Ultimate Texas Hold'em forget the house edge?

As I have stated before, I have been playing this game a lot over the past few months. I basically have had two experiences while playing, (1) winning double to triple my original buy-in or (2) losing my original buy-in within a few minutes. I started thinking about the house edge of this game and according to my calculations it is very unlikely that any given player will really see the expected 2% house edge for their play, it is just not realistic.

For example, lets assume that the Wiz's calculations for the game considered approximately 250,000 hands. On average, I play for about an hour during any given session. I estimate that I see between 20-30 hands per hour, 2 to 3 minutes per hand. So at 20 hands per hour it would take approximately 12,500 hours of play to reach the expected house edge. That breaks down to 520 days of 24hr a day play, almost 1 1/2 years of continuous play. Even if we estimated 30 hands per hour that would be 8,333 hours of play or almost one year of 24 hour continuous play. So for me, if I play 7 days a week an hour a day it would still take me 34 years before I play 250,000 hands. Maybe the Wiz's calculations don't assume 250,000, but my point is it would take myself almost a lifetime to see the expected house edge.

What really got me thinking about this was my play over the weekend. We went out with friends to play at the M on Friday night. I sat down with a $100 buy-in. Played 5 hands, perfect strategy was used, and busted out. On Sunday, we went to Mesquite after going to the Clark County fair. I played for 1 hour, $100 buy-in, within the hour I hit a straight, a three of kind, four full houses, and a four of a kind.

I will likely always use the Wiz's strategy when playing any game, but after seeing how long it will take me to realize the expected house edge I may be much more willing to try games I wouldn't usually play because really anything could happen in the short amount of time I am actually playing.

You want to look at this post by Stephen, which uses pretty graphs to explain what you are getting at.

All games of chance work essentially the same way. You personally will never reach 'the long term', but you can be sure your results will be skewed in the house's favour the more you play.

odd are the odds no matter how long you play, just like playing one pull of video poker on a game the holds 99.9 percent on one hand you could win 4000 or lose the whole thing

What are your goals when playing? Do you want to be able to play for a long time with minimal losses, or do you want the chance to hit it big right away? If one, play low limit video poker or blackjack. If two, play bets like Trips in UTH or the Pair Plus in three card. The house edge will be always be there, working against you. The smaller the house edge, the better your chances to do well in the medium-to-long term.

I've had nasty streaks at UTH. Playing at Wynn, I busted out of $400 in 25 minutes playing $10 a hand (no Trips). Then I went through another $400 at Orleans playing $5 a hand with $5 trips. That was bad. But I've hit a straight flush, too ($900 payout), and have had sessions where it seemed like I couldn't lose a hand.

Quote: SONBP2

I will likely always use the Wiz's strategy when playing any game, but after seeing how long it will take me to realize the expected house edge I may be much more willing to try games I wouldn't usually play because really anything could happen in the short amount of time I am actually playing.

There are definitely some who argue that the casual gamble playing rarely should just go out and have fun, paying no attention to low HE or proper strategy. What is the name of the TV program that has one gambling expert of some kind bet another that it doesn't matter for such as the short period they were going to act it out for the camera? One just plays all the sucker bets and the other goes for the low HE games only. I think the former wins against the latter or at least firmly makes his point. IIRC the Wizard is in that production early on, but isn't one of the two experts playing this out. [edits]

For the gambler who plays more and also always does it against a HE, you have to agree with the Wizard that low HE is the only thing an intelligent gambler can consider as playable, and that careful consideration of comps is also in order.

From the way you talk, sounds like you are in the latter category. To date, I am something in between these types. UTH is definitely on my radar now, still havent played though.

Quote: odiousgambit

For the gambler who plays more and also always does it against a HE, you have to agree with the Wizard that low HE is the only thing an intelligent gambler can consider as playable, and that careful consideration of comps is also in order.

From the way you talk, sounds like you are in the latter category. To date, I am something in between these types. UTH is definitely on my radar now, still havent played though.

Playing UTH at $5 a hand (no trips), 30 hands an hour, with optimal strategy gives you an expected loss of $3.27 an hour. That's the same or less than most blackjack games, and comparable to craps. It is not hard to make back that $3.27 through comps or cashback. One casino in California was giving $5 in player rewards per hour. Even one mispay (happens more often than you think) will wipe out a few hours' expected loss. Like Stephen says, it is exceptionally cheap gambling.

Quote: odiousgambit

From the way you talk, sounds like you are in the latter category. To date, I am something in between these types. UTH is definitely on my radar now, still havent played though.

For the most part, I will always consider the house edge and comps when playing and have previously refused to play side bets or certain games because of the high house edge. I also refused to play games that the Wiz or some other reliable source didn't have a perfect analysis of the game from which to base my play. I guess my point in drafting the original post was to somewhat argue against that theory simply because for the average player, assuming average means playing 3 to 4x per week, will never realize the expected house edge for a given game because the average player doesn't play enough. Another example is the house edge for blackjack, assuming the less than 1% house calculated at 250,000 hands and an average 50 hands per hour, which would still mean you need to play 1hr per day 7 days a week for 13 1/2 years.

Therefore, I may be willing to play the extra $5 on a side bet even if the house edge is 5%. Unless you are a professional or someone with a lot of time to spend at the casino on a daily basis I would argue that 95% of all gamblers are short term gamblers. Don't get me wrong, I am not going to start playing Big 6 or Keno, but I may not be so willing to argue against a side bet from here forward.

Quote: SONBP2

assuming average means playing 3 to 4x per week

actually that seems like a lot to me

Quote: SONBP2

I may not be so willing to argue against a side bet from here forward.

when it is just a dollar or two I have been known to do it. Considering that in his craps video the Wizard still touts the HE difference that the dark side offers, I think we have to realize he will never give his stamp of approval on this [g]

Quote: teddys

Even one mispay (happens more often than you think) will wipe out a few hours' expected loss. Like Stephen says, it is exceptionally cheap gambling.

I strongly suspect staying on your toes pays off. If the first cards do not suggest a flush or straight, yet it develops and you must use community+hole cards [edit], I have always noticed newbies - and me if I get rusty or tired - will easily miss it. Player advantage Lowering HE via tired dealer is definitely something I have thought about in this game.