The problem is variance.
However skilled you are, you need to be damn lucky to win a tourney.
Your edge may not manifest itself in any reasonable period of time,
even if you play with a partner or as a team.
Because of this, baccarat
is ideal. The reason is that you can lower variance in baccarat
tournaments by betting on both banker and player in certain situations
and guarantee a profit.
Say you are in the final
round of a baccarat tourney where the big prize is $10,000. You
and a partner have been conserving bankrolls (this is the best strategy
for the early phase of a tournament) and have $1000 in real-money
chips. There is one lucky tie bettor who is up to $1900. All the
other players are nowhere.
The tie bettor has made
his last bet. If you bet $1000 on banker and your partner bets $1000
on player, then one of you is almost guaranteed to win that $10,000
prize, and your wagers will cancel out. (Actually you'd need to
consider the possibility of a tie also to be absolutely certain
of a win, but let's not complicate things further).
While this scenario is
hypothetical, the basic principle holds for most live-action tournaments.
Tourneys almost always end up with the player or playerss who conserve
their bankrolls being able to overtake the leader with one gigantic
bet.
