LSJohn
Verified Member
In the forms of gambling managed by an operator -- horse racing, sports betting, casino play, Calcuttas, etc -- how hard the operator can "hit" the action without killing the golden goose depends first on how large a pool of potential customers he has or can promote well enough to constantly replace, and secondly on what players will tolerate.
You'd think those two would rank the other way around, but "price sensitivity" is far lower in gambling than in most market transactions. Fact is, almost everyone who participates in these does so as recreation. They are hoping to win, but not playing to win.
In any of these forms of gambling, some of the small group actually playing to win will be successful, but they represent a far smaller percentage -- less than 1% -- of the total player pool. Which of them this will be often depends more about how carefully they choose what rake they choose to play against, how often they are able to play against very low or NO rake, and how well they manage associated expenses, than actual ability handicapping, or at the table.
The few of these who are able to "make a living," IOW, "Professional gamblers," rather than simply making long-term profit -- without somehow getting a piece of the rake themselves -- are almost, but not quite, as rare as unicorns.
In sports betting the rake is typically 5%, but many people seem to think it is 10% (bet $110 to win $100.) But bet $110 twice, win one, lose one, net rake of $10 on $200 action = 5%. This one-time fee of $10/5% is vastly less expensive than a 5% rake would be in a poker game. The total amount of money on the table in a poker game crosses the pots many times in a session. I estimate that for an operator to place a surcharge on chip purchases large enough to offset a 1% pot rake, it would need to be at least 10%.
Along these lines, if you play poker, careful observation of the amount of tournament fees charged compared to the pot-rake percentage in available cash games may lead you to believe that tournament play is usually a better gamble. Tournament payout at the end of a 2-hour tournament will usually be much greater than the amount of money that would be left on the table after 2 hours of cash play.
Naturally, in any of these games the higher the degree of skill and less of luck that determines outcomes, the better game it is for the better players. If you're good, play chess, not Omaha.
As an operator, the higher degree of luck, the longer your weaker players will last and the more slowly the better players will drain the available discretionary cash pool.
If this all makes sense to you it should be easy for you to figure out who has figured out Omaha and who hasn't. Yes, Omaha is as close to flipping coins as poker gets. The one who shouldn't play it against more than a 1% rake has realized it, and the other is getting a better shot at his level of skill.
You'd think those two would rank the other way around, but "price sensitivity" is far lower in gambling than in most market transactions. Fact is, almost everyone who participates in these does so as recreation. They are hoping to win, but not playing to win.
In any of these forms of gambling, some of the small group actually playing to win will be successful, but they represent a far smaller percentage -- less than 1% -- of the total player pool. Which of them this will be often depends more about how carefully they choose what rake they choose to play against, how often they are able to play against very low or NO rake, and how well they manage associated expenses, than actual ability handicapping, or at the table.
The few of these who are able to "make a living," IOW, "Professional gamblers," rather than simply making long-term profit -- without somehow getting a piece of the rake themselves -- are almost, but not quite, as rare as unicorns.
In sports betting the rake is typically 5%, but many people seem to think it is 10% (bet $110 to win $100.) But bet $110 twice, win one, lose one, net rake of $10 on $200 action = 5%. This one-time fee of $10/5% is vastly less expensive than a 5% rake would be in a poker game. The total amount of money on the table in a poker game crosses the pots many times in a session. I estimate that for an operator to place a surcharge on chip purchases large enough to offset a 1% pot rake, it would need to be at least 10%.
Along these lines, if you play poker, careful observation of the amount of tournament fees charged compared to the pot-rake percentage in available cash games may lead you to believe that tournament play is usually a better gamble. Tournament payout at the end of a 2-hour tournament will usually be much greater than the amount of money that would be left on the table after 2 hours of cash play.
Naturally, in any of these games the higher the degree of skill and less of luck that determines outcomes, the better game it is for the better players. If you're good, play chess, not Omaha.
As an operator, the higher degree of luck, the longer your weaker players will last and the more slowly the better players will drain the available discretionary cash pool.
If this all makes sense to you it should be easy for you to figure out who has figured out Omaha and who hasn't. Yes, Omaha is as close to flipping coins as poker gets. The one who shouldn't play it against more than a 1% rake has realized it, and the other is getting a better shot at his level of skill.