[dogmeat]

Professional blackjack and poker have grown closer together over the years (with respect to risk of ruin) as the number of hands played at poker has increased (especially with multi-table play) and met or exceeded the hands played per hour at BJ. However, IMHO there is still a big difference between the two, and the classic ROR formula for BJ need not be applied to poker with respect to factoring in expenses.
Certainly the ROR is greatly increased by a card counter when standard, unavoidable expenses are added to the equation because the usual bankroll and subsequent success for the counter involves doubling the bankroll. However, again, this is not exactly the case with a poker player who is well bankrolled (although some aspects are similar) because the chance of ruin is not tied to the player "doubling" the bankroll. Expenses are simply expenses, and poker players rely on sustaining a certain bankroll and taking the winning above that threshold.

I have wondered in the past how well the ROR of BJ and Poker really do relate, since the BJ counter is playing to between a 1 and 2 percent edge and a (successful, winning) poker player is probably playing a considerably higher overall edge. Has anybody done an analysis of a (2BB/hr) poker player's overall edge? Or, without using any higher math can we compare the two as thus: BJ counter makes about 1 average bet per hour (100 hands)and a poker pro makes about 3BB per 100 hands and therefore enjoys an overall expectation three times that of a BJ player? Or, two times that per hour? Oversimplified? Yes. How do you see it?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]