You got to know when to
hold 'em
26 August 2005
By Mark Pilarski
Dear Mark, I have found over the years that
betting on sports and beating the bookmaker is
no easy task. Nevertheless, exactly what
percentage of games do I have to win just to
break even? Mark M.
To kick off (puns offered at no extra charge for
people with the right name, Mark), the person
you are really trying to outfox is the oddsmaker,
and his analysis on each team's chances, not
necessarily the bookmaker as your question
implied.
The bookmaker is simply a middleman who operates
on a small profit margin and, ideally, is
looking for half the money wagered on one team,
and half that bet on the other. If too much of
the money is wagered on one team, the bookmaker
merely moves the point spread to prop up betting
on the other team. What assures him of a profit
is balancing his books.
As to a specific answer to your question, at
odds of 10/11 (bet $11 to win $10) you only have
to win 52.4% of your bets to overcome the
bookmaker's profit and break even. While that
may not seem like very high win-ratio, Mark,
watching sports from a lazy-boy chair is one
thing, while betting and winning them is quite
another.
Dear Mark, Ditto to Lester’s comment last week,
and thanks for the increase in poker coverage.
Anyhow, I just have a one short question if I
may. You being a student of the game, what is
the most sound advise you have ever received?
Dell G.
It’s probably from The Gambler himself, singer
Kenny Rogers (whom by the way doesn’t gamble,
then again, he’s been married five times), whose
biggest contribution to the game of poker also
just happens to be my Golden Poker Rule #1: “You
got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold
'em.”
Put more concisely, Dell, you need to maximize
the size of the pots that you win; and to
minimize the money in the pots that you lose.
This simple rule of poker is the most overlooked
stratagem among most of those who play the game,
and a real fortune-builder for those who follow
it.
Dear Mark, Last week in your column you
explained the never-bust was a bad bet and
advised players that you need to hit "plenty of
those stiff hands.” My question concentrates
strictly with the player having a 12 against a
two or three. Wouldn’t the smart move be to
always stand since it seems that every time I
hit a 12 when the dealer is showing a 2 or 3, I
always get a 10 and bust. What’s wrong with
standing instead of giving the dealer that bust
card? Kevin M.
Without even considering depletion of the deck,
a 12 in hand is somewhat different from most
other "stiff" hands because you have a 9 out of
13 chance of not busting if you take a hit.
Likewise, if you decide against hitting, your
only chance of winning with a 12 is for the
dealer to bust, and he has that same 69.2% plus
chance of making his hand that you did.
The negative aspect of hitting a 12 is that even
if you do take a hit, you will still lose money
over the long haul, since a 12 against a
dealer’s 2 or 3 is a losing proposition. Yet,
you should always hit a 12 against a two or
three in order to save from 2-5% of the money
wagered as compared to standing.
Granted, Kevin, you won’t win any additional
money by hitting, but it will help keep you from
losing more than you should.
Gambling Wisdom of the Week: “You got to know
when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, Know
when to walk away and know when to run. You
never count your money when you’re sittin’ at
the table. There’ll be time enough for countin’
when the dealin’s done." –Kenny Rogers, The
Gambler
|
