Phil Ivey or Blackjack?

[AceLosesKing]

First things first.

someone puts a gun to your head and tells you that you need to go to the bank and get $1 million out and gamble it.

Why is he holding a gun to our head?

you have to play with that money for 24 hours, and you get to keep whatever you win over and above what you get. so if you lose $1 over the 24 hours you get nothing. you are not allowed to quit at any time.

What kind of terrorist allows us to keep the money.

[krunchie]

For me the choice is Easy- Ivey hands down

not because of the player but the game its self.

I dont really know how to beat the game at blackjack

sure i know how to play basically but i wouldnt consider my self a winning player.

Poker however i understand resonlably well and so i belive i would have a better chance of a profit at poker than black jack even if i have to play the best in the world.

And it is heads up, so it wouldnt be quite as cut and dry as one would first assume.

[rcon]

And it is heads up, so it wouldnt be quite as cut and dry as one would first assume.

HU our weakness and lack of experience counts for much more (ie. negative) than in a full ring game. FR we can basically wait for nuttish hands, can't do that HU (and the macca brothers take *great* delight in telling every time we play )

[Garth Kay]

Blackjack every day of the week.

Yes I can count and with that much roll I would smash it up over any period of time.

[thelaw88]

I love HU - more than BJ anyway - so Ivey for me

[AceLosesKing]

God, you don't play FR w/ Caleb, do you?

[bennymacca]

For me the choice is Easy- Ivey hands down

not because of the player but the game its self.

I dont really know how to beat the game at blackjack

sure i know how to play basically but i wouldnt consider my self a winning player.

Poker however i understand resonlably well and so i belive i would have a better chance of a profit at poker than black jack even if i have to play the best in the world.

And it is heads up, so it wouldnt be quite as cut and dry as one would first assume.

i can give you a basic strategy chart for blackjack which will limit the overall house edge to 0.5% roughly.
blackjack has huge variance

think about the (negative) winrate you would have against ivey and the variance about this amount

HU our weakness and lack of experience counts for much more (ie. negative) than in a full ring game. FR we can basically wait for nuttish hands, can't do that HU (and the macca brothers take *great* delight in telling every time we play )

haha you have obviously been talking to caleb and the convo i had with him on the weekend where i was astounded that someone could be so nitty as to play full ring

he called me a stupid internet kid (pretty sure i am older than him )

[Garth Kay]

FWIW:

It has been proven that 15% of 6max players are actually winning player. This increases to 29% for FR games.

HU it drops even lower than 15%.

This is for microstakes games (up to 100NL).


For those of you who think you would be alright at HU poker I strongly beg you to reevaluate your thought processes on this one.

HU is the purest form of psychological warfare and noone, but a very small minority), of players would even be willing to play HU against Phil Ivey. Not one person on this forum would walk away a winner even if the variance fairy was sitting on their shoulder tapping them on the head and screaming "HERE, HAVE SOME MORE RUN GOOD!"

[rcon]

Yes I can count and with that much roll I would smash it up over any period of time.

Ah, but counting was specially excluded, or i would have double fist pumped so hard i'd have my shoulder in a sling about now

Or were you suggesting benny the cunt that counting was ineffectual with an 8 deck shoe? That is incorrect if that is what you were suggesting, your edge just wont be as high.

[bennymacca]

rightly or wrongly, from now on assume that blackjack as a house edge of 1% the other details dont matter