Is poker the best game for a casino?

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
So if they have an x ammount of money on the table, assumming they break even on play, the casino is eventually gonna have all of their money. Because in every hand, from the x ammount of money the players brought to the table, a y ammount of rake is taken off. So it's guaranteed that if they keep playing and playing they are gonna have nothing left

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumptions are sort of unreasonable. It's far more likely that one of the two players will bust the other, at which point the game will stop.

Your general theory that if they play forever, the Casino gets all the chips is correct, though. A better example of this is the slot machine. Even if the machine pays 99% (most pay lots less) play long enough and the Casino will have all your money.

As to profitibility. Assume a table has a $4 maximum rake, and on average gets $3 to $3.50 per hand. Compare this with a blackjack table. If you have 8 players at a $10 table, everyone using 'basic strategy' and betting the minimum, you'd have $80 bet with a 1% house edge or $0.8 for the house per hand.

However, (1) many players make more than the minimum bet (increasing the house +ev) (2) most players don't use basic strategy, and some are just plain awful (increasing the house +ev) and (3) you can probably play more blackjack hands per hour than poker hands.

All in all, my guess is that the cheapest blackjack tables are more profitable than chea[ poker tables -- with more expensive blackjac tables, I don't think it's even close. Roulette and Craps (the way most people play) provide a bigger house percentage for the house.

Now as to the argument that a poker rake is more of a sure thing than the other table games (where the house can 'lose'). Given the law of large numbers, I don't think the house really cares much about this in the long term (at least for low limit games).

[Sakuraba]

[ QUOTE ]
2 words, Opportunity Cost.

Theoretically, its better to be a poker dealer than a player, since you always get paid, and as a player, you might lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what opportunity cost is. This also isn't even theoretically true unless the player/dealer is very risk adverse. If he isn't, the relative wage is the determining factor. (all else equal)

Opportunity cost would apply is a player could earn more per hour as a dealer (or whatever his next best available option was). The income that he had to forgo from dealing while he played would be his opportunity cost of playing.

Edit - you are right about opportunity cost being key in determining how good of a game poker is for the house if that is what you mean.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 words, Opportunity Cost.

Theoretically, its better to be a poker dealer than a player, since you always get paid, and as a player, you might lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't what opportunity cost is. This also isn't even theoretically true unless the player/dealer is very risk adverse. If he isn't, the relative wage is the determining factor. (all else equal)

Opportunity cost would apply is a player could earn more per hour as a dealer (or whatever his next best available option was). The income that he had to forgo from dealing while he played would be his opportunity cost of playing.

Edit - you are right about opportunity cost being key in determining how good of a game poker is for the house if that is what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point has two parts.

1) The casino has an opportunity cost when having a poker room. This somewhat relates to the player/dealer, as someone who could do both would likely make money at both, but must choose one. This produces an opportunity cost, since he can't do both at once.

2) Just because something is a surefire way of making money, doesn't mean its the best. Government bonds will always return interest, but if you can overcome the long term, investing in stocks are going to produce more money for you. Same idea for the player/dealer. Same idea for the poker/blackjack/slots argument.

[sthief09]

if poker was the best game for the house, they wouldn't treat poker players like [censored], now would they?

[Sakuraba]

[ QUOTE ]
My point has two parts.

1) The casino has an opportunity cost when having a poker room. This somewhat relates to the player/dealer, as someone who could do both would likely make money at both, but must choose one. This produces an opportunity cost, since he can't do both at once.

2) Just because something is a surefire way of making money, doesn't mean its the best. Government bonds will always return interest, but if you can overcome the long term, investing in stocks are going to produce more money for you. Same idea for the player/dealer. Same idea for the poker/blackjack/slots argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I figured out it was two parts after I wrote it. Hence, the edit.

Unless you were being sarcastic, I don't really understand what you mean in part 2 of the original post, but I agree completely with part 2 of the second post, so I guess we are on the same page.

[TomCollins]

Your sarcasm detector is indeed broken.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run, the house is guaranteed to win at roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. it's gambling after all.

[Sakuraba]

[ QUOTE ]
Your sarcasm detector is indeed broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my defense, there are a lot of stupid people on this board now who regularly write things like this totally seriously.

Apparently, you are not one of them. Sorry.