Basic Casino Poker Odds - (Rake, no toke)

[RockLobster]

Help. I know that this logic is flawed, but I'm not bright enough to explain why.

If you play blackjack perfectly, the house odds are less than 1% (I believe). Which means (to me) that if you play blackjack long enough, you're going to lose.

In poker, you're playing against other players, NOT the house. Yes, you pay a fee out of each pot in order to have a properly managed game with a professionaly dealer. You can actually win at poker (duh).

The argument that was made to me (that I can't properly defend) is this:

The house gets 1% on blackjack, but they rake more on poker (let's say 5% of each pot). Therefore your odds are better at blackjack.

I feel so dumb, I know this is grossly wrong, but I can't seem to explain it.

Thanks in advance for the help. BTW, I've been away for a while so I had to re-register. I'm basically an OK beginner player (b&m LL hold 'em), but tend to suck at Paradise (I haven't played there in over a year).

Thanks again--

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Blackjack is probably a bad example, because if you can count cards well enough, you can find situations where the odds tilt in your favor.

The difference between poker and blackjack is that in blackjack you have one opponenent who is 100% predictable. In poker, you have multiple opponents whose predictablility varies. In that lies the potential for skill to overcome luck. You gain by taking advantage of your opponents' mistakes (see Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker). In blackjack, your opponent NEVER makes a mistake. In poker, not only will your opponents make mistakes on their own, but you have the potential to manipulate them into making mistakes.

Therefore your upside potential (and downside as well) is much higher in poker.

[pudley4]

1-A good player's advantage over the other players in the game can be so much more than the 5% (or 10%) rake that it more than makes up for the rake
2-Good players aren't winning as many pots as poor players, so they pay less than their "share" of the 5% rake.

[RockLobster]

Thank you both for the replies, they make perfect sense to me (and will be helpful in my argument).