House edge in poker-like games

[deisik]

Here's the relevant part from another topic, which seems to be worthy of its own dedicated thread:

On the other hand, when you are playing against other folks (as in poker), the house edge becomes kinda irrelevant because it is the same for all other players as well, but you win not by taking the casino's money but the money of other players. And that's the true beauty of it

I haven't ever played poker. But I think when you play poker, there is still some profit go to house.
For example if a user lose 100$, you won't win 100$, you will win lower than that as 1$ (for example) goes to house.

I wouldn't call that a house edge

Edge means an advantage, in this case the advantage of the casino before the player. But since casino is not playing in poker (unless you are playing against the house, of course, and not the other human players), you can't consider this percentage taken from your winnings a house edge even if it does go to the house. I would suggest to think of it as a fee, a playing fee of sorts. Most importantly, it doesn't take anything from the advantage you may (or may not) have over the other players

I understand you and  I agree that poker can be more fun because users are playing against each other.
But whatever we call that, fee, commision or edge, that is decreasing your chance

But that has nothing to do with your chances

And that's exactly why we can't call it a house edge as a house edge is supposed to do just that, i.e. make the game unfair (let's call it provably unfair). Look, you get an advantage over your opponent though skill or pure luck, and this advantage allows you to win. You are playing against the other player(s), not the casino. So however small your advantage might be (like 0.001%), you still win all and then the casino takes its fee (like 1% or whatever)

Put differently, this kind of house edge affects all the players in equal degree, with the meaning being that everyone is treated equally. You either win and then the other players lose, or vice versa. Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

[1715511686]

1715511686

[1715511686]

1715511686

[1715511686]

1715511686

[1715511686]

1715511686

[tyKiwanuka]

There is no house edge in poker. They just provide the platform, bring people together at the tables and charge a fee for that. A six-player Sit'n Go with an entry fee of $5 per player will result in $30 prize pool and the house just takes like $2 from that for themselves for their service and will distribute the $28 among the paid places. 

Poker is a skill game and everyone has the same chances to get their share in the prize pool.

[pleasureteam]

indeed. In poker platforms there is no house edge. They take their fee in different ways depending on the game format.

For cashgames they take a rake on every played hand
For sit&gos and tournaments there is an entry fee which mostly is 5-10% of the buy-in amount. So if you for example playa 5$ buy-in tournament the platform will probably charge 5.5$ which 5$ is meant for the prize pool and .5$ for the platform.

[Darker45]

Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

A house edge does not only mean a certain amount of advantage of the casino over the player in terms of winning chance. In a dice game, your winning chance could also be set at 50%, which means the dice site does not have any amount of edge over you in winning probability. That means that "It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing" just the same. But the house edge is in the payout or winning prize. Your chance of winning against the house may be 50:50 but your winning prize will not be x2. That means the house still has the edge over you.

In a poker game, you are playing against another player but a portion of the winning will go to the house. In which case, the house wins every time a game ends, regardless of who wins. This is also the same rule that applies over sports betting. That may not be aptly called house edge but it is somehow similar to that.

[noormcs5]

There is no house edge in poker. They just provide the platform, bring people together at the tables and charge a fee for that. A six-player Sit'n Go with an entry fee of $5 per player will result in $30 prize pool and the house just takes like $2 from that for themselves for their service and will distribute the $28 among the paid places. 

Poker is a skill game and everyone has the same chances to get their share in the prize pool.

Very perfect example for a poker game which shows that house has no advantage and they only charge a fee. But if any one the player is the house itself (as you never know that all the sitting players are real player or few of them are from the casino themselves in online poker),  only then the house player will have the advantage.

[pakhitheboss]

Here's the the relevant part from another topic, which seems to be worthy of its own dedicated thread:

On the other hand, when you are playing against other folks (as in poker), the house edge becomes kinda irrelevant because it is the same for all other players as well, but you win not by taking the casino's money but the money of other players. And that's the true beauty of it

I haven't ever played poker. But I think when you play poker, there is still some profit go to house.
For example if a user lose 100$, you won't win 100$, you will win lower than that as 1$ (for example) goes to house.

I wouldn't call that a house edge

Edge means an advantage, in this case the advantage of the casino before the player. But since casino is not playing in poker (unless you are playing against the house, of course, and not the other human players), you can't consider this percentage taken from your winnings a house edge even if it does go to the house. I would suggest to think of it as a fee, a playing fee of sorts. Most importantly, it doesn't take anything from the advantage you may (or may not) have over the other players

I understand you and  I agree that poker can be more fun because users are playing against each other.
But whatever we call that, fee, commision or edge, that is decreasing your chance

But that has nothing to do with your chances

And that's exactly why we can't call it a house edge as a house edge is supposed to do just that, i.e. make the game unfair (let's call it provably unfair). Look, you get an advantage over your opponent though skill or pure luck, and this advantage allows you to win. You are playing against the other player(s), not the casino. So however small your advantage might be (like 0.001%), you still win all and then the casino takes its fee (like 1% or whatever)

Put differently, this kind of house edge affects all the players in equal degree, with the meaning being that everyone is treated equally. You either win and then the other players lose, or vice versa. Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

Online poker is a myth furthermore Bitcoin casino poker is a bluff. Poker is a skill and behavior-based game, without the partner being physically present it is hard to call it poker. I do not believe in them and that is why I avoid playing online.

[nakamura12]

If it's about chances of winning the round then house edge has nothing to do with it and it won't affect players at all but if it's about the chances of earning all of the amount from the pot then it is possible that it can affect the chances of winning it all. House edge would do that in order to earn. It is like that you have to pay an amount of money in order to play poker.

[ralle14]

The only reason why they seem different because anyone could win more or be consistent on poker while on casino games you're bound to lose at some point . Darker's explanation points out the similarities on how the house edge work with other gambling types like sports betting. They're called differently(rtp, vigorish, edge) but in the end still the same since its all about the reduced payouts. Having lowered payouts forces you to have a higher win chance to break even but you can't since casinos need to profit.

[deisik]

Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

A house edge does not only mean a certain amount of advantage of the casino over the player in terms of winning chance. In a dice game, your winning chance could also be set at 50%, which means the dice site does not have any amount of edge over you in winning probability. That means that "It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing" just the same. But the house edge is in the payout or winning prize. Your chance of winning against the house may be 50:50 but your winning prize will not be x2. That means the house still has the edge over you

You know what they say?

They say that we should compare things in equal conditions (otherwise known as "all other things being the same"). More specifically, to make dice look like poker (for two players), you should set the payout to 2, which would match the outcome of a poker game (what you win is what the other party loses). And in that case, your chances won't be 50/50, but rather something like 49.5/50.5 in favor of the casino. Basically, we have just excluded the payout factor from the equation and made things equal between dice and poker

In a poker game, you are playing against another player but a portion of the winning will go to the house. In which case, the house wins every time a game ends, regardless of who wins. This is also the same rule that applies over sports betting. That may not be aptly called house edge but it is somehow similar to that

I wouldn't call that "somehow similar to that". The reason is quite simple. You are not playing against the house, so even if it does somehow look similar to the house edge, it is not a house edge in and of itself (which follows straight from your post, by the way)

[swogerino]

In poker there is no real house edge as you are not playing a programmed slot machine but against real people.
The house take a small fee out of every hand played because they are offering you the service,they are making it possible through their platform for you to play against real opponents online and I think this is fair enough.

[deisik]

In poker there is no real house edge as you are not playing a programmed slot machine but against real people.
The house take a small fee out of every hand played because they are offering you the service,they are making it possible through their platform for you to play against real opponents online and I think this is fair enough

That's what I'm trying to get across here

Since you are playing against other human players with casino standing on the sidelines (i.e. not taking part in the game), the house is not supposed to change the odds in favor of a certain player (as it officially does in favor of itself when you are playing dice). In essence, it means that all players are on equal terms (other than luck and personal experience if we are talking about poker here)

I know some fellow posters are going to challenge this point by coming forth with the idea of a fee which the casino takes. However, this idea is easily refuted by the simple fact that the fee is often taken from the winnings after the game is over, so in no case it can affect the odds and thus be a house edge in the conventional sense of the word (as the casino advantage over the player)

[DarkDays]

I tend to avoid poker-like games because the house edge tends to be obscured or not well defined.

Much simpler to play hold'em where the casino simply has a rake of around 2.5% or lower. This rake doesn't really affect me in poker games since I tend to win more than I lose, but it can be crushing to those who are bad players.

Overall, P2P is always more profitable for skilled players.

[supercanada1]

In poker there is no real house edge as you are not playing a programmed slot machine but against real people.
The house take a small fee out of every hand played because they are offering you the service,they are making it possible through their platform for you to play against real opponents online and I think this is fair enough

That's what I'm trying to get across here

Since you are playing against other human players with casino standing on the sidelines (i.e. not taking part in the game), the house is not supposed to change the odds in favor of a certain player (as it officially does in favor of itself when you are playing dice). In essence, it means that all players are on equal terms (other than luck and personal experience if we are talking about poker here)

I know some fellow posters are going to challenge this point by coming forth with the idea of a fee which the casino takes. However, this idea is easily refuted by the simple fact that the fee is often taken from the winnings after the game is over, so in no case it can affect the odds and thus be a house edge in the conventional sense of the word (as the casino advantage over the player)

House is with no one. Poker is like you said, just concerned with the players. There is not even a bit of involvement from the house. Though in case of slots and dice, outcomes can be manipulated but poker is about cards being distributed by player to players. But still if someone wants to believe, then the distributor can be the man working for house and he may have the art of manipulating card distribution. Being honest, this is not the case at all.

[deisik]

But still if someone wants to believe, then the distributor can be the man working for house and he may have the art of manipulating card distribution. Being honest, this is not the case at all

What about online poker?

Online poker is a myth furthermore Bitcoin casino poker is a bluff. Poker is a skill and behavior-based game, without the partner being physically present it is hard to call it poker. I do not believe in them and that is why I avoid playing online

In fact, I've been thinking about that, so now I finally decided to make a point. And my point is that since we can make dice provably fair (actually, more like provably unfair but I'm more concerned with the provable part here), it must also be possible to make poker provably fair too. For example, we could deal cards using the EOS mainnet in the same way decentralized casinos write bets to the blockchain and obtain roll outcomes from there as well. Now that we have dealt the cards in a provably random way which cannot be rigged by the malicious casino operator, we can also make online poker great again

What do you guys think?

[wxa7115]

Therefore, it can't possibly affect your chances to win like it does in dice. It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing for two players before the cards have been dealt (if we discard the ramifications of skill and expertise from the equation)

A house edge does not only mean a certain amount of advantage of the casino over the player in terms of winning chance. In a dice game, your winning chance could also be set at 50%, which means the dice site does not have any amount of edge over you in winning probability. That means that "It is 50/50 in terms of winning or losing" just the same. But the house edge is in the payout or winning prize. Your chance of winning against the house may be 50:50 but your winning prize will not be x2. That means the house still has the edge over you.

In a poker game, you are playing against another player but a portion of the winning will go to the house. In which case, the house wins every time a game ends, regardless of who wins. This is also the same rule that applies over sports betting. That may not be aptly called house edge but it is somehow similar to that.

I understand the point of those that think the terminology is useless as long as you are losing some of the money but the terminology matters, in the case of the sports bets that is a house edge as well because you are not betting against other players but against the house and they give themselves an advantage no matter which line you decide to take.

But in poker they just take a fee if you are playing a tournament or they take a small percentage of each pot if you are playing for cash, the fee is there because they are providing you with the platform to meet other players and that is not free, obviously they are profiting from this but it is not a house edge, this is more similar to the fees an exchange charges for their service.

How to distinguish the two? If the house wants you to lose and they want to win then you are facing a house edge, but if the house does not care about whether you win or lose then they are just charging you a fee.

[deisik]

How to distinguish the two? If the house wants you to lose and they want to win then you are facing a house edge, but if the house does not care about whether you win or lose then they are just charging you a fee

In fact, the house does actually care, and it wants you, and every other player for that matter, to win as the longer you play, the more fees they will collect. They are not interested in either you losing or losing you (whatever comes, or doesn't come, first). It is just the essence of the game, a zero-sum game, that you win and then someone else necessarily has to lose, or vice versa. It is the same with trading as exchanges in general are interested in you earning dough as the more you earn, the longer you stay in the game (pardon the pun)

Really simple, isn't it?

[wwzsocki]

...the fee is often taken from the winnings after the game is over, so in no case it can affect the odds and thus be a house edge in the conventional sense of the word (as the casino advantage over the player)

I think you are right and fees or to be honest rake collected by poker rooms doesn't affect the odds, so there is no way for the house edge in the conventional sense.

Every poker room will be happy if you will be winning all the time because they will collect their fees on your winnings so there is no sense for any house edge if they are not playing against you.

In my opinion house edge is only in casino games where you play against the casino and your odds are always lower as theirs and that is why in long run casino always wins but this is not the case with poker rooms and their fees (rake).

[Wexnident]

Aren't house edges more observed in Gambling games where a set algorithm is given to a game? Like its not player vs player, nor is it player vs AI, but rather "is player lucky or not?". Poker is kind of like a combination of player vs player and "is player lucky or not" since it's a pvp type of thing.

I guess House Edges could be defined as a fee that is given to the casino due to you playing again and again with an unfair game where the odds are literally the lowest, no matter what, while Poker fee is a fee that is given to the casino due to playing again and again with a game where the odds aren't the lowest, but it could be the lowest.

Poker tables are more like the setting itself, and only that. Unlike poker games with house edges which provide both the setting and the game instead.

[Betwrong]

~
Online poker is a myth furthermore Bitcoin casino poker is a bluff. Poker is a skill and behavior-based game, without the partner being physically present it is hard to call it poker. I do not believe in them and that is why I avoid playing online.

That's what I used to think too before I started to play poker online myself, and before I did a thorough research on the current top poker players. Now, when I read your comment, I'm inclined to think that your vision of poker is formed by movies and TV shows. When your opponent is physically present, you can win if you are good in reading their body language, right? Wrong.

Although it is very likely that being skillful in reading their facial expressions you would win against a 9-year-old, I can guarantee that you would have absolutely no advantage over an adult poker player in that regard.

There are tons of proofs that current best poker players are also good in online games. And whatever gives them that advantage, it's not the ability to "read" their opponent.


Regarding the OP's question I've voted "No, it doesn't". But I would't play in a casino where rake is over 6%.

[deisik]

~
Online poker is a myth furthermore Bitcoin casino poker is a bluff. Poker is a skill and behavior-based game, without the partner being physically present it is hard to call it poker. I do not believe in them and that is why I avoid playing online.

That's what I used to think too before I started to play poker online myself, and before I did a thorough research on the current top poker players. Now, when I read your comment, I'm inclined to think that your vision of poker is formed by movies and TV shows. When your opponent is physically present, you can win if you are good in reading their body language, right? Wrong.

Although it is very likely that being skillful in reading their facial expressions you would win against a 9-year-old, I can guarantee that you would have absolutely no advantage over an adult poker player in that regard.

There are tons of proofs that current best poker players are also good in online games. And whatever gives them that advantage, it's not the ability to "read" their opponent.

Regarding the OP's question I've voted "No, it doesn't". But I would't play in a casino where rake is over 6%

I'm not a poker player myself (as a child I couldn't grasp its main idea, though it was probably the fault of those who tried to teach me it), so I can't comment on this in a constructive way. However, I also tend to think that people overestimate their capacity for reading the body language and facial expressions here as this idea seems to be coming mostly from the movies. Billions comes to mind instantly but there are probably a lot of other films "featuring" poker, and in a totally misguiding way (like they do with casinos in general)

I corrected the poll a little (without changing its major theme)