darkoz

Joined: Dec 22, 2009
• Posts: 8928
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 4:07:25 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

......................

I think Scarne knew how hard it would be to get good sales on a gambling book without showing at least one easy money system

so he lied, and gave the buying public a pipe dream

I'm sure he knew the system was bogus

*

Meh I don't think so

It's buried almost without fanfare on pages 407-409 of an almost thousand page book.

If that was his plan he would have opened the book with the anecdote so casual readers at bookstore's would come across it on page one.

Just my opinion.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 4075
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 5:13:30 AM permalink
.....................

he was obviously very bright - he showed it in his analysis of poker and other games - yeah, I know - he made an error on BJ - doesn't affect this conclusion

it's hard to believe he could actually think an obviously bogus system like that would be a long term winner

*
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe
OnceDear

Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 5953
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 5:47:18 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: scarne

... chance of ... losing 10 black bets in a row is about 1 in 970...

Where'd he get that?
For Euro roulette, (19/37)^(-10)= 1 in 784
For US roulette, (20/38)^(-10)= 1 in 613
No zero roulette (18/36)^(-10)= 1 in 1024

Hmmmmm. Maybe he's looking at Euro game with partage rule that returns half of stake on zero. But then his "losing 10 in a row" is a bit of a misdirection
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
FTB
Joined: Jan 5, 2019
• Posts: 144
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 6:24:16 AM permalink
Oh yeah, just what this forum needed: yet another thread with this guy’s name in the title...
Enter promo code 8pjpdna for free chips in Droid Hen DH Texas Poker.
ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
• Posts: 5076
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 6:50:29 AM permalink
Quote: darkoz

I don't think anyone has started a thread about Scarne besides me.

Started, probably not, but if you go through my posts and find some that say something along the lines of, "One of the reasons table maximums exist is to make it much harder for Martingale systems to work," this was my source.

Of course, there was also a time I swore by his (no-count) blackjack strategy (mentioned in chapter 13 of the same book):
Ace: stand on 16 (soft 19) (double 10,11)
2, 3, 4: stand on 13 (soft 18) (double 9,10,11)
5: stand on 12 (soft 18) (double 9,10,11)
6: stand on 12 (soft 18) (double 9,10,11,soft 12-17)
7: stand on 17 (soft 18) (double 10,11)
8, 9: stand on 17 (soft 19) (double 10,11)
10: stand on 16 (soft 19) (double 11)
Splitting:
Aces: always ("even if the rules limit you to one card per Ace")
2s, 3s: only if dealer shows 2-7
4s, 5s, 6s: never
7s: only if dealer shows 5-7
8s: only if dealer shows A-8
9s: never
10s: only if dealer shows 5-6
Ace2
Joined: Oct 2, 2017
• Posts: 1120
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 7:04:19 AM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Quote: darkoz

Where'd he get that?
For Euro roulette, (19/37)^(-10)= 1 in 784
For US roulette, (20/38)^(-10)= 1 in 613
No zero roulette (18/36)^(-10)= 1 in 1024

Hmmmmm. Maybe he's looking at Euro game with partage rule that returns half of stake on zero. But then his "losing 10 in a row" is a bit of a misdirection

I was also curious about this. Believe it or not, I think he got to 970 by taking 2^10 (as if you have a 1 in 2 chance of winning a bet on black) times 36/38 (the expected return of American roulette

If so, Scarne could not do the most basic probability calculation
It’s all about making that GTA
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
• Posts: 15037
April 30th, 2021 at 7:46:24 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I happen to have that book and read that part. My respect for Scarne went down a couple pegs after reading it. Had this casino called me for advice, I would have said roll out the red carpet for said player and keep him playing as long as you can. You'll eventually win it all back and more as long as he keeps playing.

There is no such thing as a "sophisticated" betting system. They are all equally worthless.

I think many people tend to be a bit tough on Scarne. Basically, this is an extremely fundamental principle as we look back upon it with today's knowledge, but let's remember that the casino itself is not really there to gamble...they're there to let the House Edge play out. Scarne analyzed the guy's system and encouraged the house to increase the minimum bet (rather than reduce the maximum bet) thereby taking a step or two of the system away before it gets to max.

I don't think Scarne was saying that there's anything magical about Black not losing ten times in a row as opposed to losing eight or nine times in a row...I think he's just tightening up the guy's betting range to make the probability of winning any given system attempt a bit less so that the casino can get itself back to the good more quickly, by expectation.

If asked directly whether or not to let the player keep playing if the player refused the higher minimum, I like to think that Scarne would have said, "Yes, you're always expected to win eventually."
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
FTB
Joined: Jan 5, 2019
• Posts: 144
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 8:01:25 AM permalink
Quote: FTB

Oh yeah, just what this forum needed: yet another thread with this guy’s name in the title...

Nice. Name was removed. There’s hope for this forum yet.
Enter promo code 8pjpdna for free chips in Droid Hen DH Texas Poker.
OnceDear

Joined: Jun 1, 2014
• Posts: 5953
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 8:06:10 AM permalink
Quote: Ace2

Quote: OnceDear

Where'd he get that 970?
For Euro roulette, (19/37)^(-10)= 1 in 784
For US roulette, (20/38)^(-10)= 1 in 613
No zero roulette (18/36)^(-10)= 1 in 1024

I was also curious about this. Believe it or not, I think he got to 970 by taking 2^10 (as if you have a 1 in 2 chance of winning a bet on black) times 36/38 (the expected return of American roulette

If so, Scarne could not do the most basic probability calculation

OMG!!!!
And that from...

"John Scarne, now deceased, was recognized during his lifetime as the world's foremost expert on gambling. "

Wrong on so many levels, but it does come out at 970.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
• Posts: 4075
Thanks for this post from:
April 30th, 2021 at 8:08:30 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I think many people tend to be a bit tough on Scarne. Basically, this is an extremely fundamental principle as we look back upon it with today's knowledge, but let's remember that the casino itself is not really there to gamble...they're there to let the House Edge play out. Scarne analyzed the guy's system and encouraged the house to increase the minimum bet (rather than reduce the maximum bet) thereby taking a step or two of the system away before it gets to max.

I don't think Scarne was saying that there's anything magical about Black not losing ten times in a row as opposed to losing eight or nine times in a row...I think he's just tightening up the guy's betting range to make the probability of winning any given system attempt a bit less so that the casino can get itself back to the good more quickly, by expectation.

If asked directly whether or not to let the player keep playing if the player refused the higher minimum, I like to think that Scarne would have said, "Yes, you're always expected to win eventually."

yes, I hear you
but on page 409 he writes:

"the spread between the low and the high limit given by the casino manager violated the basic concept of professional gambling limits which, of course, is not to allow more than six or seven doublings up."

really - I never head of that basic concept

but you're right - Scarne wasn't really saying that this is a winning system - I was mistaken about that

*
"𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳"______Edgar Allan Poe