The beatable games, according to Sklansky are: poker, blackjack, horse
racing, sports betting, progressive slots and VP. The unbeatable are:
roulette, craps, keno, baccarat, let it ride and carribbean stud. Keno
being the worst with a 30% house advantage. This is from his book
Gambling for a Living w/ Mason Malmuth.
>
I agree 100% (big deal, I agree with Sklansky / Malmuth - they are well known experts and no one should care much if I agree with them or not!), but the pro's / con's of each are not as clear cut as some would say.
Poker - pro's are that a far smaller bankroll can produce a steady income. Con's are that this income can be steadily negative if one happens to consistently select opponents who are not inferior players -- even those who are one's equal won't do the trick, since eventually the house rake will cause a table full of equals to all go broke. "Cash" games DO offer opportunities to find inferior players (tourists who are not skilled but are just their for the enjoyment, mostly). Tournaments can offer the "big jackpot" opportunity, and the expectation of getting one is inversely proportional to the number of entrants, with an incalculable offset to allow for your relative skill in the player pool - and while many tournaments will NOT be won, many sessions of VP will not be rewarded either, or any other game.
VP - pro's are the lack of heat (also a "pro" for poker, only a cheater or disruptive player should ever get barred from a poker room) compared to some of the other games, particularly blackjack. To me, the "con" is the consistent price one pays to play while waiting for the jackpot, which is usually the only hand that gives you positive expectation (I think Wong once wrote that the cost of 9/6 JoB at $.25 level is $35 an hour while waiting for the Royal, for example -- you get the idea). Personally, I find what seems to be a low level of bet, such as $1 machines, can produce pretty nasty swings in bankroll, with losses comparable to playing $25 or even $100 minimum blackjack.
Blackjack - pro is the positive expectation that can be achieved. A skilled card counter with bet variation and variation of close plays in accordance with the count can get a 1-2% edge over the house. Another "pro" is that, unlike poker, if the rest of the players at your table are better than you, you can still win. The big "con" is the possibility of being barred, certainly higher with blackjack than any other casino game, absent cheating as a factor. The small "con" is the progressive reduction in availability of games with good rules and playing conditions - but that "con" is becoming a factor in VP as well.
An interesting consideration is also how much money you can put into action. Blackjack at $100 a hand minimum bet and a 1% edge over the house, and 100 hands an hour, will produce about $100 an hour of income. VP at $1 level is $5 per hand, but at 600 hands an hour will put $3,000 into action, so that a 0.1 - 0.2% edge can produce $3-6 an hour -- and at a $25 machine, $75 to $150 an hour -- but again, my personal experience is that it takes a lot less bankroll to tolerate the swings of $100 blackjack than it does to tolerate the swings of $25 VP.
Progressive slots - same pro's and con's as VP, with house edge depending on the details of the progressive, and "cost of waiting" for the jackpot also variable according to those details.
Sports betting - I've alwasy included horse racing as part of this. The 'pro' is the freedom that most can bet with - unusual for any but the very highest bettors and most consistent winners to get any restrictions on their ability to place bets. The 'con' is the house "hold" - one must be able to pick a sufficient percentage of winners to overcome the vigorish on sports bets before one breaks even, and then go from there to become a winner.
I've tried all of these at one time or another, and my biggest and most consistent returns on my bankroll have been first blackjack, and secondly video poker. Poker should beat both of these, but I'm not that good a player; there are many professional poker players making a far better living in gambling than anyone in any of the other endeavors - but like professional athletes, you have to be at the top of your field to make the big money.
Not mentioned by Sklansky / Malmuth - lotteries when the jackpot gets high. Example - Indiana Lotto currently has a $34 million jackpot, but is 12 million to 1 against hitting. Even taking cash option, at about 50%, a positive expectation bet (maybe not after taxes, though). "Con" is an extremely high cost of waiting for the jackpot, offset by small wins, but that's offset at the other end by the chance of having to split a jackpot if more than one person hits it.
Additional "pro" "con" consideration IS taxes, if you're someone who doesn't pay (as required) if you think you can get away with it. Being a cash game, poker, blackjack, and small-bet sports betting can avoid taxes in this way, unless you start to play at a high enough level to attract attention because of the size of your cash transactions. Low-level VP ($.25) can usually avoid W2G events as well. High-level VP (esp. $10 and up) generates so many W2Gs as to make the game unbeatable after taxes, even if the W2Gs are the only income you report, esp. in the states that have been discussed that don't allow gambling losses to offset gambling winnings.
Most of us have the skills to analyze these games and to decide which ones we know how to play well enough to actually realize the edge that a player MIGHT in theory be able to get -- and which ones are not going to actually happen for us.
I would guess, however, that 90% of the skilled players at all of these games are not consistent winners -- either due to bankroll management, failure to consistently adhere to skillful play, errors, taxes, etc -- over their lifetimes. Of course, unskilled players, over time, should expect even worse results.
--BG
ยทยทยท
================