what other games can be beaten

[bigredhoss]

the only game I've ever played is hold 'em but I assume other poker games can be beaten like omaha/stud/etc. I've also heard blackjack can be beaten I think?

can anyone make a list of games that can be beaten long-term? I'm not really thinking about straying from HE (although I'd like to learn Omaha), just more curious than anything.

[edudlive]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

[bigredhoss]

well ok then, it was more of a question than a statement, that's just what I had heard...still wondering what other games can be beaten.

[Laeelin]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

not if you count cards. (and thats not cheating)

[Miffed22001]

To make an attempt to answer this and not take the piss!
You could try pot limit omaha high, which i think some of our other players have tried and crushed. I do ok im still learning.
But if you do make sure you do the research on the game and ask some questions of people who play it. I havent 'dabbled' in stud or hi/low omaha yeat but my time will come i hope.

[TLR]

OK, just me 2c.

Rule of thumb - and game you play against people is more easily beatable then a game played against the house.

Any poker related game can be beaten if you study it well enough and apply yourself to it.

Blackjack can be beaten in B&M casinos if you count cards, but this gives you a very low edge over the casino and only in specific times, so you need really deep pockets to make it profitble

Roulette can theoretically be beaten with unlimited funds.

Regarding poker related varieties online:
I played a little Omaha and Omaha h/l low limits, and I have a friend who exclusivly plas omaha h/l and is profitable in it. The game is beatable but you have to learn to play it and forget everything you know about holdem when you play omaha - those are completly different games.
I also played 7 stud h/l ring games at low levels, I am about break even in those, but I have no doubt the game is beatable

[Greedo017]

only thing other than holdem i've played is 7 and 5 card PL stud. Easy easy easy game.

[The_Cheat]

the only game I've ever played is hold 'em but I assume other poker games can be beaten like omaha/stud/etc. I've also heard blackjack can be beaten I think?

can anyone make a list of games that can be beaten long-term? I'm not really thinking about straying from HE (although I'd like to learn Omaha), just more curious than anything.

the most beatable game i have found is Razz. Genuinly crushable if you are not an idiot. Just ask Michael1123...

[Laeelin]

Roulette can theoretically be beaten with unlimited funds.

I thought the only way to beat Roulette was to cheat?

I think the coolest breaking vagas show i've saw yet is the one that showed a guy that could beat craps (was so good at controlling his dice throw that the odds were in his favor)

[DaNutsInYoEye]

In my experience any of the H/L split games are easy to beat up to 3/6, although I find Stud H/L easier than Omaha. Online these games are filled with tons of players that continually play for the high only and they wonder why they get beat so often. A decent H/L player could literally give you a 5 minute lesson and you would then be able beat the low limits pretty handily.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Roulette is beatable without cheating. All roulette wheels have a bias. A bias is is a mechanical flaw that causes certain numbers to come up more often than others. The dealer stands in the same place and starts the ball spinning the same spot thousands upon thousands of times. Eventually there will be a "path" worn into the wheel. Of course it will be extremely slight and hard to detect, but this is an example of a bias. If you track this wheel over thousands of spins you will see that certain pockets (numbers) hit more often then others. You then play only these numbers you will win in the long run.

After being taken for huge sums of money, casinos started looking for the same things themselves. Even if you detect a bias before they do, if you sit there and continually bet the same numbers they are going to catch on.

[edudlive]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

not if you count cards. (and thats not cheating)

It is illegal though. If you do it in your head you can't get in legal trouble, but if they think you're doing it, you're gone.

[eeeee]

Black Jack cannot be beaten, but casino bonuses often overcompensate for the house advantage. Many casinos.

There are occasional video pokers that have payout over 100%. Some progressive jackpots games reach over 100% payout when the jackpot is big enough.

[Laeelin]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

not if you count cards. (and thats not cheating)

It is illegal though. If you do it in your head you can't get in legal trouble, but if they think you're doing it, you're gone.

It's not illegal at all... it's just against the rules almost everywhere.

And there is a huge diffrence between breaking the law and breaking a rule =)

Not that I know how to count cards. =)

[DaNutsInYoEye]

When he said blackjack cannot be beat, I think he was refering to online where counting cards won't help you.

[edudlive]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

not if you count cards. (and thats not cheating)

It is illegal though. If you do it in your head you can't get in legal trouble, but if they think you're doing it, you're gone.

It's not illegal at all... it's just against the rules almost everywhere.

And there is a huge diffrence between breaking the law and breaking a rule =)

Not that I know how to count cards. =)

If it is against the rules, and you're breaking the rules, it is cheating.

[TLR]

Roulette can be beat on the theoretical level with unlimited funds using the following system:

You set a betting amount X.
You always bet on red.

If you win you pocket your win - X and then continue betting X on Red.
If you lose you double your bet to 2X and bet red again.

Whenever you lose you double your bet.

The logic is that eventually a red will hit and you will make up for all your losses with this one win.

The only 2 problems with this system
1. You need virtually unlimited funds
2. You need a casino that has no betting limit on the roulette

[thirteen]

2. You need a casino that has no betting limit on the roulette

As far as I know there is almost always a betting limit.

Very interesting though. I've never heard that theory on roulette before.

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Roulette can be beat on the theoretical level with unlimited funds using the following system:

You set a betting amount X.
You always bet on red.

If you win you pocket your win - X and then continue betting X on Red.
If you lose you double your bet to 2X and bet red again.

Whenever you lose you double your bet.

The logic is that eventually a red will hit and you will make up for all your losses with this one win.

The only 2 problems with this system
1. You need virtually unlimited funds
2. You need a casino that has no betting limit on the roulette

You forgot the 3rd problem... It doesn't work. That's classic gambler's fallacy. Each spin of the roulette wheel is an independent event and on each spin the house has a 2.7% advantage for a single zero wheel and double that on a double zero wheel. It doesn't matter if the wheel comes up black 100 times in a row. On the 101st spin the chance that the wheel will again come up black again remains exactly the same. The chance that the wheel will show black 101 times in a row is totally different than the chance that the 101st spin will be black.

[rebuyman]

The problem with the rolette thing is this:

You will win let's say 100 dollars 99 times out of 100 for a profit of 9900 dollars. But one time you will lose everything for a loss of 10000.

[satan1974]

...which is exactly the reason you need unlimited funds. The time you lose 10,000, you then bet 10,000 to try and win 20,000. Lose 20,000, you bet 40,000. In theory it's fine, but theory is very often flawed. If it weren't, there would be billionnaires in this world living purely off roulette winnings.

[ProZachNation]

Cannt you also apply the roulette thing to blackjack, thats what I always do when I play blackjack with play money, start at the lowest amount you can bet and just do that, I have never run into a situation where I lose more than 12 times in a row and at worst.
1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1024->2028

But to my knowledge a casiono wouldnt let you do that

[DaNutsInYoEye]

...which is exactly the reason you need unlimited funds. The time you lose 10,000, you then bet 10,000 to try and win 20,000. Lose 20,000, you bet 40,000. In theory it's fine, but theory is very often flawed. If it weren't, there would be billionnaires in this world living purely off roulette winnings.

This assumes that your chance of getting either red or black is 50%. It's not though, so this is getting way to much discussion.[/quote]

[satan1974]

Yeah agreed - this is a poker website, no more off topic from me in this area.

[Laeelin]

Cannt you also apply the roulette thing to blackjack, thats what I always do when I play blackjack with play money, start at the lowest amount you can bet and just do that, I have never run into a situation where I lose more than 12 times in a row and at worst.
1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1024->2028

But to my knowledge a casiono wouldnt let you do that

That the worse way I can imagine for playing anything.

What it's really saying is that:

If you have umlimited money, and double your bet each time you lose, sooner or later you will win a bet no matter how bad the odds are and make up the losses.

Naturally they abuse the fact that infinite minus anything is still the same amount while totally ignoreing the fact that infinite anything plus more is still the same ammount.

Here is why that idea LOOKS like it works...

If you have infinite money, and bet everything you have on the roll of a dice... if you win, you have infinite money, and if you lose you still have infinite money

or, another was to look at it is:
If you have infinite money, you can gamble as often as you want for as much as you want and you will still have infinite money.

[DoGGz]

Cannt you also apply the roulette thing to blackjack, thats what I always do when I play blackjack with play money, start at the lowest amount you can bet and just do that, I have never run into a situation where I lose more than 12 times in a row and at worst.
1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1024->2028

But to my knowledge a casiono wouldnt let you do that

That the worse way I can imagine for playing anything.

What it's really saying is that:

If you have umlimited money, and double your bet each time you lose, sooner or later you will win a bet no matter how bad the odds are and make up the losses.

Naturally they abuse the fact that infinite minus anything is still the same amount while totally ignoreing the fact that infinite anything plus more is still the same ammount.

Here is why that idea LOOKS like it works...

If you have infinite money, and bet everything you have on the roll of a dice... if you win, you have infinite money, and if you lose you still have infinite money

or, another was to look at it is:
If you have infinite money, you can gamble as often as you want for as much as you want and you will still have infinite money.

This is exactly the same reason that a professional pokerplayer can lose. You can have AA infinite times and win 0 times. That is just how it works. You could define an algorthim to determine the likely hood of having X$ with a starting bet of y$ that equals a z% chance to go broke. The greater your advantage, the greater your X and the less your Y will give you the slimmest Z.

This doesn't work in practice because as someone noted there are betting limits on casino wheels. I can't bet 10,000$ after my 1$ bet lost 50 times in a row.

[Laeelin]

This is exactly the same reason that a professional pokerplayer can lose. You can have AA infinite times and win 0 times. That is just how it works. You could define an algorthim to determine the likely hood of having X$ with a starting bet of y$ that equals a z% chance to go broke. The greater your advantage, the greater your X and the less your Y will give you the slimmest Z.

This doesn't work in practice because as someone noted there are betting limits on casino wheels. I can't bet 10,000$ after my 1$ bet lost 50 times in a row.

You can not have AA and infinite number of times and lose every time... in fact, you have it an infinite number of times you will win exactly as many times as you should win.

No more, No less...

But you could lose 1,000 times in a row.

This doesn't work in practice because as someone noted there are betting limits on casino wheels. I can't bet 10,000$ after my 1$ bet lost 50 times in a row.

I doesnt work because its a fake that sounds reasonable.

[Xanadu]

That roulette gambling system you guys are talking about is called the Martingal. And it is true that as long as you have enough money for the next bet and are allowed to make a bet that big you can't lose, no matter what the odds are. The problem is, that no matter how much money you have it is never enough and it can be proven you will go broke if you continue to play. And you might go broke the first time you try it. For some reason I've only heard of this tried at roulette ... but it would have a better chance of working at craps since the odds of winning craps are better than roulette.

In case anyone is thinking about trying a Martingal, I did a few quick calcs to let you know what you are getting into. This is for roulette, assuming you bet either red or black every time. The probability of winning in roulette when taking red or black (with a 0 and 00) is approximately .4737. Let's suppose you have a bankroll of $10235. Why 10235? Because doubling your bet 10 times, and starting with a $5 minimum bet, that's what it's going to cost you to make all those bets. Also remember, that each time you win, you only net $5.

If you try it only one time, the probability of losing 10 times in a row and going bust is only .00162. Not bad, eh? This translates into odds of only 616:1 that you will go broke. But, you only make $5.
So, you try it 10 times. Your probability of going bust is .0161. This is about 62:1 you go bust, and you win $50.
How about 100 times? Chance of going bust: .15. 15% of the time you lose your $10235, 85% of the time you win $500.
Let's try it 1000 times. Your probability of busting out is now about 80%. But, 20% of the time, you win $5000.

EV for the 1000 case:
0.8*-10235 +0.2*5000= -$7188

So, we see that if you want to try this and want to make any significant amount of money, you are in big trouble.

Note: you aren't actually quite as bad as I make it out to be. I simplified the calculations. When you go bust on say the 200th time you try the Martingal, you will have $995 profit from the 199 succcessful tries. But you won't have enough cash for the next bet. Basically, it can be a fun way to go to the casino and know that most of the time you will make a modest winning, but occassionally you will lose it all for an overall loss. Kind of the opposite of most people's experience ... most of the time a modest loss, and occassionally a huge win. So, if you like to gamble, and like to play roulette (or craps or blackjack), and would prefer to win more often than you lose, but in the long run lose the same as you would anyway, go for it.

For the record, there are 4 ways to win money longterm at a casino:

1. Count cards at blackjack and hope you aren't caught and kicked out.
2. Cheat and hope you aren't caught and get various members broken.
3. Play the Video poker machines out there (perfectly) that actually have a positive return for ideal play.
4. Be a very good poker player ... the casino gets it's cut, but you get to compete with a lot of lousy poker players.

[TLR]

Very clear and good explanation Xanadu

[jkanters]

Roulette can be beat on the theoretical level with unlimited funds using the following system:

You set a betting amount X.
You always bet on red.

If you win you pocket your win - X and then continue betting X on Red.
If you lose you double your bet to 2X and bet red again.

Whenever you lose you double your bet.

The logic is that eventually a red will hit and you will make up for all your losses with this one win.

The only 2 problems with this system
1. You need virtually unlimited funds
2. You need a casino that has no betting limit on the roulette

The problem is that you will encounter an unlimited loss also.

There exist a mathematical proof (Im not able to give it, but had read about it) that Roulette cant be beaten (even not in theory).

Black Jack only if you do card counting

[DaNutsInYoEye]

Again, find the bias of a roulette wheel and you can beat it easily.

[johnny_fish]

I heard about that bias.. At first I didn't believe it could be done, but there seem to be regular patterns caused by bad croupiers.. Interesting stuff.

[Laeelin]

Breaking Vagas had a show about a fanily that beat roulette using the bias...

It's cheating, but possible..

howevr you will need a good tream and a lot of work

[eeeee]

I think of myself as an ethical person, but I cannot fathom why it could ever be cheating to:

• count cards in BJ
  discover roulette wheel bias
  'advantage play' in order to take free bonus money

I just don't get it. The 'house' plays a game with an advantage, and you find an advantage in return and it is considered cheating.

[SuperDave9x19]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

If you play by the same rules as house (hit 17 stand 17) then you are correct.

Anyone with half a brain doesn't play Blackjack that way.

[Aces]

If you play perfect blackjack the house still has a 0.5% advantage, so no...you won't beat it in the long run.

If you play by the same rules as house (hit 17 stand 17) then you are correct.

Anyone with half a brain doesn't play Blackjack that way.

Doesn't matter how you play(and I assume you mean hit 16 stand 17, not that it matters). Unless you're talking about counting, the house will always have an advantage w/BJ.

[SuperDave9x19]

my experience, tho not high rolling, says otherwise.

and if you tell me there are web sites proving you right, I won't really care. For about 2 years I was near a casino where my std procedure was:

Go to the $1 to $8 4 deck tables with $40.

Bet $2 until I hit 60 or drop to $1 if I hit $20.

Up bet to $4 at 60. Up bet to $8 (max) at $80.

If I ever half my max amount for day (except $40, i permit a full $40 loss) then leave. So if i reach $200 but drop to $100 i leave).

Never stay over 2 hours.

I would regularly stand on odd low hands even if a good dealer card is showing. An important item to note is that the Dealer DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE A 10 BURIED. You cannot win if you bust. Crap can win if dealer busts.

Profited well over $3000 1st year and $5K second. I was younger and saw no point in higher stakes cause I was socializing.

Of course, when I stay on 15 and dealer hits and beats us, the whole table would blame me. But if I were to stand on 14 vs. a 10 showing and he turns over 16 and breaks, the whole table would compliment themselves on their skill.

I tended to play last seat if I could. I didn't exactly count cards (tried that, took away enjoyment) but I watched trends on preceeding 4 hands.

My dad, on other hand, generally did same at higher stakes and regularly paid for his cruises via BJ winnings.

[Aces]

There are tons of statistics/studies to prove that playing the optimal strategy for blackjack(which you're probably not even playing), the house has a certain percentage advantage. If you choose to not believe that, or believe that somehow you are smarter then all of these experts there's nothing I can say that will convince you.

Without detailed records most people underestimate their losses and overestimate their wins. If you managed to play blackjack long-term and beat it, congratulations. Somebody's gotta win or Vegas wouldn't exist. It's still a long-term losing proposition. People win at keno, lotteries, horse racing, and many other games that have a much higher house advantage then blackjack.

How much you bet or if you leave or don't leave has absolutely no affect on your success. On average the house has a certain average advantage on every hand, whether that's .5% or slightly less(depends on the exact rules used). It's just common sense.

Good luck continuing to beat the odds, but I wouldn't bet on it....

[SuperDave9x19]

thanx for the good luck.

This was 2 yrs of winning and NO it was not overestimation of wins and blindness to losses. I know I am not a winner (yet) at poker and freely admit it.

Hard to say what my strategy is. I have 2 goals.

1. Don't bust. Even with a 14, half the cards on the deck will bust ya. And some that won't bust ya really don't help (a2). Hitting with 14 will fail 1/2 the time BEFORE THE DEALER EVEN turns over cards. And if both you and dealer bust, dealer wins. I prefer not to just forfeit my hand early.

2. Let the dealer bust. I win on a dealer bust even if I frak it up and stand on a 9 total (I don't do that. It is hyperbole for sake of arguement)

The rest is fairly instinctive. But people who i played with have always been amazed at how I can comfortably stand with 13. Sure it fails. I don't do it if it seems stupid based on generally what cards I see now and what has happenned since last shuffle. Not card counting but perhaps card tracking...

Just out of curiousity, since other's know odds better than I, what are odds of a dealer breaking (in general)?

[SuperDave9x19]

thanx for the good luck.

This was 2 yrs of winning and NO it was not overestimation of wins and blindness to losses. I know I am not a winner (yet) at poker and freely admit it.

Hard to say what my strategy is. I have 2 goals.

1. Don't bust. Even with a 14, half the cards on the deck will bust ya. And some that won't bust ya really don't help (a2). Hitting with 14 will fail 1/2 the time BEFORE THE DEALER EVEN turns over cards. And if both you and dealer bust, dealer wins. I prefer not to just forfeit my hand early.

2. Let the dealer bust. I win on a dealer bust even if I frak it up and stand on a 9 total (I don't do that. It is hyperbole for sake of arguement)

The rest is fairly instinctive. But people who i played with have always been amazed at how I can comfortably stand with 13. Sure it fails. I don't do it if it seems stupid based on generally what cards I see now and what has happenned since last shuffle. Not card counting but perhaps card tracking...

Just out of curiousity, since other's know odds better than I, what are odds of a dealer breaking (in general)?

[Aces]

thanx for the good luck.

This was 2 yrs of winning and NO it was not overestimation of wins and blindness to losses. I know I am not a winner (yet) at poker and freely admit it.

Hard to say what my strategy is. I have 2 goals.

1. Don't bust. Even with a 14, half the cards on the deck will bust ya. And some that won't bust ya really don't help (a2). Hitting with 14 will fail 1/2 the time BEFORE THE DEALER EVEN turns over cards. And if both you and dealer bust, dealer wins. I prefer not to just forfeit my hand early.

2. Let the dealer bust. I win on a dealer bust even if I frak it up and stand on a 9 total (I don't do that. It is hyperbole for sake of arguement)

The rest is fairly instinctive. But people who i played with have always been amazed at how I can comfortably stand with 13. Sure it fails. I don't do it if it seems stupid based on generally what cards I see now and what has happenned since last shuffle. Not card counting but perhaps card tracking...

Basic(i.e optimal) strategy dictates standing on 13 vs. dealer 2-6 showing. There's nothing amazing about it. In fact, for every set of blackjack rules there is one and only one correct way to play every single hand you can be dealt vs. any dealer up card. Playing contrary to this will lose you more money on average then the disadvantage you already have, unless you are counting. Assuming you're playing at least 4 decks and probably 6-8, trying to generally track what cards have come out in the last few hands is not going to have much impact. Read one of the many good books on card counting and you'll see why.

If you are not counting, and you have won at blackjack over an extended period of time, there is exactly one explanation.

Luck. I'm sure you don't believe me but do yourself a favor and do some research on the topic at least and then decide.

Just out of curiousity, since other's know odds better than I, what are odds of a dealer breaking (in general)?

28% chance of a dealer bust. Honestly it doesn't matter, if I do play(when casino whoring), there's only one way to play each hand.

[Demiparadigm]

28% chance of a dealer bust. Honestly it doesn't matter, if I do play(when casino whoring), there's only one way to play each hand.

This obviously depends greatly on what the dealer's upcard is.

[Aces]

28% chance of a dealer bust. Honestly it doesn't matter, if I do play(when casino whoring), there's only one way to play each hand.

This obviously depends greatly on what the dealer's upcard is.

I think that's all dealer hands combined. Dealer will bust 28% total. Obviously he will bust less with some up cards and more with others.

[SuperDave9x19]

2-6 showing can be dangerous if a 9-5 is buried.

So even if 4 players have 10-10 showing before you, and you have 13 you wouldn't hit against a dealer 2 showing?

That's silly.

Preposterous even.

and yes, I know that the last 8 cards do not dictate the next card and it's a 4 card deck but dang I know that always standing on 13 vs a 2-6 showing is not how I've won.

Same goes for always hitting 16 with a 10 showing. also silly.

Luck my heiny. Perhaps some people don't play BJ as much as they read about it.

[Aces]

2-6 showing can be dangerous if a 9-5 is buried.

So even if 4 players have 10-10 showing before you, and you have 13 you wouldn't hit against a dealer 2 showing?

That's silly.

Preposterous even.

and yes, I know that the last 8 cards do not dictate the next card and it's a 4 card deck but dang I know that always standing on 13 vs a 2-6 showing is not how I've won.

Same goes for always hitting 16 with a 10 showing. also silly.

Luck my heiny. Perhaps some people don't play BJ as much as they read about it.

16 vs. dealer 10 is actually very close. Millions of hands of computer simulations and years of research is not silly I'll say it again: There is only one optimal way to play every hand. What cards other players have on that hand is not anywhere near as important as the count, which would be useful but something you said you don't calculate. Even then the count is only of much use towards the end of the shoe. Do some research, Dave.

That is all.[/b]

[chardrian]

woo hoo!! Another pissing match and it's all about blackjack.

[Aces]

woo hoo!! Another pissing match and it's all about blackjack.

You hush :P