Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Beat the casino?

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:20:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A friend reminded me of this (i once read it somewhere, but I never tried it) and we both put $50 dollars in. I played the chips, he drank.
We made $50 profit each in about 2 hours...

I was amazed, so I've done the maths. I know that what's happened previously doesn't affect future results in probability, but if you know from the beginning that you are going to stick with a system, I'm fairly certain these percentages still apply...

...or can someone give me a lesson in Mathematics and tell me how the house has more of an advantage?

THE GAME: THE BIG WHEEL
http://www.crowncasino.com.au...
Page 20

The wheel is spun. You have a 46.153% chance of winning if you bet on 1.
(If the game isn't rigged)
The maximum bet for 1 is 2000.

THE SYSTEM:
You bet 5 dollars on 1, which is even money.
If you win(regardless of your previous bet), you bet 5 again.
If you lose, you double your bet.
This means you have a 99.619% chance of winning 5. (I think)

bet 5, you get back 10 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 one time: 53.847%

bet 10 (means you lost 5), you get back 20 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 two times in a row: 28.994%

bet 20 (means you lost 15), you get back 40 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 three time in a row: 15.612%

bet 40 (means you lost 35), you get back 80 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 four times in a row: 8.4070%

bet 80 (means you lost 75), you get back 160 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 five times in a row: 4.5269%
(We didn't get past this point!)

bet 160 (means you lost 155), you get back 320 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 six times in a row: 2.4376%

bet 320 (means you lost 315), you get back 640 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 seven times in a row: 1.3125%

bet 640 (means you lost 635), you get back 1280 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 eight times in a row: 0.7067%

bet 1280 (means you lost 1275), you get back 2560 (means you won 5)
chance of rolling non-1 nine times in a row: 0.3805%

At this point, you can no longer double as it will exceed the maximum bet.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:27:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 11:16:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
It's a simple rule of life: you will never, ever beat the casino.

Haha, I knew it couldn't be so simple.
We were just lucky last night. Twice I reached the point where losing would have bankrupted me.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:30:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only way to win with this system is if you had unlimited time (obviously not), unlimited money (erm, no) and an no-limit table (which you don't).

Apparently the chances of getting 9 non-1s in a row is much higher than I realised.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

Exactly.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 1:30:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 1:29:29 AM, Nags wrote:
It's called a martingale system. (double up)

At 3/26/2011 9:50:52 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Gah, http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lol... should have read the whole thread.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.
kfc
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:20:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Lol. Have any more fiction stories?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:26:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.

That would contradict the law of diminishing returns.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:29:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They probably make those games specifically so they can't be beaten unless it's something like 21 which apparently an be beaten.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:34:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:29:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They probably make those games specifically so they can't be beaten unless it's something like 21 which apparently an be beaten.

Blackjack can't be beaten unless you use the absolute perfect strategy (which gives the house ~0.75% advantage) coupled with perfect card counting (giving you a ~1% advantage over the house).
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:34:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
There are professional gamblers. The vast majority are losers though.

Perhaps there are in games like poker, but not in games in which luck determines everything.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:35:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:34:35 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:29:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They probably make those games specifically so they can't be beaten unless it's something like 21 which apparently an be beaten.

Blackjack can't be beaten unless you use the absolute perfect strategy (which gives the house ~0.75% advantage) coupled with perfect card counting (giving you a ~1% advantage over the house).

Which is why the casinos I've seen use about eight decks simultaneously, and reshuffle after they've gone halfway through. Card counting becomes both less effective and more difficult.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:37:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:34:37 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:29:27 PM, Nags wrote:
There are professional gamblers. The vast majority are losers though.

Perhaps there are in games like poker, but not in games in which luck determines everything.

Poker players, sports/horse handicappers, and professional blackjack teams can consistently make money if they are really, really, good. Not sure if any other games are beatable in the long term.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:39:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:35:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:34:35 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:29:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
They probably make those games specifically so they can't be beaten unless it's something like 21 which apparently an be beaten.

Blackjack can't be beaten unless you use the absolute perfect strategy (which gives the house ~0.75% advantage) coupled with perfect card counting (giving you a ~1% advantage over the house).

Which is why the casinos I've seen use about eight decks simultaneously, and reshuffle after they've gone halfway through. Card counting becomes both less effective and more difficult.

Right. It would essentially take a computer/robot to be able to play efficiently enough to both play perfect strategy and count cards at the same time.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:41:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:26:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.

That would contradict the law of diminishing returns.

There's the law of return to scales.

Let's say you are dying of starvation and you need money. If you gamble the money, and win, you will not starve. Whether you gamble and lose or do nothing, you still starve. So obviously the best choice is to gamble.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 3:56:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:41:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:26:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.

That would contradict the law of diminishing returns.

There's the law of return to scales.

Let's say you are dying of starvation and you need money. If you gamble the money, and win, you will not starve. Whether you gamble and lose or do nothing, you still starve. So obviously the best choice is to gamble.

But how many gamblers are actually at the threat of starvation before they start gambling?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2011 4:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:56:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:41:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:26:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.

That would contradict the law of diminishing returns.

There's the law of return to scales.

Let's say you are dying of starvation and you need money. If you gamble the money, and win, you will not starve. Whether you gamble and lose or do nothing, you still starve. So obviously the best choice is to gamble.

But how many gamblers are actually at the threat of starvation before they start gambling?

It's just an example to illustrate the effect. The ability to own a home, a car, have a high standard of living, can all demonstrate this effect. Thus since, return to scale exist, then there's no reason to assume gambling can be logical.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 11:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/27/2011 3:26:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:22:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:19:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/27/2011 3:15:16 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2011 11:31:42 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you had unlimited money, though, what are you doing in a casino?

There is no amount of wealth that justifies gambling. Poor people ruin themselves with it, rich people don't need it. My friend's older brother got shot up by the pigs 20 years ago for stealing a super nintendo, and turned around and sued them for hundreds of thousands of dollars (there was no need to shoot him fifteen times in the back for running away with a god-damned SNES). He took his half-a-mill or so and went down to vegas and gambled it all away. He still has some trust funds for his kids... but what a f*cking waste.

Perhaps casinos are kind of a natural selection, weeding out those who cannot comprehend probability by taking away all of their money.

Yet if money has increasing marginal utility for a person, then gambling is logically sound.

That would contradict the law of diminishing returns.

The value of the entertainment of gambling verus the value of the money lost due to gambling would indicate that it is not. Since as you make more money, it becomes less valuable to you (law of diminishing returns), and so the value of the entertainment for that money, because greater and greater.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2011 3:17:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I love Texas Hold'em. That is an excellent card game.
I would also like to have the knowledge, money and patience to be a professional horse/dog punter.

Conclusion: You cannot beat the casino; it is designed that way.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...