Quote:
Originally Posted by sindustry
Any kind of advantage that can be squeezed from seeing all players cards is so small, it doesn’t make any kind of impact to net results...that’s essentially what How and probably Jacobson noted. This is probably more so now than in years past, given lower table maximums and lower table aggregate payouts. Over a lifetime of playing with adjusted strategy, with the knowledge of all the other players cards, I would guess you probably end up one or two units better than not knowing. Over a lifetime, that’s nothing. There are already casinos that deal this game faceup to all the players (Barona in SoCal is one example). There are already casinos that let players play 2 hands, one of which is dealt face up (Venetian/Palazzo is an example). To top it off, Barona has one of the best Trips paytables for this game! Trying to exploit this part of the game just doesn’t seem that good...it would be like plowing an entire field, just get one potato.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jacobson's conclusion is that with full knowledge of other cards and implementing the info perfectly, it yields a 2.5% advantage to the player. However there is a vital detail he somehow completely leaves out. Is that 2.5% of just the ante bet, or all action bet? If it's the former, then yes, it would not be worth it. But if it's the latter, then there is the potential for opportunity, since the average bet is 4.2 units. So playing $25 min at the ante means there's actually an average of $110 in action, so a profit of $2.75/hand. At 30-35 hands/hr, that's pretty damn good money.
Obviously in a practical real world setting it would not be possible to recreate perfect info and perfect decisions based on that info. But if one could recreate a simplified but effective strategy, there may be a worthwhile edge.
Of course, this is all predicated on whether or not that 2.5% edge is based on total action. Does anyone know if Jacobson responds to emails?