Is Gambling for Idiots? [Archive]

Hydrogen Cyanide

15th August 2006, 11:08 AM

Yes, gambling is for idiots.

But then again... I am the person who went to the arcade with friends in high school and only used my own money to play one round of air hockey.

Later when my dorm had a "casino night", I just wandered in... saw people put their money down, and got to see it taken away. On that night the grip of my fist around what little money I had was very tight, and I did not even drop a dime.

Which is why hubby and I were completely baffled when on the drive from Vancouver, WA (just north of Portland, OR) to Seattle that there were so many casinos!

(though not quite as baffled as we were about the several slowdowns on the freeway in what is essentially "middle of no where").

KingMerv00

15th August 2006, 11:11 AM

No matter what I do, I just can't bring myself to go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Maybe at some point, I instinctively figured that it was extremely foolish to go to someone else's house and play a game of their choice under their rules for MY money.

Now, I don't mean skill games against other players (like Poker), I mean the normal Vegas stuff like roulette, slot machines, the big wheel, Video Poker etc.

No matter what, there's just NO way you can have a better than 50% chance of coming out on top. They can't allow it. Isn't that obvious? Or am I missing something?

You can go to Atlantic City or Vegas and not gamble. I didn't wager a penny at TAM4.

Gambling isn't stupid unless you go to far. Most people are aware they probably won't win. They pay for that small rush. "I COULD win a million. You never know."

To me, it is just like getting on a roller coaster or watching a movie. You pay for the internal feelings, not for the material benefit.

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 11:16 AM

HCN hits the point by noting "I am the person who went to the arcade with friends in high school and only used my own money to play one round of air hockey."

For most people who gamble, it is entertainment. It's not all that much different from throwing down $10 for a 2 hour movie.

I recently went to the casino in Colorado, where it is all low stakes. Spent about an hour and a half there. Because it's low stakes, there is no way you can hit it big, but you can kill some time, although in the end, you expect it to cost you some. However, if you think casino gaming is fun, then you get some enjoyment.

I don't presume to tell people what they do or don't enjoy. If you don't think gambling is fun, then, yes, you would be an idiot to do it. But that would apply to any recreational activity.

BTW, I came out $15 ahead from my trip to the casino (and it would have been more but a) I tipped my dealer a couple of times, and b) I wasted $5 in the penny slots on the way out)

andyandy

15th August 2006, 11:37 AM

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 11:47 AM

well....say you were playing for fun on the roulette, had a large bankroll (which you acknowledged you could afford to lose), made small bets relative to the bankroll, and factored in likely long term losses for any particular "strategy" (reds/top third etc...) and were prepared to write that off as your payment for the entertainment, then long term you should be (more or less) breaking even.....

There is a strategy in roulette in which you ramp your bets in an appropriate manner so that you basically will always come out ahead given enough time and a limitless bankroll. Now, you won't come out very far ahead, and that one adventure where you either run out of time or run out of bankroll is going to cost you immensely, but presumbly that is sufficiently low probability to not get you. But you are taking that chance.

atari24

15th August 2006, 11:52 AM

I think your intention determines if you're an idiot. Gambling for a little fun with the expectation of losing is not dumb. Thinking you're going to win huge sums playing your super-secret-craps strategy is pretty dumb.

I had a friend who was convinced he could figure out patterns in roulette numbers. He never seemed to be discouraged by the fact that he could only see these "patterns" after the fact.:rolleyes:

Crossbow

15th August 2006, 11:57 AM

If you do not gamble, then you have no chance of winning.
On the other hand ...
If you do gamble, then there is at least a chance of winning.

So do not spend anymore on gambling than you would flushing your money down the toilet because chances are you will loose it just as surely, but if you can afford to toss a bit of cash, then there is a small possibility of getting back far more than you risk.

Good luck!

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 12:15 PM

RenaissanceBiker

15th August 2006, 12:30 PM

I agree that gambling is a form of entertainment, not an investment strategy. I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, usually when the powerball jackpot is high. I don't use my lunch money. I would never use my house payment. I know I'm just buying a daydream.

I used to go to the dog races in Alabama. The air-conditioned clubhouse was like a big restuarant overlooking the track. I would study the racing forms and bet conservatively. I could usually win enough to pay for admission and dinner for two. It was a fun date. Once I took a buddy with me and we each brought dates. He came back to the table bragging that he had made a good exacta bet. He just knew these 3 dogs would come in that exact order. He showed me the form and I said, "Great, but that is the 6th race. They are getting ready to run the 5th race." His eyes got big and he flipped back a page to see the dogs he had actually bet on. He was very dismayed at his choices. However, they actually did come in that way. He bet $2 on the wrong dogs and it paid him $80. We all were certainly entertained by his luck that night.

As far as gambling idiots go, they usually lose their money but usually not to other idiots.

andyandy

15th August 2006, 01:00 PM

There is a strategy in roulette in which you ramp your bets in an appropriate manner so that you basically will always come out ahead given enough time and a limitless bankroll. Now, you won't come out very far ahead, and that one adventure where you either run out of time or run out of bankroll is going to cost you immensely, but presumbly that is sufficiently low probability to not get you. But you are taking that chance.

yeah doubling up...but it's kinda silly...

say i bet on reds all the time......

£5 lose

£10 lose

£20 lose

£40 lose

£80 lose

£160 lose

just from a run of 6 against, i now have to risk £320 just to win just £5.....

and say i was really unlucky, £2560 after 9 against.....

chasing your losses basically....

Bronze Dog

15th August 2006, 01:03 PM

Gambling for fun, expecting a loss: I don't see the appeal, but go ahead. Most I'd do for that sort of thing is maybe dump some (literal) pocket change into a slot machine on the off-hand chance of a jackpot.

Gambling for profit: Unless you've been doing some statistics and hard training like those Breaking Vegas card counter people, don't bother.

dogguy

15th August 2006, 01:59 PM

Snip....
Which is why hubby and I were completely baffled when on the drive from Vancouver, WA (just north of Portland, OR) to Seattle that there were so many casinos!

(though not quite as baffled as we were about the several slowdowns on the freeway in what is essentially "middle of no where").

We drove I5 - from the Canadian border to Kelso on our way to Astora - in both directions last week. The slowdowns puzzled me too, both south and north of Seattle.

GreedyAlgorithm

15th August 2006, 02:03 PM

I just devised a betting scheme where if you have $504 and about 3 hours of free time (113 spins), you will come out ahead on a 37 number roulette wheel (no 00) about 95.5% of the time. Depending on the spin, you will come out anywhere from $1 to $34 ahead. Unfortunately, 1/20 times, you will end up $504 down.

If you are willing to accept a breakeven, it only increase to 114 spins. However, that doesn't increase your chance of winning very much (0.1%)
I have a deal for you. You win 99.99% of the time! I'll roll 2d100 and if they both come up 42, you give me $10,000, otherwise I give you $0.01.

It's easy to come up with betting schemes that have a high "chance of winning". That doesn't mean they're in any way useful though. Like mine. Will you take the bet? I'll accept all comers.

Amapola

15th August 2006, 02:16 PM

I don't know if gambling is for "stupid people"..... but I agree with the rest that your attitude makes all the difference.

I love to go to the race track and watch the horses. If I have money and can afford to lose it, I even bet on them! I only ever bet $2.00 (or whatever the lowest bet that is allowed) and do OK. I once won $50.00 on a $2.00 bet. Exciting, huh?

But I am not there to win or make money. I am there (right beside the race track, so I can feel the ground tremble when the horses race past) because I love to see horses. If I have $2.00 placed on a horse, in a way it makes it a more involving experience to spend that 2 minutes or less (depending on the length of the race) watching the horses.

Now, I simply can not get involved in slot machines. There is simply no draw there for me, I am not interested in sitting in front of a slot machine. But I imagine that for some people, they feel that same excitement I feel when I watch horses.

My only problem with gambling is with people who DO spend the rent money and the money for the baby's formula in a casino. But just because some people abuse something, that does not automatically make it stupid or wrong. Some people abuse pain killers, but I would not think pain killers were stupid or wrong because of that.

Jorghnassen

15th August 2006, 02:28 PM

We drove I5 - from the Canadian border to Kelso on our way to Astora - in both directions last week. The slowdowns puzzled me too, both south and north of Seattle.

Traffic waves, people following too close, going too fast then braking, making traffic appear, travel backward and continue to exist long after there's no physical reason for a slow down anymore... There's a neat website about it somewhere. I won't look it up.

RenaissanceBiker

15th August 2006, 02:37 PM

I don't see the attraction of slot machines or roulette either. Pure luck is no fun if the payout is small.

I know there is some skill in card games and that I would enjoy. I saw a show with Larry Flynt (Hustler magazine) playing blackjack in Vegas. He demands a solitary table with just him and a dealer away from the crowds. He bets heavy and has some strategy. He plays for 24+ hours straight and usually leaves with more than a million of the casino's money. I think he does it once or twice a year. I can see spending the time to figure out a strategy and playing it this way, but I don't have the capital to get into a game like that.

I once got in with some guys who played backgammon for money. They played for $10 per chip you left on the board. If you get gammoned you could lose $150. I'm a pretty good backgammon player so that was fun. They were also pretty good so I really just broke even in the long run.

roger

15th August 2006, 02:44 PM

Now, I simply can not get involved in slot machines. There is simply no draw there for me, I am not interested in sitting in front of a slot machine. But I imagine that for some people, they feel that same excitement I feel when I watch horses.I think it must be completely different pathways that are getting rewarded. Watch people at a track, or at a sports better and you see yelling, cheering, jumping up and down, arms pumped in the air, etc. In comparison, walk around Vegas or anywhere there are slots. Almost to a person, they have a glazed, dour look on their face. No emotional response, everything shut down. It's quite unsettling, to me at least.

I've found myself playing stupid computer games (solitaire, et al) in a similar manner sometimes - not enjoying the play at all, but just trying to beat the d*** thing. Then I realise what I'm doing, and do something fun or productive (you know, after I finish just 2 more games).

westphalia

15th August 2006, 02:47 PM

I dearly love poker, though it's hard to get a good game going these days. Our old playing group broke up four years ago (two folks were transferred to other states) and the ESPN/GSN "all poker, all the time" TV craze has made it difficult to find skilful opponents who know anything other than "Texas Hold 'Em." I don't - and wouldn't - play "casino" games like roulette, slot machines and the like.

That said, I despise Atlantic City and Vegas, and wouldn't go back if I were paid to do so. Cheap, sleazy, low-class, over-indulgent - you name it, they're it. Some folks consider them a prime example of Americana; I think they're a blight.

And the food stinks. :)

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 02:48 PM

yeah doubling up...but it's kinda silly...

say i bet on reds all the time......

£5 lose

£10 lose

£20 lose

£40 lose

£80 lose

£160 lose

just from a run of 6 against, i now have to risk £320 just to win just £5.....

and say i was really unlucky, £2560 after 9 against.....

chasing your losses basically....

Oh, but that is going way too fast. It's much better to play the single numbers (where the bet limit is smaller - you can bet $1 at a time, as opposed to red/black which will have a higher minimum)

My bet sequence is below. 114 spins, with a total drop of $505. There is a 95.5% chance that you will win once in these spins, and if you win, you will at least break even. It's far more conservative than doubling up.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15

andyandy

15th August 2006, 02:49 PM

I don't see the attraction of slot machines or roulette either. Pure luck is no fun if the payout is small.

I know there is some skill in card games and that I would enjoy. I saw a show with Larry Flynt (Hustler magazine) playing blackjack in Vegas. He demands a solitary table with just him and a dealer away from the crowds. He bets heavy and has some strategy. He plays for 24+ hours straight and usually leaves with more than a million of the casino's money. I think he does it once or twice a year. I can see spending the time to figure out a strategy and playing it this way, but I don't have the capital to get into a game like that.

is there skill in black jack - i mean more than just knowing to stick on 16 or above.....(or some similar strategy - i admit i'm no expert :) ) ?
the only skill i can think of is through card counting....but i imagine the casinos would be onto that pretty quick....

andyandy

15th August 2006, 02:53 PM

Oh, but that is going way too fast. It's much better to play the single numbers (where the bet limit is smaller - you can bet $1 at a time, as opposed to red/black which will have a higher minimum)

My bet sequence is below. 114 spins, with a total drop of $505. There is a 95.5% chance that you will win once in these spins, and if you win, you will at least break even. It's far more conservative than doubling up.

hmm, but 5% happens....and when it does you lose big....

basically any strategy loses money in the long term because of that pesky (and in the US, I believe those pesky) zero(es)

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 02:55 PM

I have a deal for you. You win 99.99% of the time! I'll roll 2d100 and if they both come up 42, you give me $10,000, otherwise I give you $0.01.

It's easy to come up with betting schemes that have a high "chance of winning". That doesn't mean they're in any way useful though. Like mine. Will you take the bet? I'll accept all comers.

I never said it was a good thing to do (you take a risk of losing a boatload of money, and even when you win, it is usually not that much, but better than your scenerio). That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In roulette, like any casino game, you are going to lose more than you win overall. The question is do you want to lose a little every time, or win most of the time and then lose a bundle?

OTOH, your game doesn't come with free drinks.

pgwenthold

15th August 2006, 02:59 PM

hmm, but 5% happens....and when it does you lose big....

basically any strategy loses money in the long term because of that pesky (and in the US, I believe those pesky) zero(es)

No doubt, and as I note above, you play the casino, you will lose. But the question is, do you want to lose a little bit every time you played, or win a little 19 times out of 20 before with the occasional big loss (for the same net loss)?

Moreover, as I note, my betting scheme in principle can be continued if you want to decrease your chance of losing (but then you lose more when you lose)

But it also comes with free booze.

drkitten

15th August 2006, 03:18 PM

is there skill in black jack - i mean more than just knowing to stick on 16 or above.....(or some similar strategy - i admit i'm no expert :) ) ?
the only skill i can think of is through card counting....but i imagine the casinos would be onto that pretty quick....

Depends upon the casino; some areas (Atlantic City, in particular, IIRC) explicitly allow card counting, by law. Even if you don't explicitly count cards, a vague awareness of whether the deck is running in your favor or not can be helpful in placing bets. And there is a lot more to good blackjacks strategy than just "stick on 16," since it matters exactly what kind of a 16 you have and what the dealer is showing....

Hawkeye

16th August 2006, 04:23 AM

As others have said, I don't think gambling is for idiots as long as you’re just playing for entertainment purposes within reasonable financial limits. Personally, I'm a big fan of poker and horseracing. I'm in the green in both activities, for a fair chunk of change, simply because there is skill involved in both. (Admittedly more in poker than in horseracing.)

Skill can also give you an edge in the casino, given that there are “smart” ways to gamble on traditional casino games. In something like craps, there are some bad bets to make, some really bad bets to make, and some bets that are essentially even money propositions. If you know the odds, you can make your bankroll last substantially longer (and perhaps even come out ahead). Blackjack is another example of a game where the more you know, the greater your chances of winning are.

To summarize, gambling isn't a bad idea if you're having fun and you can afford to lose what you probably will lose.

On the other hand, something that I think is a completely bad idea is playing the lottery. I was watching a Frontline special about the California state lottery earlier, and it had some pretty fun statistics:
(Taking these from memory, so they might not be exactly correct quotes).

If you were to buy 50 lottery tickets every week, you would win the big lotto jackpot on average once every 5,000 years.
and
If you got a gallon of gas for every lottery ticket you bought until you won the lottery, you would have enough fuel to drive your car the equivalent distance of about 750 round trips to the moon.
Lottery: the idiot tax indeed.

MortFurd

16th August 2006, 04:47 AM

Gambling isn't stupid unless you go to far. Most people are aware they probably won't win. They pay for that small rush. "I COULD win a million. You never know."

To me, it is just like getting on a roller coaster or watching a movie. You pay for the internal feelings, not for the material benefit.
Reminded me of an old joke:
Two guys leave the casion, one bare naked the other wearing a pair of under wear. The naked guy says to the dude in the drawers "I've go to admire the way you always know when to stop."

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 05:11 AM

No matter what I do, I just can't bring myself to go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Maybe at some point, I instinctively figured that it was extremely foolish to go to someone else's house and play a game of their choice under their rules for MY money.

Now, I don't mean skill games against other players (like Poker), I mean the normal Vegas stuff like roulette, slot machines, the big wheel, Video Poker etc.

No matter what, there's just NO way you can have a better than 50% chance of coming out on top. They can't allow it. Isn't that obvious? Or am I missing something?

It's idiotic to gamble against the House. They clearly have better information than you or me as an individual player. But it can be lucrative to gamble with the House. That's hard to do with Vegas but may possible to do with Wall Street. Buy when the Street buys and the public sells. Sell when the Street sells and the public buys.

Euromutt

16th August 2006, 05:26 AM

There's a phrase I learned in math class in secondary school which turned me off gambling for life: (translated from the Dutch) "expectation of negative profit." The object lesson consisted of a cafe round the corner from my school which made most of its money from slot machines. I just hung out there between classes because the coffee was cheap. It had a sign out front: "Our machines pay out up to 80%!" It was meant as a boast, but it told me that if I spent all day on the damn thing, I'd end up with, at best, 80% of the money I started with.

The fact of the matter is that, whether you play the lottery, slots, roulette, blackjack, whatever, the odds are ultimately stacked in favor of the house. Popular mythology to the contrary, casinos don't cheat; they don't have to. Cheating means breaking the rules, and the rules are already written in their favor. For your average schmoe, therefore, gambling is a bad investment. I have known people to become good at working slot machines or the tables and come out (slightly) ahead much of the time, but only after lots of practice and refining their technique, in the course of which they lost substantial amounts.

As other posters have said, if you find gambling entertaining, and don't mind losing a few shekels in the process, that's not idiotic. But if you seriously expect to achieve long-term consistent monetary gain from gambling, you should probably think again.

andyandy

16th August 2006, 05:58 AM

As other posters have said, if you find gambling entertaining, and don't mind losing a few shekels in the process, that's not idiotic. But if you seriously expect to achieve long-term consistent monetary gain from gambling, you should probably think again.

it's interesting that no-ones really addressed sports (or other) betting - am i right in thinking this is probably because it's illegal in the US?

I think that for such betting it's possible to make a good living....that used to require knowing more about the markets than the bookies...

but the advent of punter-punter sites like betfair now mean you can bet against other punters - which i'm sure some can really cash in on...

BPScooter

16th August 2006, 06:13 AM

I have a silly Vegas blackjack story. I had read up on the game and was fairly wasted with some gambling friends, and happend to be by myself with a $20 in my pocket. I took the plunge, all by myself, with a rather grumpy looking asian chick as a dealer. She put the cards in the shoe, and looked over her shoulder into the video camera like she was Way too Busy to do such a noble thing for a dickhead like me. I played like 3 hands, and drew a 12 and *didn't* take another card, she busted, .... you get the idea. I got like a hundred bucks on 3 hands, and then walked away and said "thanks" but she was such a non-fun dealer that she didn't deserve a tip. I then went and put 20 of that into quarters, and very quickly got like another 50 bux on a quarter draw from a slot. So I walk back up to my gambling buddies and said, "I'm done for the night" and left them scratching their heads. Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em. I folded at the peak of my luck!!

Euromutt

16th August 2006, 06:18 AM

it's interesting that no-ones really addressed sports (or other) betting - am i right in thinking this is probably because it's illegal in the US?Not so much because it's illegal, but because laws vary by state, plus there's federal regulation on betting when the punter is one state, the bookie in another, and/or the event in (yet) another, and it's all too complex to address the myriad permutations in a brief post.

Also, even if you know the markets as well as or better than those bookies with whom you are legally allowed to do business (which usually menas they have to be in the same state), bear in mind that bookies charge vigorish (http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/V0098400.html).

Sure, punter-to-punter sites might defray that to some extent, but Congress is currently hostile to any internet gambling which doesn't result in a state or federal government getting a slice.

16th August 2006, 06:30 AM

The fact of the matter is that, whether you play the lottery, slots, roulette, blackjack, whatever, the odds are ultimately stacked in favor of the house.

If the House doesn't know what it is doing, then the odds in blackjack are stacked in the favor of the player. This is, of course, a very rare thing to happen in a well-established casino but you might encounter such a game some day.

A friend of one of my acquitances once spent his summer holiday living in a ferry traveling between Helsinki and Stockholm, playing black jack for 3-5 hours every night. He earned enough money to pay for the tickets and food with about as much money left over that he would have earned in a regular summer job.

His method: card counting.

The black jack table in the ship was (at least at the time) run in a way that made card counting possible and profitable. Even with his gouging, the table probably made profit for the operator since 95% of those who play in those night club tables are drunk. One of my friends worked as a black jack dealer for a couple of years and he told that he regularly enocuntered players who were drunk enough to hit on 19.

Ladewig

16th August 2006, 06:47 AM

I'll agree that gambling on games with huge house advantages is foolish (e.g. most states run Pick 3 games with a 50% house advantage) but small stakes on games with small house advantages can be entertaining.

Bronze Dog

16th August 2006, 07:13 AM

IIRC, the creation of card counting has actually benefitted casinos: Every idiot out there thinks he can do it easily.

MilwaukeeMike

16th August 2006, 07:25 AM

No matter what I do, I just can't bring myself to go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Maybe at some point, I instinctively figured that it was extremely foolish to go to someone else's house and play a game of their choice under their rules for MY money.

Now, I don't mean skill games against other players (like Poker), I mean the normal Vegas stuff like roulette, slot machines, the big wheel, Video Poker etc.

No matter what, there's just NO way you can have a better than 50% chance of coming out on top. They can't allow it. Isn't that obvious? Or am I missing something?

Even with games like slots you can use some strategy. This would be hard for most people to do, but if you go into a casino and sit and watch how long it takes someone to win on a given slot, do this over and over again, you can potentially calculate in your head what the odds are on that machine. Once you know the odds on that machine, all you need to do is sit there and wait for somebody to spend some time on there without winning. Once they leave you sit down play a couple of games and win. So even the games that seem mindless, can be had with a little strategy.:)

andyandy

16th August 2006, 07:30 AM

an introduction to card counting.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting

Bsic card counting assigns a positive, negative, or null value to each card (2 through ace). As each card is dealt, the running count is adjusted by each card's assigned value. There are multiple card counting systems in use, but the Hi-Lo system, proposed by Harvey Dubner in 1963 and later refined by Julian Braun and Stanford Wong [3], is one of the more basic and illustrative systems.

In the Hi-Lo system the cards 2 through 6 are assigned a value of -1. Ten's (and face cards) through aces are assigned a value of +1. Cards 7, 8 and 9 have a value of zero (so they can be ignored).

For example, on a fresh shuffle, the count begins at zero. The dealer then deals the following sequence of cards: 5, 7, 2, Ace, 6, 3, 8, Jack. As each card comes out, the count is adjusted (starting at a count of zero). The adjustment values for the count would be -1 for 5, 0 for 7, -1 for 2, +1 for Ace, -1 for 6, -1 for 3, 0 for 8, +1 for Jack. As each card is delt the count is adjusted by the adjustment values. So the running count after each card is: -1, -1, -2, -1, -2, -3, -3, -2. So the final count, after this sequence of cards mentioned above is -2.

The Hi-Lo system is an example of a balanced card counting system. There are an equal number of +1 and -1 cards in the deck, so a count of all 52 cards would result in an end count of 0. The Hi-Lo system is also an example of a single level system, because cards are assigned only a single value, + or -1.[4]

The average deck always has a zero count, which is an advantage to the casino. Good counts are rare, only 25% of the time will the count usually favour the player. On average a counter will have a 1% edge, if they do not play or minimum bet when the count is bad, and increase their bets when the count is good. This means at a $10 table they would need to play, on average, 100 hands to make $10, which could be 2 hours of play or more.

The variance in blackjack is also very large. While they would win $10 on average for every 100 hands, it would take many thousands of hands to a have a high chance of being in profit. For this reason most casinos do not care about card counters who are playing $5 or $10 games. At a $25 table a good counter can make over $10 per hour (averaged over hundreds of hours), and many can make more than the dealer, which is an obvious problem for the casino. [citation needed]

Dave1001

16th August 2006, 07:31 AM

Cuddles

16th August 2006, 07:46 AM

One of the funniest things I've ever seen is the adverts for an online casino where the biggest words, apart from the name, were "Average winnings of 98%" (or somewhere around there).

Starthinker

16th August 2006, 07:46 AM

SwissSkeptic

16th August 2006, 07:46 AM

Once you know the odds on that machine, all you need to do is sit there and wait for somebody to spend some time on there without winning.

Umm, no. The slot machine doesn't have a memory.

ETA: Argh! Beaten not only once, but twice!

Bronze Dog

16th August 2006, 08:10 AM

I recall something about guy trying to sue a casino because this one big super-jackpot slot machine had been stingy for longer than one would expect from the odds. Of course, it was actually the laws of probability being stingy.

Mr. Scott

16th August 2006, 08:16 AM

andyandy

16th August 2006, 08:35 AM

I once heard someone refer to the lottery as a tax on stupid people.

I think that when gamblers expect or hoping to win, it's just another form of woo (games of skill excluded). Do the science and math and it's obvious gambling loses in the long run. If you believe you are for some reason privileged above the millions of losers and will be the one in ten million player who wins, your only defense is faith in the supernatural.

One could argue that legal gambling is win-win. Taxing it brings dollars to social programs, and it can financially cripple people who believe they are supernaturally privileged.

as has been pointed out many people play the lottery not expecting to win, but for the chance to win.....
you're basically paying for hope.....for which £1 a week doesn't strike me as too obscene......so if anything the lottery rather than being a tax on stupidity, is a tax on people who need hope.....

NobbyNobbs

16th August 2006, 09:12 AM

Here's my strategy for the very few times I've gone gambling.

I walk into the casino with some money in my left pocket that I'm willing to spend (lose) for the sake of entertaining myself. As I play, any money I happen to win goes in my right pocket. When my left pocket is empty, I'm done, regardless of how much is in my right pocket.

Sometimes I'm ahead, sometimes I'm behind, but at least I always leave fully clothed and in possession of the deed to my house.

Amapola

16th August 2006, 09:50 AM

Slot machines are to me like training an animal to do something. I use operant conditioning to get a horse, llama whatever, to do what I want it to do, and the animal does it eagerly. I use a food reward for the animal, but I don't reward every single time; you get a stronger response from the animal if the reward is intermittent.

Slot machines are set up to reward intermittently, just like in operant conditioning. This is one of the reasons they hold no appeal for me. :D It reminds me too much of me teaching a horse something.

Cuddles

16th August 2006, 09:56 AM

Has anyone ever trained a horse to use a slot machine? :D

Amapola

16th August 2006, 10:04 AM

Has anyone ever trained a horse to use a slot machine? :D

:D A horse would never do such a silly thing. What horse in its right mind wants a bunch of round hard flat things you can't eat?

Now, if you could get one that dispensed horse cookies........

ponderingturtle

16th August 2006, 12:28 PM

Has anyone ever trained a horse to use a slot machine? :D

Hmm I am seeing an interesting possible experiment with chimps and cookie based slot machines, but I don't think it would work. Animals just seem to not have the ammount of forsite to not eat the starting ammount and risk it for more.

I am basing this on an experiment I saw where a chimp was choosing how many gumdrops a different chimp got. There where two quantities and which ever it choose was given to a different chimp. It failed to gain the reasoning that reaching for the smaller number would give it more, as greed always won out when presented with the gumdrops. When shown numbers it learned to choose the lesser one as that resulted in it getting more gumdrops.

Still if you can get male chips to forgo getting food to look at pictures of female chimp's butts, mabey you could set up chimp gambling.

MilwaukeeMike

17th August 2006, 10:45 AM

Umm, no. The slot machine doesn't have a memory.

ETA: Argh! Beaten not only once, but twice!

I know slot machines don't have a memory. But they run on odds just like everything else in a casino. If you sit long enough you can figure a estimation of what the odds are on a given slot machine, and then figure out an "estimated" number of times its going to take to win. You can't honestly say that its just three wheels spinning with a bunch of pretty pictures on it that just randomly arrange themselves each time. They have odds programmed into the slot machines. Do you think a casino would give the gambler the chance to have better odds than the house... Hell no. Thats why you sit there and let the "drones":) flush their quarters away and step in when the time is right.

Bronze Dog

17th August 2006, 10:50 AM

You can't honestly say that its just three wheels spinning with a bunch of pretty pictures on it that just randomly arrange themselves each time. They have odds programmed into the slot machines.
They have the odds programmed into the slot machines so that they will (pseudo)randomly arrange themselves. Unless you can reverse engineer the seed number or whatever used as the basis, you don't know when you'll win.

1/100 odds doesn't mean that it'll go off every 100th time.

SwissSkeptic

17th August 2006, 10:55 AM

I know slot machines don't have a memory. But they run on odds just like everything else in a casino. If you sit long enough you can figure a estimation of what the odds are on a given slot machine, and then figure out an "estimated" number of times its going to take to win. You can't honestly say that its just three wheels spinning with a bunch of pretty pictures on it that just randomly arrange themselves each time. They have odds programmed into the slot machines. Do you think a casino would give the gambler the chance to have better odds than the house... Hell no. Thats why you sit there and let the "drones":) flush their quarters away and step in when the time is right.

The gambler's fallacy: (http://www.skepdic.com/gamblers.html)
"The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken notion that the odds for something with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending upon recent occurrences."

roger

17th August 2006, 11:26 AM

Mike, if you flip a fair coin 100 times in a row and it comes up heads every time, what is the chance the next flip will be heads?

Answer: 50%, exactly the same if the last 100 was all tails, was HTHTTHTTTTTHH..., or any sequence.

Same with the machine. If a chump loses on that machine 1000 pulls in a row, and then you walk up and pull the arm (I know, nobody uses the arms anymore), your chance of success is still exactly the same as that last chump.

There is no such thing as stepping in when the time is right.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2006, 11:38 AM

is there skill in black jack - i mean more than just knowing to stick on 16 or above.....(or some similar strategy - i admit i'm no expert :) ) ?
the only skill i can think of is through card counting....but i imagine the casinos would be onto that pretty quick....

Card counting is not illegal. It is just that if you can turn the game so that you have an advantage the casino will not want to play with you, and as a private business they don't have to. They don't need to say you do anything wrong, you can not force them to play with you.

Note that useing outside assistence for cardcounting like a computer is illegal.

Hutch

17th August 2006, 11:38 AM

In answer to the opening post, I don't think you are per se an idiot if you gamble. I gamble 1-2 times a year and at least for the present do not believe I am an idiot (opinions vary).

However, I do believe a lot of idiots gamble. I play the $5.00 blackjack tables at Vegas during TAM (came out $170 ahead) and used the same stragety many others here do; take only what you can afford to lose and keep the rest in your pocket. And when you get ahead, get up from the table. (that's my weakness, I'll start with $60, get about $20 ahead and say "OK, I'll play with their money and get to $100 and...) But the folks I would see running through a couple of hundred dollars in 1/2 hour and then pulling out a couple more Benjamins knowing that their luck would change...I never ever could understand them.

Gambling can be fun if you have the expendable cash and know your limits. Sadly many people don't have and don't know....and that's why 5,000 room luxury hotels get built in Las Vegas...

andyandy, if you ever make it across the pond to Vegas, I'll take you to the blackjack tables and show you how I play it (better yet, get with Brown, the PaiGow Poker grandmaster).

MilwaukeeMike

17th August 2006, 11:47 AM

They have the odds programmed into the slot machines so that they will (pseudo)randomly arrange themselves. Unless you can reverse engineer the seed number or whatever used as the basis, you don't know when you'll win.

1/100 odds doesn't mean that it'll go off every 100th time.

Yes I know that. You can flip a coin 5 times and have it land on heads each time. All I was saying is that you can figure out and average or estimation of the odds so that you don't have to play as long to win on a slot machine. Over a longer period of time you could figure out and approximation of how many times it takes to win. So if over a day you watch a slot, say the range of pulls to win is 145 to 80. You can assume that the average amount of pulls to win is 112.5. So if you see someone play 100 pulls and not win yet; its reasonable to assume that you have a better shot at winning on that slot than the slot next to it. Thats all im saying.

ponderingturtle

17th August 2006, 11:50 AM

I know slot machines don't have a memory. But they run on odds just like everything else in a casino. If you sit long enough you can figure a estimation of what the odds are on a given slot machine, and then figure out an "estimated" number of times its going to take to win. You can't honestly say that its just three wheels spinning with a bunch of pretty pictures on it that just randomly arrange themselves each time. They have odds programmed into the slot machines. Do you think a casino would give the gambler the chance to have better odds than the house... Hell no. Thats why you sit there and let the "drones":) flush their quarters away and step in when the time is right.

yea, the "three flips came up heads so it is now more likely to come up tails" aproach to probability.

It is wrong of course. The slot machine has changed its odds no more than the coin has. Actualy the random number generaters are running all the time so it might have hit in there and gave not outward sign as well.

MilwaukeeMike

17th August 2006, 12:03 PM

The gambler's fallacy: (http://www.skepdic.com/gamblers.html)
"The gambler's fallacy is the mistaken notion that the odds for something with a fixed probability increase or decrease depending upon recent occurrences."

OK, you still are not reading what I am saying. Im not talking about a single pull. And Im not talking about an over the counter game mentioned at that "skeptic" website. Im not talking about selecting anything. Its very simple. A slot machine and a period of time. They have odds. Im not talking about roulette. Yah I know that in roulette people think red was picked so it cant be picked again. I mean that's so much more simple than the odds of a slot. Over a period of time a slot machine will average a certain number of wins.

"In a modern slot machine, the odds of hitting a particular symbol or combination of symbols depends on how the virtual reel is set up. As we saw in the last section, each stop on the actual reel may correspond to more than one stop on the virtual reel. Simply put, the odds of hitting a particular image on the actual reel depend on how many virtual stops correspond to the actual stop.

In a typical weighted slot machine, the top jackpot stop (the one with the highest-paying jackpot image) for each reel corresponds to only one virtual stop. This means that the chance of hitting the jackpot image on one reel is 1 in 64. If all of the reels are set up the same way, the chances of hitting the jackpot image on all three reels is 1 in 643, or 262,144. For machines with a bigger jackpot, the virtual reel may have many more stops. This decreases the odds of winning that jackpot considerably.

The losing blank stops above and below the jackpot image may correspond to more virtual stops than other images. Consequently, a player is most likely to hit the blank stops right next to the winning stop. This creates the impression that they "just missed" the jackpot, which encourages them to keep gambling, even though the proximity of the actual stops is inconsequential.

A machine's program is carefully designed and tested to achieve a certain payback percentage. The payback percentage is the percentage of the money that is put in that is eventually paid out to the player. With a payback percentage of 90, for example, the casino would take about 10 percent of all money put into the slot machine and give away the other 90 percent. With any payback percentage under a 100 (and they're all under 100), the casino wins over time."

http://money.howstuffworks.com/slot-machine.htm/printable

Stir

17th August 2006, 12:09 PM

On the other hand, something that I think is a completely bad idea is playing the lottery.
Lottery: the idiot tax indeed.

True only if you are looking at it in terms of expected $ return. Possibly different if looked at in terms of expected utility (utility defined as it is for economic theory): Impact on my life of spending a buck once or twice a year = 0 (utility, not dollars). Impact of winning $30,000,000 = huge, gigantic, immense, life-changing (again, utility). So the expected utility may be positive (for me) even though the expected dollars is negative.

Number Six

17th August 2006, 12:17 PM

I can see how gambling can be taken as entertainment but I think it's easy for people to inadvertently slip from that into a mode where they think they'll somehow defy the odds. People often call this stupid or idiotic but I prefer the word self-delusional, although I realize that is kinda what people mean when they say stupid or idiotic. It seems to describe them better though. Many of these people aren't dumb per se, rather they're deluding themselves.

As far as the "lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math" thing, I don't like that line for philosophical reasons, mainly because people pay taxes involuntarily whereas they line up to play the lottery. If there really was a tax on people that were bad at math then many would protest. But few protest the lottery and those that do aren't the ones handing their money over.

The lottery is just the state monopolizing a form of entertainment (that slips into delusion for some) in order to get money. What bothers me about the lottery isn't that it's a tax but rather that it's a monopoly. IMO we should either not allow gambling or, if we do, we shouldn't give the state a monopoly on certain forms of it.

As far as TV saying that Larry Flynt uses strategy in card games and consequently usually walks away with $1 M of the casinos money, the only way that is true is if on those occassions when he doesn't win, he loses many million. Larry Flynt nor any of the other high rollers are winning in the long run. I wouldn't doubt that the TV show said it or implied it though since TV often titilates rather than informs.

Stir

17th August 2006, 12:28 PM

A machine's program is carefully designed and tested to achieve a certain payback percentage.

Yes MM, that's true ... but it does NOT imply that the likelihood of a win goes up after a long string of losses ... so stepping in after the drones simply does not work. I challenge you to try your strategy but keep careful and complete (no fair reporting on only the times you have success, you must include your losing experiences as well) and accurate records of amounts won & lost. Most people who gamble and believe they are ahead tend to remember (and tell others) of their successes and overlook or forget the losses. You may surprise yourself if you keep a careful record.

An example: a fair coin is 'programmed' to come up with a series of 10 heads in a row every so often ... and the number of flips expected before that happens can be calculated, or it could be approximated experimentally by watching lots of flips (lots & lots). But knowledge of that expected number (and observation of a drone) would not allow you 'step in' and hit such a streak of ten any more quickly than if you had not been observing the drone.

SwissSkeptic

17th August 2006, 12:29 PM

OK, you still are not reading what I am saying. Im not talking about a single pull. And Im not talking about an over the counter game mentioned at that "skeptic" website. Im not talking about selecting anything. Its very simple. A slot machine and a period of time. They have odds. Im not talking about roulette. Yah I know that in roulette people think red was picked so it cant be picked again. I mean that's so much more simple than the odds of a slot. Over a period of time a slot machine will average a certain number of wins.

Oh, I am reading what you're saying. What you're saying is: "Thats why you sit there and let the "drones" flush their quarters away and step in when the time is right." Which is utterly wrong. 1000 games lost in a row won't change the outcome of the next 1000 games.

ETA: In case it bothers you that I linked to a skeptic website, here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) what wikipedia says about the gambler's fallacy: "The gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy that mistakenly believes past events will affect future events when dealing with random activities, such as many gambling games."
How does this not describe your statement that you have to "step in when the time is right"?

ponderingturtle

17th August 2006, 12:55 PM

OK, you still are not reading what I am saying. Im not talking about a single pull. And Im not talking about an over the counter game mentioned at that "skeptic" website. Im not talking about selecting anything. Its very simple. A slot machine and a period of time. They have odds. Im not talking about roulette. Yah I know that in roulette people think red was picked so it cant be picked again. I mean that's so much more simple than the odds of a slot. Over a period of time a slot machine will average a certain number of wins.

And what happens before that time period does not affect the period. It doesn't matter if it hit before you played or had a run of not hitting, it is never due. The odds of you hitting in the time you play are always the same for a given machine.

In both the slots and roulette it is a mistake to look at its history and think that it will change the odds for the future. It is the same mistake in probability.

andyandy

17th August 2006, 01:04 PM

andyandy, if you ever make it across the pond to Vegas, I'll take you to the blackjack tables and show you how I play it (better yet, get with Brown, the PaiGow Poker grandmaster).

lol....me in vegas would be a bad idea.......:D

Morchella

17th August 2006, 03:20 PM

The programmers who make slot machines intentionally program them to show frequent near misses . The near misses are more frequent than probability would predict. This heightens the hysteria of the gambler and keeps them playing.
I live a few minutes from the Nevada border but never gamble. I go to a show once in a while but I agree.... Gamblers are idiots. Besides I hate all that cigarette smoke.

Antiquehunter

17th August 2006, 03:33 PM

I haven't read the entire thread - I apologize if I repeat anything previously said.

- Slots have no memory. They return ON THE LONG HAUL 85 - 98% to the bettor. Generally, progressive machines pay on the lower end (cumulative jackpots that increase by the coin paid) vs moderate jackpots that pay more frequently (800 coins Xs for two coins paid on a 2 coin double diamond machine)

- Table games all have a house edge EXCEPT where you play PERFECT blackjack strategy and enjoy house edges like 'Wong' in and surrender where you may bet up to 2% player edge or banking at Pai Gow Poker against a full table of bettors.

EVERYTHING else you play is favoured to the house - but you can still win money - through bankroll management, intelligent betting etc... Poker is an anomaly because a) you don't have to make an initial bet unless it is prudent to do so and b) the house rakes out of the pot. So as long as you're a consistient player based on you hourly 'rate' - the rake is simply an annoyance. And its generally easy to work that rate into a meal / room discount.

-AHl

wipeout

17th August 2006, 05:53 PM

Gambling can be done successfully but only in a few ways.

As people have said, you can card-count at Blackjack but I'd add that memory techiques can be used to improve card-counting and strategy. You can also work as a team. If you consistently win big, you will attract attention, however. There are card-counters who win smaller amounts to avoid being asked to leave.

I don't have a clue if it's true now but in the 1950s you could "handicap the handicappers" at horse-racing. A scientist formerly of the Manhatten project realized that and did it quite successfully.

MaxHardcore

17th August 2006, 08:59 PM

Stir said something correct about utility.

for most people won't see multimillion dollars unless they play the lottery.

Jeff Corey

17th August 2006, 10:13 PM

bduddy

17th August 2006, 10:59 PM

[QUOTE=MilwaukeeMike]OK, you still are not reading what I am saying. Im not talking about a single pull. And Im not talking about an over the counter game mentioned at that "skeptic" website. Im not talking about selecting anything. Its very simple. A slot machine and a period of time. They have odds. Im not talking about roulette. Yah I know that in roulette people think red was picked so it cant be picked again. I mean that's so much more simple than the odds of a slot. Over a period of time a slot machine will average a certain number of wins.

"In a modern slot machine, the odds of hitting a particular symbol or combination of symbols depends on how the virtual reel is set up. As we saw in the last section, each stop on the actual reel may correspond to more than one stop on the virtual reel. Simply put, the odds of hitting a particular image on the actual reel depend on how many virtual stops correspond to the actual stop.

In a typical weighted slot machine, the top jackpot stop (the one with the highest-paying jackpot image) for each reel corresponds to only one virtual stop. This means that the chance of hitting the jackpot image on one reel is 1 in 64. If all of the reels are set up the same way, the chances of hitting the jackpot image on all three reels is 1 in 643, or 262,144. For machines with a bigger jackpot, the virtual reel may have many more stops. This decreases the odds of winning that jackpot considerably.

The losing blank stops above and below the jackpot image may correspond to more virtual stops than other images. Consequently, a player is most likely to hit the blank stops right next to the winning stop. This creates the impression that they "just missed" the jackpot, which encourages them to keep gambling, even though the proximity of the actual stops is inconsequential.

A machine's program is carefully designed and tested to achieve a certain payback percentage. The payback percentage is the percentage of the money that is put in that is eventually paid out to the player. With a payback percentage of 90, for example, the casino would take about 10 percent of all money put into the slot machine and give away the other 90 percent. With any payback percentage under a 100 (and they're all under 100), the casino wins over time."

URL removed because I'm new;([QUOTE]

I suspect this one is a victim of the gambler's fallacy, but there is some utility to his "strategy". Slot machines in a casino do not all have the same payout percentages: often one will machine will be a high-payout one, and then the ones next to it will be suckers. If one utilizes his strategy in reverse (i.e. playing "better" machines) one can come off better than average, although usually not better than the casino. There is money in paying off one winner and taking the bets of the two losers next to him.

And as to the original topic, I believe that one is an idiot if one expects to gamble and win over the long term. If you go to the racetrack and bet on a couple races, or play a couple spins of roulette, you can have fun without too much of a price, and maybe come away with a heavier wallet sometimes. And when it is something like sports betting or horse racing, it changes entirely from a weighted lottery to a contest of skill, if a tough one.

BPScooter

18th August 2006, 05:30 AM

Forget the NSA, Echelon, and all that, I want to know the Inner Workings of a Vegas Slot Machine. That must be some sort of amazing R&D combined with some Really Honest Engineering combined with Video Surveillance. How does it work? I scratch head and speculate-- there really are 3 big weighted tumblers a-spinning. They come to rest through a random application of magnetic braking. The arrangement of payoff lines is a colorful sticker on the tumbler, that shows through a window. If all 3 tumblers happen to show their stickers in a particular way, I win. I have noticed that the "tumbler-stopping-window-showing" arc on the tumbler is quite small. Math people could calculate it in radians. I think it has gotten smaller from what I remember 35 years ago when I was a kid and it was more mechanical than electronic. Oh for the good old days, when it was probably rigged in the old-fashioned way, say weighted tumblers.

BPScooter

18th August 2006, 05:38 AM

ponderingturtle

18th August 2006, 07:04 AM

OK, sorry, now I'm thinking--why do these machines still have the handles? The old Model T Ford.. crank it by hand.. I bet there are old-timers that wouldn't get the same thrill out of spinning the wheels of fortune if all they had to do was push a button. Step right up, crank the handle (complete with nice cranking sound) and where she stops, nobody knows!

Asthetics, as all slot machines are now based off of eletrical random number generators the handle like the wheels themselves are entirely irrelevent to the functioning of the machine. BUt people are reluctant to have too much visual change in their gambling experiance.

Still gambleing and expecting to win, except in events that do have have a non random historical element in it like blackjack when card counting or sports betting, is not logical. That doesn't mean gambleing is for idiots, just that anyone who plays random games and expects to get an advantage is fooling themselves.

I have heard that some video poker if played right can result in a player advantage, not sure if this is true.

Jeff Corey

18th August 2006, 07:50 AM

An owner of a vending machine business once lent me a "Joker Poker" video game to play around with. The payoff rate could be adjusted from 150% down to 50%. A dishonest bar owner could introduce the game with a high payoff rate and gradually reduce it. In behavior analysis, this is known as "leaning out the ratio" and is how one can get a rat to press a lever hundreds of times for .045 g of food.
These illegal games have been replaced in NY by a state run Lotto-like game, known jokingly as "electronic crack" in bars. The payoff rate ranges from 50% to slightly higher.

Ezekiel

18th August 2006, 08:45 AM

I don't know about a tax on idiots but there is a expression that I've often heard around here that "gambling is a tax on people who don't understand the laws of probability".

I think several posts in this thread demonstrate this rather well :D

teddosan

18th August 2006, 10:24 AM

Even with games like slots you can use some strategy. This would be hard for most people to do, but if you go into a casino and sit and watch how long it takes someone to win on a given slot, do this over and over again, you can potentially calculate in your head what the odds are on that machine. Once you know the odds on that machine, all you need to do is sit there and wait for somebody to spend some time on there without winning. Once they leave you sit down play a couple of games and win. So even the games that seem mindless, can be had with a little strategy.:)

First of all, in order to calculate the odds of a particular machine using observation only would take literally decades. The variance is so high on slot machines that you would have to continually watch every pull for decades and decades. Second, once you know the odds on a particular machine, you can do nothing to improve your chance of winning including watching other people win or lose for extended periods.

Let's say we have two identical, very simple slot machines that have only one type of win: It costs $1 per play, and they pay out $900 on a win. The machines are programmed to have a 1/1000 chance to payback each play. You know that these machines have a 90% payback rate because there is a sign above them advertising this fact. (In Las Vegas, at least, there is a legal requirement that any sign indicating a given a percentage payback to be accurate.) You watch two players play these two machines for 20 hours. The left machine has paid out 15 times! The right machine has never paid out. Both players get up and leave at the same time. You decide that you want to play.

Q: Which machine should you sit at, right or left?
A: It doesn't matter at all. There is no more expected value per play for either the left machine or the right machine. Your expected value for each play is -10 cents on both machines.

Antiquehunter

18th August 2006, 11:33 AM

I own two IGT slots that came out of Harrah's in Vegas - they're in my house in my bar, just for fun / decoration. I've gone through the manuals and do all the servicing on them myself (clearing coin jams etc...) - they are a feat of engineering, but these modern slots are really just a computer with reels instead of a CRT.

On the comment about video poker, with perfect strategy, and with proper game selection, yes, some games are as high as .7% in favour of the player. When you combine this edge with comps for play (free food, rooms, cashback etc...) there are definitely full-time professional video poker players. However - you need a massive bankroll to do this - because the house edge assumes you hit the top prize (a natural royal flush on a deuces wild machine for example) - and that happens extremely rarely. If you read 'How to make $100,000 a year as a professional gambler' by David Sklansky, he talks about video poker professionals and video poker teams (who take over a bank of progressive machines when the jackpot is high enough to justify it) but also explains their bankroll management. Seems like a pretty unfun way to grind out a living...

-AH.

Hydrogen Cyanide

18th August 2006, 12:05 PM

[I've only glanced at this thread since first posting... but something occured to me].... I have recently learned that many cruise ships have casinos. I wonder if many of you who are booked on the "Amazing Cruise" will invade the on board casino while in the Bermuda Triangle to debate the fine points of risk, house odds and slot machine programming. If you do, post pictures!

andyandy

18th August 2006, 01:07 PM

First of all, in order to calculate the odds of a particular machine using observation only would take literally decades. The variance is so high on slot machines that you would have to continually watch every pull for decades and decades. Second, once you know the odds on a particular machine, you can do nothing to improve your chance of winning including watching other people win or lose for extended periods.

Let's say we have two identical, very simple slot machines that have only one type of win: It costs $1 per play, and they pay out $900 on a win. The machines are programmed to have a 1/1000 chance to payback each play. You know that these machines have a 90% payback rate because there is a sign above them advertising this fact. (In Las Vegas, at least, there is a legal requirement that any sign indicating a given a percentage payback to be accurate.) You watch two players play these two machines for 20 hours. The left machine has paid out 15 times! The right machine has never paid out. Both players get up and leave at the same time. You decide that you want to play.

Q: Which machine should you sit at, right or left?
A: It doesn't matter at all. There is no more expected value per play for either the left machine or the right machine. Your expected value for each play is -10 cents on both machines.

completely true....but how do these machinese pay out? if it's by cash, then surely there would be a point for which the machine had insufficient funds to cover a jackpot. How does this effect things?

roger

18th August 2006, 01:23 PM

I think MilwaukeeMike might be confused by the description of how these machines are programmed.

They are not programmed to watch previous results, and adjust the payout so it remains at 0.90, or whatever. If that was the case, his strategy would work. No, they are programmed with random numbers so that the payout over time works out to 0.90, or whatever. Which is exactly how a roulette wheel works. Trust me. The machines are very well tested to ensure that no one can use a strategy to make a profit from them. Mike, your idea is wrong.

roger

18th August 2006, 01:25 PM

completely true....but how do these machinese pay out? if it's by cash, then surely there would be a point for which the machine had insufficient funds to cover a jackpot. How does this effect things?It's all electronic these days. You get a slip of paper that you take to the cashiers. In the old days, a bell would ring, an attendent would come over, and give you the money. Actually, I think you get the attendent regardless on large wins, because they want to give you a free room, etc., in an attempt to keep the money in the casino. If you walk out the door, they lose the money. If you stay, you'll almost certainly gamble it away.

hgc

18th August 2006, 01:31 PM

If the House doesn't know what it is doing, then the odds in blackjack are stacked in the favor of the player. This is, of course, a very rare thing to happen in a well-established casino but you might encounter such a game some day.

A friend of one of my acquitances once spent his summer holiday living in a ferry traveling between Helsinki and Stockholm, playing black jack for 3-5 hours every night. He earned enough money to pay for the tickets and food with about as much money left over that he would have earned in a regular summer job.

His method: card counting.

The black jack table in the ship was (at least at the time) run in a way that made card counting possible and profitable. Even with his gouging, the table probably made profit for the operator since 95% of those who play in those night club tables are drunk. One of my friends worked as a black jack dealer for a couple of years and he told that he regularly enocuntered players who were drunk enough to hit on 19.What was this casino doing wrong? Not enough decks in the shoe?

andyandy

18th August 2006, 01:36 PM

It's all electronic these days. You get a slip of paper that you take to the cashiers. In the old days, a bell would ring, an attendent would come over, and give you the money. Actually, I think you get the attendent regardless on large wins, because they want to give you a free room, etc., in an attempt to keep the money in the casino. If you walk out the door, they lose the money. If you stay, you'll almost certainly gamble it away.

ok that makes sense - thanks for that :D

18th August 2006, 01:44 PM

What was this casino doing wrong? Not enough decks in the shoe?

Probably. I don't know exact details. I probably should ask that friend of mine who was a dealer if he happens to know about it.

Anyway, it was not a full-fledged casino. It was a single black jack table in a corner of a night club. They are quite common here and they usually are opened so late that the majority of prospective players are already drunk enough to play stupidly.

Ceritus

18th August 2006, 07:47 PM

I played alot of blackjack. Once I won 19 hands in a row and I started doubling up on the 4th hand. I ended up walking away with about $3500 but then again I have once lost 26 hands in a row and ended up losing about $3000. The game has too many ups and downs so I decided to give it up. I ended up giving it up while I was WAY down and I am still paying back all the loan sharks and banks and creditcards years later but I am just about out of debt! 9 more months baby!

Ceritus

18th August 2006, 07:50 PM

And what happens before that time period does not affect the period. It doesn't matter if it hit before you played or had a run of not hitting, it is never due. The odds of you hitting in the time you play are always the same for a given machine.

In both the slots and roulette it is a mistake to look at its history and think that it will change the odds for the future. It is the same mistake in probability.

I beg to differ. Roulette tables can have a bias to certain numbers over time simply because they are not built perfect.

American

18th August 2006, 08:46 PM

They are only idiots if they believe they'll eventually win or break even, which most don't reallly believe that.

Foolmewunz

18th August 2006, 09:24 PM

Back in the 60's when the first card-counters were honing their skills, one of them showed up on I've Got a Secret, his secret being that he was the guy who caused Vegas to change the house rules (going to multiple decks in the shoe to make counting harder).
To spice up the show, they sent Henry Morgan to either the Bahamas or Bermuda (or other island with casinos) to try the system, since they hadn't changed the house rules yet. He was rather fond of cards. His report: I was winning a bit, but it was boring so after a few hours I went back to my own methods and lost the bankroll.

The moral of the tale: If you're playing for fun, enjoy yourself. If winning is just hard work and bores you, why are you wasting your recreational time?

We can't dismiss gamblers as idiots. There are lots of professional gamblers out there, after all. If you play a system and try to do it for a living, it's your job, and as someone mentioned above on the vidpoker players, you have to be disciplined and it probably begins to seem like work (eeek!). There are professional gamblers who make a living out of the game - some better than others, but most I've heard discussing the topic seem to say that the "ups" aren't so "up" - they expect to win often enough to making a living, after all. But the other side of that is the "downs" can be really bad. You have to be pretty tough to take it. I think that's why most professionals seem to be rather stoical(rash generalization - I know). It's just a living with a highly irregular payday.

So, before we tag it as idiotic, the criteria should be whether the person can afford the loss and/or is being suckered by either false advertising or their own faulty logic ("Someone's got to win. Might as well be me.)

If I would spend a three hundred bucks on dinner, drinks, and the theater or a concert, I'm content to blow the same amount in Macau for six or seven hours of blackjack, assuming I play smart and can stretch it over that time (I can, generally). But if that's a quarter of my rent money and I'm off to the casino to make the rest, then I'm just an idiot, at best. Worse, though, I'm possibly a bit ill. No one's mentioined that yet - there are serious gambling addicts out there who've destroyed lives - their own, their families', their friends'.

Hawkeye

18th August 2006, 11:44 PM

True only if you are looking at it in terms of expected $ return. Possibly different if looked at in terms of expected utility (utility defined as it is for economic theory): Impact on my life of spending a buck once or twice a year = 0 (utility, not dollars). Impact of winning $30,000,000 = huge, gigantic, immense, life-changing (again, utility). So the expected utility may be positive (for me) even though the expected dollars is negative.

Utility shmutility.
You can’t just look at the “impact,” you must consider the odds. Let’s play a game. I’m going to flip a coin 1000 times. If it comes up heads every single time you win $100 million, or else you lose 1$. Will you play? Think of the utility!

The fact of the matter is that you’re better off saving or investing that dollar somewhere else. Better yet, give it to someone who needs it more than you. Sure 1$ is somewhat useless (to you) right now, but if you continue playing the lottery (as many people do)... it will add up over a lifetime. Think of the big picture. An average person might buy 1000 lottery tickets over 50 years and not think twice about it. However, this person would probably be hesitant to risk $1,000 on the same slim chance that they might turn it into 100 million.

If you want to talk about utility as a measurement of happiness, I think most people would be happier keeping and spending their $1,000 rather than gambling it on a ridiculous long shot and almost certainly losing it all.

Stir said something correct about utility.

for most people won't see multimillion dollars unless they play the lottery.

True, but the great-grand-uber-omega-overwhelming majority of people who play the lottery will never win the big one. Just remember, behind every person who hits a jackpot there’s a couple of million of schmucks handing him their 1$.

rockoon

19th August 2006, 12:36 AM

On the lottery:

You folks have neglected the progressive jackpot nature of most lotteries. It is common for the progressive lottery to be offering positive EV to its players.

On the slots:

If you think the random number generators in slot machines are weak, think again. These things have periods so long that it will take a trillion lifetimes of constant play just to see a tiny fraction of their period. The universe will be a frozen maximum entropy wasteland long before you could cycle through the entire period.

On the stock market:

If you can avoid taxes, you might be able to find a good bet or two.

The Atheist

19th August 2006, 01:14 AM

Boy there are some serious non-gamblers posting here!

Most of the posts deal with casino gambling, and the simple answer to whether betting at casinos is smart is to check and see how many casions there are, how large they are and whther any go bust, which is almost unheard of.

Casino odds must stay in favour of the house and you cannot beat them unless somone makes a mistake - cutting the wrong place in the shoe at blackjack, letting bets be placed after the roll, etc. "Smart" gamblers don't generally bet at casinos, except in poker tournaments where the casino just takes a cut of the pot and the winner wins. There are many professional poker players in the world who will win well over 50% of the time and make a great living out of it. A great poker player once said, "I know 100 pro poker players. How many pro craps players have you ever seen?"

I see a couple of early posts mentioning progression systems to help you win (where you increase a bet each time you lose because eventually you'll win. RUBBISH! They are 100% wrong and progression systems are for rank amateurs (or congential idiots) with no brains who want to end up in bankruptcy courts.

Horse racing and sports betting are where the men and the boys get sorted out. Amateurs try to beat the races by betting on every race and they always end up losing over a period of time - the old adage "you can beat a race but you can't beat the races is an absolute truism. Professionals pick two or three bets per race day and stick to those bets.

I personally know a dozen or so people who make a living exclusively from betting on horses and sports, and know of many more. Golf is a favourite sport with odds being offered by every country with betting licences. Smart gamblers will arbitrage bets between several different agencies and countries so that whoever wins a tournament, a small profit will be made. It's very time-consuming and you need to have a real passion for the game (or winning) to make it work.

Gambling is all about self-control. Even a casino can be fun as long as you take along a set amount of money - which you have already decided you can afford to lose - and STOP immediately you do lose it. The other side is that you also need to have a set amount to win and once you hit the target, GO HOME. Again, amateurs will go to a casino and win $1000 in the first 20 minutes then stay for the next six hours and give it all back.

Above all, keep it fun and no harm will result.

Interesting aside - in this country at least - more men commit suicide as a result of financial difficulties caused by gambling than any other reason.

19th August 2006, 03:52 AM

You can’t just look at the “impact,” you must consider the odds. Let’s play a game. I’m going to flip a coin 1000 times. If it comes up heads every single time you win $100 million, or else you lose 1$. Will you play? Think of the utility!

You got yourself a deal. Send me a PM if you visit the Helsinki area some day and we can arrange a meet to play it.

I'm more than willing to pay $1 to watch someone spend two hours flipping a coin to win a dollar. Though I will bring a book with me in case it gets boring along the way.

Rasmus

19th August 2006, 04:06 AM

You got yourself a deal. Send me a PM if you visit the Helsinki area some day and we can arrange a meet to play it.

I'm more than willing to pay $1 to watch someone spend two hours flipping a coin to win a dollar. Though I will bring a book with me in case it gets boring along the way.

I thought that, too. Then I realized that it would most likely only last for 3 or 4 flips rather than the full two hours.

andyandy

19th August 2006, 04:14 AM

The fact of the matter is that you’re better off saving or investing that dollar somewhere else. Better yet, give it to someone who needs it more than you. Sure 1$ is somewhat useless (to you) right now, but if you continue playing the lottery (as many people do)... it will add up over a lifetime. Think of the big picture. An average person might buy 1000 lottery tickets over 50 years and not think twice about it. However, this person would probably be hesitant to risk $1,000 on the same slim chance that they might turn it into 100 million.

.

the mistake you're making is regarding a losing lottery ticket as having had no value to the individual. In fact, it has provided hope. It's a less tangible quantity than cold hard cash, but not to be ignored. As long as the player is a realist and therefore the hope provided outweighs the disapointment of loss, then the ticket has a net benefit. If you regard that net benefit as worth more than or equal to $1, then you can justify its expense - even compared to a bumper cash windfall in a few decades time.

ponderingturtle

19th August 2006, 06:33 AM

I beg to differ. Roulette tables can have a bias to certain numbers over time simply because they are not built perfect.

And to reduce that is why they started to be built with interchangeable parts and got swaped around regularly. As the first mathmetician who noticed that started winning a fair ammount and they asked him how.

The point about Roulette not being dependant on history still stands, it just might not hit the odds that it should. It still does not matter what it has hit recently that does not change the odd for this spin.

Gbob

19th August 2006, 07:55 AM

There are only two games in a casino where you can, in theory, make a profit in the long run, Blackjack and Poker. If you play perfect blackjack without counting, the house has a 1-2% edge on you. In the long run you will lose, but it's a great deal of fun and the ups and downs keep it interesting. If you can count cards you can turn that around and get a 2-3% edge on the house, but that's easier said than done. Try keeping track of a three person table surrounded by lights an distractions, all the while playing your cards correctly. I'm no slouch in math, but it's hard to keep that level of concentration for a three to four hour period that you need to make money.

Poker, on the other hand, is an interesting anomoly. You're not playing against the house, so your results are dependant upon your skill and the skill of others at the table. The house makes their money on the rake (a small percentage of the action) and rely upon keeping the game fair. Keep in mind, most people you see at a casino poker table have years and years of experience. They survive by waiting for the drunken idiots who can't sigure out the pot odds.

Even in poker, however, no amount of skill can keep a person from having a losing session. Let's take one of the less interesting games, Texas Hold 'Em (only because most people have seen it on television). If I was to play a person who showed his cards face up, I still would lose some hands. Here's an example. Let's say I was dealt 2 Aces. The person sitting next to me was dealt 7 and 3 off suit (one of the worst hands in poker). Obviously you would want to have all your money in the middle, but before the flop you only win about 85% of the time. Now, if I'm sitting down with a bad player I have a pretty good idea where I'm at. Most of the time, I have my money in the pot with less than an 85% chance to win. Even a fool wouldn't play the 7/3 offsuit, and obviously I don't get aces all that often. The best players int he world only win about 60-70% of the nights they play. Of course, any casino in the world would love to have a 10-20% edge in the games they run but they could never find people to play it. Poker players, however, can always find a new fish.

So why gamble if you can't win? Well, for one thing it's fun. Our brains are wired to enjoy the adreneline rush of putting something we care about on the line. Casino games are desgined to pay off enough to keep that fun factor going even when your wallet is being drained.

The saddest people in the casino arfe folks who figure they have a system. The slot junkies are painfull to watch. For the majority of people who go to a casino, they know in the back of their mind that they're going to lose, and the difference between a good session and a bad one is how much they lose. If they lose a small fraction, then they paid for the entertainment value and it's good. If they win it's fantastic. If they lose? Well, it depends on the amount.

Antiquehunter

19th August 2006, 09:35 AM

Gbob - you forgot a couple of other +EV games.

Pai Gow Poker - played under the right conditions (banking with maximum players at a table) is slightly positive EV (+.21 to the player).

Video Poker - played with perfect strategy and full pay (proper game selection - like fullpay Dueces Wild) can be up to .7% positive EV.

Craps - playing in a house that offers very high free odds bets (10X +) and generous comps can equate to positive EV depending on how they calculate your action for comps purposes. (10X odds is about .18% house edge - so if you can get better than .18% back in comps you can turn it to your favour. YMMV.)

However - in all those three games, you need a MASSIVE bankroll to try and make a go of it. The swings (much like blackjack w/card counting and poker) can be deadly.

I refer you to www.wizardofodds.com for evidence.

-AH.

Gbob

19th August 2006, 10:43 AM

Good point about comps. I admit, I kind of take them for granted so I don't factor them in terms of cost. And, of course, us poker players don't get as many as craps players. But you're quite right.

Video poker, I'm still not convinced and I haven't studied enough Pai Gow (wasn't played that much in AC when I used to spend a great deal of times trying out different games) but I'll look into it. Thanks for the tip.

marting

19th August 2006, 11:52 AM

Gbob,
"There are only two games in a casino where you can, in theory, make a profit in the long run, Blackjack and Poker."

Well, much to my amazement, last year Barona casino had a craps game going that could be beat. Yep. Played optimally it had a positive return expectation. They had a defect in the way the "dice" were thrown (California rules).

What made it more fun is that the table limits were $5,000 and the odd's bets were 5x.

It was up for 5 months. Unfortunately, I ran across it in the fifth month. By the time I modeled it and developed a strategy (very simple it turned out) a few weeks later, they had fixed it. What's really great about it is that it could be played with consistent bets and still get a slightly positive expectation, avoiding close casino scrutiny.

Hawkeye

19th August 2006, 02:43 PM

I thought that, too. Then I realized that it would most likely only last for 3 or 4 flips rather than the full two hours.
Exactly, there’s no need to continue flipping once the first tails comes up. Can I still have your dollar LW? ;)

19th August 2006, 03:40 PM

Exactly, there’s no need to continue flipping once the first tails comes up. Can I still have your dollar LW? ;)

If you bet on the result of 1000 throws, you will throw the 1000 throws if you want to get my money.

Still deal?

Or is it so that the utility of winning a dollar is not enough for you to waste the necessary time?

Jgordon

19th August 2006, 04:33 PM

There is really only one rule when it comes to gambling that matters, "You can't lose if you don't play." Playing in casino games are much different from the games that you play with your friends at a house or in a country club. Poker and blackjack are both have the ability to be profitable in the long run, but you have to know how to play. It isnt just luck. Although sometimes it helps to have good karma. Playing any other game where you leave your faite to dice and machines is not gambling, it is giving your money to them.

LawnOven

19th August 2006, 04:47 PM

I think gambling is only stupid if you are going to a gambling establishment expecting to win money instead of loose money. If you view playing casino games as a form of entertainment, like going to see a movie or going to the arcade, baseball game, then it can be a perfectly acceptable way for one to spend one's money.

pchams

19th August 2006, 05:30 PM

Is gambling for idiots?

Sure. But why single out the idiots.
Gambling is also a pastime, a ruse, a vice.
It's much like cigarettes, or alcohol. Fine in small doses, but infinitely additive.

CardZeus

23rd August 2006, 09:26 PM