established rules and rigid. Knowing that the highest qualities of the masters of poker is to know literally hide their game as much as possible by varying the way they play, to better fool the enemy, we can say that poker and roulette at the two ends of the spectrum of predictability. And at several levels.
If I am offered the opportunity to face an opponent in any game whatsoever and I have a choice between a player always acting the same way and another constantly varying his game, I will choose without hesitation the first.
If I said that to win X amount, I had to beat an opponent either alone or nine opponents (or worse: 16000), I also choose the first option.
If they offered me a game where I can withdraw at any time without offending and another person where, after winning, it is difficult to get up without upsetting his opponents and impossible to do in tournaments, I would choose again, the first option.
The fact that players think of poker face "other players" and not "casino" is, in turn, equally wrong. Whether you play in cash games or tournament, the casino edge to this game, unfortunately, is far more detrimental than what can be found at roulette and many other games available.
Most places where you can play poker rake take a 10% all the money ends up in the pots at cash games. Note well here it is not 10% of the amount you are willing to commit early in the game, but 10% of all the bets you place during the game.
If, within a few hours of play, you place bets totaling, for example, $ 3,000, you should have lost about $ 300. This does not manifest itself as precisely that during a game or two data but in the long term, this statistical disadvantage entered the heart of this game should make you lose 10% of everything you bet. Thus, the casinos, this game like all others, enrich at the expense of the vast majority of their customers.
At tournaments, the same principle is at work. Whether you're in a real casino or on PokerStars.com, a tournament costing you $ 10 actually cost you $ 11. A tournament will cost $ 100 total $ 110 or more.
As for the aspect of "chance" of the roulette game that is often pressure to speak my interlocutors poker enthusiasts, it is no less present in poker. Whether you're the greatest master of the bluff that is, it will always end up needing good cards if you want to do anything worthwhile when a poker game.
You have about as much chance to have a pair of 4 in your hands in a game of Texas Holdem than winning a bet riding on the wheel (a bet covering two numbers with one bet the overlap). What you get constantly good cards in a poker match will earn you proportionally as much as if your numbers come out during a game of roulette. The reverse is also true. Obtaining bad cards in large quantities correspond to the failure hitter his numbers in roulette.
A French roulette with the rule "in prison" has a edge of only 1.35%. Compared to 10% found common in poker, it seems pretty good.
Being familiar with the probabilities of the game of roulette, really "sense" occurrences and non-occurrences of events with varying probabilities for having played enough, may help some to be better at poker by knowing look, literally put Side-by-side, the odds of roulette and poker, to make better choices.
And if you look at it as a poker player, there will always be dozens of games kitchen or living room in which you will not need to lose 10% of all your bets.
All mention of the fact that when you play roulette, it "plays against the casino," while when playing poker, "plays against other players." It seems in their eyes, easier to win against nine opponents who want at any price, and by all means, take their tokens, as against only one, the casino, which shot after shot, plays Similarly predetermined. A bit like blackjack, the dealer must follow the letter of pre-established rules and rigid. Knowing that the highest qualities of the masters of poker is to know literally hide their game as much as possible by varying the way they play, to better fool the enemy, we can say that poker and roulette at the two ends of the spectrum of predictability. And at several levels.
If I am offered the opportunity to face an opponent in any game whatsoever and I have a choice between a player always acting the same way and another constantly varying his game, I will choose without hesitation the first.
If I said that to win X amount, I had to beat an opponent either alone or nine opponents (or worse: 16000), I also choose the first option.
If they offered me a game where I can withdraw at any time without offending and another person where, after winning, it is difficult to get up without upsetting his opponents and impossible to do in tournaments, I would choose again, the first option.
The fact that players think of poker face "other players" and not "casino" is, in turn, equally wrong. Whether you play in cash games or tournament, the casino edge to this game, unfortunately, is far more detrimental than what can be found at roulette and many other games available.
Most places where you can play poker rake take a 10% all the money ends up in the pots at cash games. Note well here it is not 10% of the amount you are willing to commit early in the game, but 10% of all the bets you place during the game.
If, within a few hours of play, you place bets totaling, for example, $ 3,000, you should have lost about $ 300. This does not manifest itself as precisely that during a game or two data but in the long term, this statistical disadvantage entered the heart of this game should make you lose 10% of everything you bet. Thus, the casinos, this game like all others, enrich at the expense of the vast majority of their customers.
At tournaments, the same principle is at work. Whether you're in a real casino or on PokerStars.com, a tournament costing you $ 10 actually cost you $ 11. A tournament will cost $ 100 total $ 110 or more.
As for the aspect of "chance" of the roulette game that is often pressure to speak my interlocutors poker enthusiasts, it is no less present in poker. Whether you're the greatest master of the bluff that is, it will always end up needing good cards if you want to do anything worthwhile when a poker game.
You have about as much chance to have a pair of 4 in your hands in a game of Texas Holdem than winning a bet riding on the wheel (a bet covering two numbers with one bet the overlap). What you get constantly good cards in a poker match will earn you proportionally as much as if your numbers come out during a game of roulette. The reverse is also true. Obtaining bad cards in large quantities correspond to the failure hitter his numbers in roulette.
A French roulette with the rule "in prison" has a edge of only 1.35%. Compared to 10% found common in poker, it seems pretty good.
Being familiar with the probabilities of the game of roulette, really "sense" occurrences and non-occurrences of events with varying probabilities for having played enough, may help some to be better at poker by knowing look, literally put Side-by-side, the odds of roulette and poker, to make better choices.
And if you look at it as a poker player, there will always be dozens of games kitchen or living room in which you will not need to lose 10% of all your bets.
0 comments:
Post a Comment