Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
Any man or woman using the Advanced Concepts of Poker can earn a guaranteed income by playing public poker (i.e., poker in casinos and in commercial card clubs). But first this person must understand the difference between private poker, as discussed in Parts One through Five of this book, and public poker, as discussed in Part Six.
The two major differences (or problems) of public poker are (1) the house cut that permanently extracts large amounts of money from every player in every game, and (2) the professional cheating that pervades the higher-stake games.
With the information in Part Six, the good player not only can win in most club and casino poker games, but also can identify those games in which he cannot win. In addition, Part Six provides the information needed to accept or reject public poker as a source of income.
Over 95 percent of all poker played in the United States and throughout the world is private poker. Generally, the good poker player can make much more money from private games than from public (club or casino) games. That is why over three-quarters of this book is devoted to explaining concepts for extracting money from private poker games.
Nevertheless, many private-game players will try public poker sometime during their lives. And almost all private-game players will wonder at times:
Part Six answers those questions.
To win consistently in public club and casino poker (such as played in the California card clubs and in the Nevada casinos), the good player must use the Advanced Concepts of Poker that are relevant to public poker.
To compete in public poker, a new player must first understand the differences between private and public poker. Table 30 summarizes the major differences. By understanding them, the good player will know which of the Advanced Concepts of Poker are applicable to public poker.
In addition to the differences listed in Table 30, public poker differs from private poker in minor and subtle ways that influence the good player's strategy. Part Six identifies many of those subtle differences, and the good player will discover others as he plays public poker.
| Private Poker (Worldwide) | Casino Poker (Las Vegas, Nevada) | Commercial Club Poker (Gardena, California) | |
| Availability | Whenever and wherever game can be organized. | 24 hours, 365 days. | 24 hours (20 hours on Sundays), 365 days. (On separate days, each club is closed one day a week.) |
| Game stakes | Any agreed-upon stakes. Usually controlled by the good player. Most flexible. | $1-$2 up to no limit. Established by each casino according to player and market demands. Flexible. | $1-$2 up to $200 maximum bet. Established by law. Least flexible. |
| Speed of play | Very slow to fast. | Fast. | Very fast. |
| Betting pace | Controlled by good player. Betting pace increased by introducing game modifications such as twists, wild cards, bizarre games. | Controlled by dealer and all players collectively. Generally fast paced within limits of games permitted. | Controlled by all players collectively. Some influence by strongest players. Generally fast paced within limits of games permitted. |
| Poker games played | All types of poker. Generally controlled by good player. | Mostly seven-card stud and hold 'em. Also highball or lowball draw and stud. A few split-pot games. No wild cards, except jokers in lowball. | Only draw poker, high and low. No oddball games, twists, or wild cards, except jokers in lowball. Stud or open-hand poker prohibited by law. |
| Profitability for good players | Most profitable. | Varies, depending on house cut or rake. High % rakes (e.g., 20%) eliminates profits for good players. Highest-stake games have lowest % cut. | Generally better than casino poker because of smaller % house cut - an advantage partly offset by the higher percentage of better players in Gardena and recent increases in collection fees. |
| Skill of average player | Least. | Intermediate. | Most. |
| Quality of average professional | Best--the most independent, secretive, honest, and successful of the professionals. | Most dependent on cheating and collusion with dealers, shills, and fellow professionals. | Better than casino professionals, but many are dependent on the professional establishment and cheating. |
| Professionals in high-stake games, % | 2-5 | 10-40 | 5-30 |
| Extent of cheating | Least. | Most. | Intermediate. |
| Professionals who cheat, % | 10 | 60 | 40 |
| Average winnings of top professional players Without cheating | Unlimited. | $20,000-$100,000. | $20,000-$50,000. |
| Average winnings of top professional players With cheating | Winning potential decreases with cheating. | $20,000-$200,000 with cheating in high table-stake games. | $20,000-$70,000 with cheating in highest-stake lowball games. |
| Cheating techniques most commonly used | Crude culling, stacking, collusion and peeking by amateurs and losers. Cheating by professionals or good players is rare. | Undetectable collusion between professionals and house dealers who know hole cards in high-stake stud and hold 'em poker. | Signaling and card flashing between professional partners in highest-stake lowball games. Occasional opportunities for card manipulation. |
| Neocheating | Just beginning. | Spreading. | Spreading. |
| Danger of violence or robbery | Some risk, depending on players, game, and location. | Essentially none. | Almost none. |
* In any given year, the earnings of a top professional player could significantly exceed these average amounts.
| Professional Cheating (estimates) | Earnings of Best Professionals* (with cheating) | Earnings of Good Players (noncheating) | House Cut+ per Player | Earnings of Good Players in Equivalent Private Games | |
| High Draw $ 5-$10 $20-$40 $30-$60 | Little Some Considerable | $ 10,000 $ 25,000 $ 40,000 | $20,000 $30,000 $50,000 | $15,000 $30,000 $42,000 | $ 30,000+ $ 80,000+ $100,000+ |
| Low Draw $ 5 blind $ 20 blind $100 blind | Some Considerable Extensive | $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $100,000 | $15,000 Uncertain Possible loss | $15,000 $30,000 $60,000 | $ 35,000+ $ 90,000+ $250,000+ |
* Earnings are estimated for the best professional players observed in Gardena. The average professional in Gardena (including house shills and proposition players who are paid by the club for starting and maintaining poker games probably nets less than $15,000 per year. The net average earnings of all the professional poker players in Gardena are estimated at $15,000 per year per professional player.
+The average Gardena table extracts an estimated $109,000 per year from its players, as shown in Table 33. The house-collection schedule is shown in Table 34.
| Professional Cheating (estimates) | Earnings of Best Professionals* (with cheating) | Earnings of Good Players (non cheating) | House Cut+ per Player | Earnings of Good Players in Equivalent Private Games | |
| High Stud and Draw $ 5-$10 $10-$20 $20-$40 $40-$80 $100+ Table Stakes | Little Some Considerable Extensive Extensive Extensive | $ 5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $35,000 | $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 Possible loss | $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 | $ 40,000+ $ 75,000+ $100,000+ $125,000+ $150,000+ No limit |
| Low Stud and Draw $ 5-$10 $10-$20 $20-$40 $40-$80 $100+ | Little Considerable Extensive Extensive Extensive | $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $30,000 $35,000 | $20,000 Uncertain Probable loss Probable loss Probable loss | $15,000 $20,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 | $ 45,000+ $ 85,000+ $125,000+ $150,000+ $175,000+ |
* Earnings are estimated for the best professional players observed in Las Vegas. The average professional in Las Vegas (including house shills who are paid by the casino for starting and maintaining poker games) probably nets less than $18,000 per year. The net average earnings of all the professional poker players in Las Vegas are estimated at $18,000 per year per professional player.
+ While most Nevada casinos have a harsh percentage rake averaging about 10 percent, some have a $2-$3 maximum rake per hand for higher-stake games. (For high-stake games, some casinos have a lower-percentage Gardena-type time collection.) Even with a $2-$3 maximum cut per hand, casinos can remove $1400-$2000 per day per table, which is $500,000-$700,000 per year per table. Accounting for low-stake games and slack periods, the average casino poker table extracts an estimated $300,000 per year from its players (see footnote in the survey of Casino Poker, Table 39). Additional money lost to house dealers in tokes or tips can exceed 10 percent of the house-cut total.
For the good player, the most negative feature of public poker is the damage that the house cut (time collection or casino rake) does to his profit potential. Card clubs and casinos, through their continuous collections and raking, gradually but permanently remove most of the available cash from all public games. In private games, the bulk of that house-removed cash would have ended up in the good player's pocket. Tables 31 and 32 illustrate the draining effect that the house cut has on the earnings of the good player. If the house cut is sufficiently high (e.g., 15 percent or more), the good player may be unable to win over the long term, no matter how great his advantage is over the other players.
The far-right-hand columns of Tables 31 and 32 show that the house cut diminishes the good player's earnings much more than the amount actually collected from him. That is because the house cut relentlessly drains cash away from every opponent, steadily shrinking the amount of money available for extraction from poor players by the good player. Because of the constantly draining house cut, the poorest players (the good player's most valuable assets) are driven from the game more quickly than are the tougher players. That phenomenon results in higher concentrations of tough or superior players than would occur in comparable games without a house cut. Also, the house cut produces more losers who, in turn, will play tighter poker, thus further diminishing the good player's advantage and edge odds.
Adding to the cash drain in casino poker is the toking (tipping) of the house dealer by the winner of each pot. Because of the arbitrary raking power of most casino dealers, toking is necessary to avoid extra-heavy rakes from future pots that the player may win. Toking increases by as much as 20 percent the money removed from the game by casinos. Since public card clubs have no house dealers, their customers are spared that additional drain (although toking of floormen does occur in some high-stake club games).
The house cut (rake) in poker is actually higher than the house cut in most major gambling games such as blackjack, craps, and roulette. The primary difference between gambling and playing public poker is that in gambling, individuals play directly against the house (the casino) and have no way to overcome the house cut or house percentage.[ 28 ] But in poker, individuals play against one another, not against the house or casino. The good poker player can, therefore, consistently extract money from all inferior players. He will win in casino and club poker if his money extraction from the other players is greater than the amount the house extracts from him. Conversely, the loser or the inferior player takes a double loss in public poker--the loss to the winners and the loss to the house.
In calculating his edge odds, the good player must include the house as the biggest winner. As indicated by Tables 31-34, the house will be the biggest winner in almost every game, with the good player averaging a distant second. In private poker, the good player tries to eliminate any competing big winner as quickly as possible (or he quits that game and finds a more profitable game without a competing big winner). But in public poker, the good player can never escape from or eliminate the biggest winner (the club or casino). By playing only in private games and avoiding the house cut, the good player makes himself the biggest winner.[ 29 ]
The time collections of public poker clubs (e.g., Gardena, California poker club[ 30 ]) are generally less expensive and less harmful to the good player's earnings than are the percentage rakes of Nevada casinos[ 31 ]. Still, the Gardena-type time collections relentlessly and permanently remove the major portion of available cash from every game. Table 33 shows that each year, the six Gardena clubs end up with more than ten times the cash that is won by all the professional poker players in Gardena combined. The table shows that the six Gardena poker clubs extract over $22,000,000 per year from their customers.
| Minimum Collection $1/half hour (for $1-$2 game) | Average Collection $2/half hour (Average for all games) | Maximum Collection $12/half hour (for $100-$200 games) | |
| Each hour/seat | $2 | $4 | $20 |
| Each day/seat (22-hour day) | $44 | $88 | $440 |
| Each year/seat (310-day year) | $13,640 | $27,280 | $136,400 |
| Each year/filled table (8 seats/table) | $109,120 | $218,240 | $1,091,200 |
| Each year/average table (50% filled) | $54,560 | $109,120 | $545,600 |
| Each year/club (35 tables) | --- | $3,819,200 | --- |
| Each year/Gardena (6 clubs) | --- | $22,915,200 | --- |
| Estimated money extracted per year by professional poker players | --- | $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 | --- |
| Stakes, $ | Approximate Half-Hour Collections $/PIayer* | Average Hourly Rates, $/Player |
| 1-2 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| 2-4 | 1.25 | 2.50 |
| 3-6 | 1.50 | 3.00 |
| 5-10 | 2.50 | 5.00 |
| 10-20 | 3.00 | 6.00 |
| 20-40 | 5.00 | 10.00 |
| 30-60 | 6.00-7.00 | 13.00 |
| 40-80 | 8.00 | 16.00 |
| 50-100 | 9.00 | 18.00 |
| 100-200 | 10.00-12.00 | 22.00 |
* An extra $1-$2 is added to collections from lowball games with blind bets.
Poker generates substantial profits for the club owners--even after subtracting business expenses, high taxes, and an annual payroll of over $8,000,000 (according to the Gardena Chamber of Commerce). Who, then, are the smartest and most prosperous poker players in Gardena? The answer is the quiet, invisible club owners. Indeed, those club owners deserve admiration. What player could ever match their edge odds and consistent winnings from poker?
Still, how do the other poker players fare? If the average professional poker player in Gardena nets about $15,000 per year (estimated in footnote to Table 31), then the estimated 100 to 200 professionals in Gardena would extract $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 per year from all the other poker players. After allowing for those seats occupied by the professionals plus the empty seats and vacant tables during slack periods, the nonprofessional players occupy an estimated average of 800 seats in the six Gardena poker clubs. Those clubs, therefore, must extract $28,500 per year from each of these 800 seats to account for the $22,000,000 permanently removed each year. That means that the nonprofessional regular customer who plays forty hours per week must lose an average of $7000 per year if he plays better than half the other players in Gardena. (And, as a group, the Gardena players are the best and the toughest poker players in the world.) If he does not play better than half the players, he will lose more than $7000 per year by playing forty hours per week. If he is a much better player than the average Gardena player and can extract a net gain of $7000 per year from the other players, he will break even. And if he is good enough to extract a net gain of $22,000 per year from the other players by playing sixty hours every week, he will be in the same class with the average professional poker player by earning $15,000 per year. In other words, except for the few very best and toughest players, people pay dearly in both time and money for the privilege of playing poker regularly in Gardena. And as indicated in Table 32, players in the lower-stake games pay even more dearly for the privilege of playing poker regularly in Nevada casinos because of the higher percentage casino rake, but less dearly in most higher-stake games because of the lower percentage rake.
To earn a steady income from public poker requires an exceptionally tough player with poker abilities far superior to those of the average player. To be a professional poker player in the Gardena clubs or the Nevada casinos requires long, hard hours that yield relatively poor yearly incomes. So most professional casino or club players seem to be wasting their abilities in unrewarding careers. And most other public poker players (the losers) are throwing away their time and money with methodical certainty.
Next Page | Contents | The Precursors to Neo-Tech | Previous Page
[ 28 ] The single exception to the unbeatability of casino games occurs when a Thorpe-type counting system is properly used in blackjack. The validity of blackjack counting systems is limited and provides at best a theoretical advantage of less than 1 percent (or investment odds of less than 1.01). Furthermore, such systems are mainly mechanical and inflexible--they are difficult and boring to apply and basically impractical for accumulating any significant or reliable income. Casinos can eliminate any player advantage in blackjack whenever they want to or need to (which is seldom) simply by increasing the frequency of shuffles until counting becomes impractical or unprofitable. Moreover, by publicizing their feigned dislike and fear of counting systems, casino managements surreptitiously promote and encourage the use of blackjack counting systems. The burgeoning interest in those systems has caused major increases both in blackjack activity and in profits for the casinos. (Technically the game with a house dealer as played in all casinos is "21"; not blackjack in which the deal constantly changes or rotates.)
[ 29 ] In private poker, the good player can sponsor a game with pleasant distractions and discipline-breaking amenities (e.g., "free" gourmet buffets, rich desserts, expensive liquors). But if the good player acts as the house (with profitable collections or rakes), he could cause his opponents to believe that he is sponsoring the games solely for profit (which, of course, would and should be true). Such a belief would make his opponents more defensive and harder to manipulate, and thus harder to control and extract money from. Besides, the good player can win by finesse all available money without having to compete against himself by mechanically collecting money through a house cut. Also, most states consider running a profitable game with regular house cuts an illegal gambling operation. Such activity could leave the sponsoring player vulnerable to a criminal complaint filed, for example, by an unhappy loser ... or by the loser's wife.
[ 30 ] California has 400 legal poker clubs. A few other states such as Montana, Washington and Oregon also have legal poker clubs. But by far the most important area for public club poker is Gardena, California, where legalized poker began in 1936. Today, Gardena has six of the most prosperous poker clubs in the country and is the mecca for both amateur and professional public-club poker players.
[ 31 ] Some Nevada casinos are switching from harsh percentage rakes to milder, Gardena-type time collections, especially for their higher-stake games. Increasing competition for poker players is causing this trend toward milder house cuts as more and more Nevada casinos, attracted by the profitability of public poker, are adding poker to their operations or are expanding their existing poker facilities. In fact, the maximum rake for some high-stake casino games has fallen below $2.00 per hand, reducing the house cut to well below 5%. But the competition in those games is much stiffer since the best players and professionals gravitate to the low-cut games.
But countering the trend toward lower rakes in Nevada casinos, the California card clubs are raising their collection fees as shown in Table 34.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com