Texas Holdem - long-term payout percentage?
Thread Rating:
This question is based off of video poker payout percentages - I'm wondering what the payout percentage would be for a live Holdem game. I know there's no "house edge" because you're playing against other players and not the casino, but there must be some kind of long-term payout percentage with perfect play that you can calculate somehow, as is done with all the other casino games?
(Ultimately, of course, I would be wondering whether or not playing Holdem perfectly can be profitable in the long-run or not, but having the numbers is certainly handy, especially for comparing against other games. So far, the only other casino game I've come across where you're *guaranteed* to win money in the long-run is video poker, since it's the only game with payout percentages OVER 100%).
Thanks a bunch! :)
J.
Quote: jchestertonYeah, exactly. How would I calculate the long-term payout percentage if everyone were playing perfectly, for example?
In that scenario, the players would have no advantage or disadvantage against each other. Each player's expected outcome would be a loss equal to their share of the rake each hand.
NO YOU LOSE TO THE RAKE. The house takes money out of the pot each hand or charges timeQuote: jchestertonSo the long-term payout is 100%, then?
Some people have an advantage and some people have a big disadvantage. You can't get a percentage, you can only get an average. One game might be a 120% advantage and one game may be worth 101%(or negative EV). You can't really do it that way, most players figure out what their over all hourly is.
If every one played poker exactly the same way and the house didn't take a rake, it would all even out, everyone would break even in the Very, Very long run with swings up and down.
No one can play Poker perfectly.
however there are Texas Holdem machines that seem to beat everyone including the best.
Looks like the only casino game you're guaranteed to be able to make a living with in the long-run therefore is video poker (as long as the return on that particular machine is over 100%).
there are other games however its tricky and not obvious. VP is the best starting point however it's not easily done. Very few 100+% machines exist. The known games available are not going to get you far, doubtful you can make a living just plopping your ass down at a VP machine and playing.Quote: jchesterton
Looks like the only casino game you're guaranteed to be able to make a living with in the long-run therefore is video poker (as long as the return on that particular machine is over 100%).
If you have the BR for that then it should be invested in better plays/opportunities or done as a hobby.
There's always counting cards as well.
Ps. no guarantee in low % VP. You're more likely to fail. Also no one plays perfectly.
Find 3% on a low variance game (not all tied up in hard to hit hands) and you have something. This is rare but it does happen.
IMO thinking outside the box is your only chance
Also, I have a phone app for video poker that tells me the optimal play every time! I just plug in the cards and it tells me which ones to hold. I've used Wolf Poker software to simulate playing 600 hands an hour over ten years on 100%+ return, and so far the low point on that graph has never been more than -$4,000. After what ever low point it reaches for that particular simulation, the winnings always steadily increase after that. Unfortunately I don't have $4,000 to spare in the event that my bankroll ever gets that low!
I have no clue what you mean by this. Give me 3% on a game and a scenario of my choice (one that has came up in the past. And I will make a wager I beat it within 12 hrs.Quote: jchestertonThere's still a small house edge in blackjack even with counting cards and perfect play, so you'll still lose a ton of money in the long run. (Same thing with the 3% thing you mention).
It's simple algebra, if you remember back to algebra 1.
But, yeah, in the short-term, you're right---your winnings will fluctuate up and down, and so you definitely have a chance of winning something in the short-term, absolutely.
No, 3% players favor.Quote: jchestertonAre you talking about a 3% house edge (97% long-term return)? If so, then you just need to do the math in order to figure out that if you invest $5,000,000 over 10+ years, then your total losses will always be about 3% of that, or $485,000. In other words, in the long-term, your total winnings cannot mathematically ever be more than $4,515,000. ($5,000,000 - $485,000 = $4,515,000). Therefore, with any house edge below 100%, you will lose money---it's almost like investing money in an evil bank account where the accumulated interest actually subtracts small amounts money from your account over time instead of adding small amounts of money to it over time like normal interest. The higher the house edge, the lower the limit on your total winnings (which will always be less than the amount you invested as long as the payout percentage remains below 100%).
It's simple algebra, if you remember back to algebra 1.
But, yeah, in the short-term, you're right---your winnings will fluctuate up and down, and so you definitely have a chance of winning something in the short-term, absolutely.
"Find 3% on a low variance game (not all tied up in hard to hit hands) and you have something"
So how do you determine the percentage like that at a live table? (And, pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does "low variance/hard to hit hands" refer to)?
No, there mustn't.Quote: jchestertonbut there must be some kind of long-term payout percentage with perfect play that you can calculate somehow, as is done with all the other casino games?
There is no such thing. And if there was, it would be self-defeating to rigidly play in exactly that way against even slightly observant moderately drunk opponents for very long. You are not playing machines making consistent arithmetic calculations on silicon chips; you are competing with specific highly variable humans, with individual personal histories and differing & shifting & sometimes internally conflicting motives (such as craving to be a center of attention or seeking the temporary illusion of respect from others vs. winning money) who are now seated at a particular table at a particular moment. When one is fortunate enough to encounter an opponent who believes there is such a thing as "perfect play" that seat will likely become the profit center for others at a table of even modestly skilled players, and if they have a sufficiently deep stack at the moment then almost any two random cards can become playable against such an individual. If you are seeking "if this, then do that" rules for playing "the right way" then poker is probably not the best game for you, unless you have other emotional/social reasons to enjoy being that profit provider for others and don't mind paying for it.Quote: jchestertonwondering whether or not playing Holdem perfectly can be
But if you are inclined toward thinking in those "play THE Right Way" terms, and you want to play poker anyway, then LHE (limit hold 'em) would tend to be more congenial than the more recently popularized NLNE (no-limit hold 'em) structure. Results in the limit structure will tend to hew more closely towards the underlying math of odds & outs, and someone who is thoroughly aware of them and able to correctly calculate them quickly on the fly will be ahead of the majority of people at most tables most of the time who are often playing without an awareness of the fundamentals. But those fundamentals are orders of magnitude more complex and variable than a video "poker" machine, and are not reducible to an app or little cardboard chart.
This site is also generally NOT a very good source of information specifically on playing live poker. A quick search on your own will take you to numerous others with more specialized knowledgeable information than you could possibly absorb in the remainder of this decade.
Quote: jchestertonSo you're saying there's no way to know whether the long-term payout percentage will be above or below 100%, (even with limit Holdem), because the payout percentage is either above or below 100% depending on completely unpredictable non-mathematical, virtually-unmeasurable "human" variables?
I would say that's correct, or at least in the neighborhood. I would also say DD's critique, above, is accurate, and recommend a site known as 2+2, which has a lot of cross-membership with this forum, but also has many of the pros and top players around the world as members (possibly some of them are on here as well, but if so, they haven't made themselves known like Negranu and Colman, for example, have over there).
The closest thing to what he is asking might be discussed some of the university of Alberta papers that analyzed the flaws in their poker bots.
I'm not even clear what he is talking about.Quote: tringlomaneFor live poker, 2+2 is a much better site for info but navigation of that site is a challenge. So vast. But I think for the most part, I don't think he would get a more concrete answer for what he's looking for.
The closest thing to what he is asking might be discussed some of the university of Alberta papers that analyzed the flaws in their poker bots.
That's what I thought.As I already the house takes a rake from the pot. 0-10% usually with a cap of about $4.online average is probably 4%.Quote: jchestertonThere is a payout percentage on every single casino game. Most of the games have a payout percentage below, and never equal to, 100%, due to house edge. Since you don't play against the house in a live poker game, I'm wondering what the equivalent of house edge would be in a live poker game (and of course what that "edge" would be) - that's all.
Higher limits will often have a time collection per player.
they also oftentimes take a promotion rake usually $1 on top of the normal rake. It's is given back to players however, sometimes it's set up in a way only regulars get the value.
A good player can overcome the rake and beat the game however, as I said, an exact percentage would differ greatly per person and game. Most players just calculate their hourly win rate.
All the same for a losing player, they just lose an average amount to difficult to calculate an exact percentage.
Looks like the only smart casino game to play is video poker with a return over 100%. Good luck finding one of those machines, though. Are there any other casino games with a return over 100% (not factoring in things like comps and stuff?)
I am either missing something or you have been living in a cave for the last 10 years. Its widely known many people make a nice living playing poker.Far more than any other casino gamesQuote: jchestertonHmmmm, interesting. Somehow I think that even if you came out on top every hour, you'd still be losing in the long-long-term, like, say, over many years, due to the rake. I say this because the rake reminds me of the "commission" in baccarat...even if it seems like you're winning every hour, in the long-run the amount of hours you lose will be equal to the number of hours you win, and if you factor in the rake, that means your long-term payout is going to be just below 100%, which means you're definitely losing money in the long-run.
Looks like the only smart casino game to play is video poker with a return over 100%. Good luck finding one of those machines, though. Are there any other casino games with a return over 100% (not factoring in things like comps and stuff?)
Not many have over 100%.
It's a tough gig however once you are 100% confident you're a winning player you have 24-7 access and can live in many different places. In the mountains if you wish.Quote: IbeatyouracesI'm actually thinking about getting back into it.
If you did the math, then you'd see that in the long-run if you played all the time, then you would notice more quickly that you're coming out with winnings below 100% return because of the rake. (Even if the rake only took 1% of your wagers, you'd still only return 99% of your investment. Plug in any large number as the total amount invested, and you'll get your winnings over the long-term, which is going to be 1% less than your total amount invested (or whatever the rake is).)
There are thousands doing it that's not many compared to the worlds population but there are not many pro athletes either that doesn't make it fictional it just means you have to be good.Quote: jchestertonIf you mean Plato's cave, then yes. But anyway, I suppose it's possible to earn a nice living if you only play once and a while and happen to win big pots everytime. Both the frequency of wins if you only play occasionally---and the amount the pot happens to be---are pure luck, though. So that's probably why there aren't that many people making a living playing.
If you did the math, then you'd see that in the long-run if you played all the time, then you would notice more quickly that you're coming out with winnings below 100% return because of the rake. (Even if the rake only took 1% of your wagers, you'd still only return 99% of your investment. Plug in any large number as the total amount invested, and you'll get your winnings over the long-term, which is going to be 1% less than your total amount invested (or whatever the rake is).)
I seriously don't understand how you can be so clueless about professional long term poker players.
Even my little sister(speaking of fictional) knows you can beat poker.
Poker has turned many people into millionaires I would guess over 50
this is not including people who make a fair living from it.
If it's impossible for the return to be over 100%, then it's impossible to come out ahead in the long-run, plain and simple.
Quote: jchestertonI'm sure there are thousands doing it---but if they played more frequently then they'd notice sooner that they're losing money the more they play.
If it's impossible for the return to be over 100%, then it's impossible to come out ahead in the long-run, plain and simple.
It's completely possible for the return to be over 100%, simply because it's a level playing field. You're not really fighting a set HE, despite the rake; you're maximizing the value of the cards you have by playing the players. And you learn how to play the players by observing past performance, watching for bet patterns, tells, bluffs, position calls, pot percentages. That's where all the advantage comes in, over time. It's pure luck to win the first pot (luck of the draw, I mean, if your cards fall into your range); the pot you win 2 hours later may well depend completely on what you've learned about your opponents in that time.
Edit: I watched a heads-up at the 2014 WSOP that was the best poker school ever filmed, IMO. I'll have to try and look it up, but it was around Event 15-17. They started out with the eventual loser having nearly a 2:1 chip advantage over the champion, and played for nearly 2 hours. At the end of it, the winner had had better equity cards dealt to him only about 30% of the time. But what he did was absolutely uncanny reads of his opponent; totally had his number on bluffs, 2nd best, margin calls. He never, to my recollection, got it wrong; laid down losing hands only a maniac would lay down, going all-in on garbage, just wild stuff. But he had the right read on the other guy's cards every single time. It was as if he had someone feeding him the opponent's holding. And it really opened my eyes to another level of the in-person game.
Quote: jchesterton
If you did the math, then you'd see that in the long-run if you played all the time, then you would notice more quickly that you're coming out with winnings below 100% return because of the rake. (Even if the rake only took 1% of your wagers, you'd still only return 99% of your investment. Plug in any large number as the total amount invested, and you'll get your winnings over the long-term, which is going to be 1% less than your total amount invested (or whatever the rake is).)
Not necessarily. Your long term results well be based on how much better (or worse) you are than your opponents on average minus the rake. If you consistently play in games where you're clearly the best player you will be a winner long term.
Problem is: the worst poker players often eventually run out of money or exercise their right to quit playing.
Quote: AxelWolf
this is not including people who make a fair living from it.
I'm friends with the chick on the cover of bluff magazine this month. She's at least a solid hundred-thousandaire from the game. Not sure if she's cracked a million from it though.
Poker is far better IF you know what you're doing.Quote: jchestertonYeah, I'm starting to think that Holdem is your best bet for winning in the long-term, if there aren't any 100%+ video poker machines in your area.
Quote: jchestertonIsn't playing online for money illegal though?
I currently reside in Canada so not illegal for me. But, I think some online poker sites accept American player, hey hey.
Quote: tringlomaneNot necessarily. Your long term results well be based on how much better (or worse) you are than your opponents on average minus the rake. If you consistently play in games where you're clearly the best player you will be a winner long term.
Problem is: the worst poker players often eventually run out of money or exercise their right to quit playing.
I'm friends with the chick on the cover of bluff magazine this month. She's at least a solid hundred-thousandaire from the game. Not sure if she's cracked a million from it though.
Bluff magazine and other Poker magazines have basically disappeared in Grand Junction. Hastings used to carry 4 or 5 titles. So did Dalton books. No more.
He a question asker just like Nutrino or whatever his name is.Quote: beachbumbabsMod note: jchesterton is now johnnyc77; the OP account starting this thread was disabled as a duplicate at his request.
