Reponse from author of Poker Craze article

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
i would assume his 3% edge figure is some sort of mathematical extrapolation using the old axiom of a good player being able to win 1BB per hour - i think others could use different bases and come up with different figures, but a 3% edge per hand in the long run seems a reasonable sounding figure to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be, and I agree the figure one comes up with is highly dependent on what the assumptions are and what they even mean by "a 3% increase in the chance to have a successful outcome." While it was a polite and somewhat reasonable-sounding response, I rather doubt the gentleman understands the details of what he is talking about.

My best guess is the 3% in draw poker merely has to do with who ends up with the winning hand (i.e., the skill involved in this calculation is merely the skill in choosing which cards to discard). If so, the number is meaningless in hold em, Omaha, stud, or any other game where the player doesn't discard and draw. It also wouldn't take into account the skill associated with betting and raising decisions.

On the other hand, say the 3% is, as Mike suggests, something along the lines of the house advantage in a casino game. 3% in that case is rather significant. Again, as Mike says, with that kind of advantage, the better player will almost surely win after a large number of hands.

Be all this as it may, the upshot of this is really that they don't care if poker is a game of skill; they care that there is wagering involved, and they want to regulate it and/or prohibit it.

[UTGunner]

It has to be based on a single hand. No one but serious poker players think about win rates and variance over a long series of hands. 3% does not seem too low for any given random hand, in fact it seems much too high.

If the average pot at 2/4 is $25. 3% would be 75 cents. Thats $75 over 100 hands. Way too high. (Although I doubt they based the figure on the game conditions I just did.)

Since a lot of the games discussed in the article are tournaments at a local bar, they may be looking at your edge at winning or moneying in a local tournament.

[Cubswin]

I certainly don't agree with the policy but you can't really argue with his explanation when taken in context of existing state laws.

Completely agree. While many other states have antiquated gambling laws, MN's have been adopted recently and are seem to be clearly defined in most regards. I remember reading on another board (onlineblackjackguide maybe?) that they werent sure why some sites (Lasseter's, for example) exclude players from certain states. I went to the Lassester's site and found this:

Lasseters reserves the right to monitor the location from which you access the site and to block cash gaming for any Jurisdiction at any time without prejudice.

Current nominated non-cash gaming jurisdictions:
- Australia
- Netherlands

The following USA states:
- Indiana
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Mississippi
- Nevada

Without looking up the individual state laws for each of these states, i will go out on a ledge and say that MN's exclusion is a result of clearly defined law in this area.

cubs

[StellarWind]

74% of all numbers cited in 2+2 posts are made up.

I will speculate that 3% is supposed to be a strong player's profit divided by the total amount of money he wagers. That's the normal way the house edge is specified in most gambling games.

This statistic is a lot less useful for poker than for roulette or slots because there is no direct connection between money wagered and EV. Nevertheless, for a given expert and set of game conditions you could measure this statistic and come up with a result that would converge after a large number of hands.

Pool the results of many experts and many games and 3% could be a consensus result analogous to the famous 1 BB/hr. Essentially a rule of thumb for what a draw poker expert can hope to accomplish.

Having said all that I have no idea if 3% is a plausible number or not. Sounds like a big edge to me.

[lorinda]

With 'optimal' play I barely have a better chance than anybody else to win after 1 hand.

You have less chance than anybody else after 1 hand.

Lori

[Cubswin]

You have less chance than anybody else after 1 hand.

Incorrect... do you see why???

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
74% of all numbers cited in 2+2 posts are made up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

Most of us aren't government officials who deal with gambling.
There is a big difference.

[Koller]

It is $ won per hand / $ wagered per hand

ex. $0.10 / $2.50 = 4 %

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
You have less chance than anybody else after 1 hand.

Incorrect... do you see why???

[/ QUOTE ]
In hold'em the player who posts the big blind normally has the best chance to win the hand. Is this your idea?

I once visited the draw poker games at Paradise and discovered they are played with blinds so the same concept should apply.

But I thought traditional draw poker is played with an ante so the first hand is nothing special.

What was your answer?

[UncleDuke]

Perhaps I'm missing a point here, but it seems to me that with optimal play (whatever that is), after one hand of poker, you have less chance to be ahead than a typical player but not necessarily less than all players. The reasoning is this: a strong poker player will generally fold more hands than a typical player, so there will be less chance to win a random hand. Your EV may be improved by folding more hands than average, but nevertheless, you are foregoing the chance at a lucky win with bad cards. The reason that you might not have less chance than all players is that it's possible that some other player might be more than optimally tight.