I read an interesting article by John May about the
top casino game opportunities for gamblers who want to make a profit, or be professionals. Sadly, it was riddled with inaccuracies. Here's my review of the article.
The first casino game he listed was poker. I agree with him that poker should be #1. It's far and away the most potentially profitable gambling game where a player can have an edge. I normally wouldn't include poker in a list of this nature though, because you're not playing against the casino, but rather against other players.
#2 is blackjack. I didn't have any issues with this part of the list. Blackjack is definitely a game where you can get an edge.
#3 is video poker. Again, no problem here. Definitely a game you can get a mathematical edge playing.
Then May indicates that it may come as a surprise to me that roulette is a beatable game. And he was right about it being a surprise, but that's the only part where he was right. Roulette has over a 5% edge, and the number of spins you'd need to see in order to accurately detect a biased wheel would be mind-boggling. I disagree with him that roulette is beatable. On a practical level, it is probably not beatable.
The next item on the list is baccarat, another house advantage game. There is as much strategy involved in playing baccarat as there is at guessing the results of a toin coss. But the glaring error in this article is this sentence: "Baccarat is the only casino game where a player could enjoy an annual six-figure salary. "
Huh? Didn't he point out poker as his #1 game? I don't know many professional poker players who make
less than $100k per year.
This statement was a big enough error that I didn't even look at the other items on the list very closely. It's amazing to me how many casino gambling gurus go around making inaccurate statements about gambling.