Explaining EV to Wellbush

Quote: unJon

If I understand you, yes your math is wrong.

The chance of hitting a point 5 is 40% and getting a seven out 60%. That’s where the 3:2 comes from 60:40. If I bet $600 on making the point, the true odds payout is $900.

3:2 = 60:40 = 900:600

4 ways to make a 5 or 9 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. Yes and that fraction 4/6 = 2/3 or .67. That means the house's advantage is 33% just like the house's advantage on the 4/10 is 50% 3 ways to make a 10 and 6 ways to make a 7, or the 6/8 is a 16.67% advantage with 5 ways to make a 6/8 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. The true odds paid by the house on those numbers are correct with the house paying those odds for point winners with the exception of the 5/9. So the question is: why does the house pay 67% on the don't and not the reverse on the do? What the house is doing is dividing the 6 by 4 and getting the 1.5 payout instead of reducing the fraction to its lowest value which is .67 or 67%. It is a great gimmick and nobody can challenge it because those are the rules.
Fourth grade arithmetic.

Quote: tuttigym

4 ways to make a 5 or 9 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. Yes and that fraction 4/6 = 2/3 or .67. That means the house's advantage is 33% just like the house's advantage on the 4/10 is 50% 3 ways to make a 10 and 6 ways to make a 7, or the 6/8 is a 16.67% advantage with 5 ways to make a 6/8 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. The true odds paid by the house on those numbers are correct with the house paying those odds for point winners with the exception of the 5/9. So the question is: why does the house pay 67% on the don't and not the reverse on the do? What the house is doing is dividing the 6 by 4 and getting the 1.5 payout instead of reducing the fraction to its lowest value which is .67 or 67%. It is a great gimmick and nobody can challenge it because those are the rules.
Fourth grade arithmetic.

Sir, your math is wrong. That is the whole of it.

4/10: do pays 2:1. Don’t pays 1:2
5/9: do pays 3:2. Don’t pays 2:3
6/8: do pays 6:5. Don’t pays 5:6.

Each is true odds. Each is the same mathematical formula. Look above. Each is simply reversing the place of the two numbers relative to the colon.

Quote: tuttigym

That is correct. The PB allows for options not available to the PL or the odds during the play of the hand in that one can use 'casino" money to increase the base wager upon a hit. While that option is available (increasing the existing bets on the PL + odds) the player is using his own additional funds. The player can bet large ($100 on the 5); win = $140; then reduce his bet to the table minimum of say $10; pocket those $$; and play out the hand without hardly any risk of loss. PL + odds is a win or lose situation with no such option. The player is boxed in with no real way out. Plus an overall 73% loss ratio offers even more dire consequences.

This statement shows the possible options available to a player on PB. "Establishment" players "press" their bets all the time. It was not an endorsement of the practice. The quote "using house money" has been stated on this forum many times by those same "establishment" players. I also firmly disagree with it. When played numbers hit, those chips find a home in my tray.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

4 ways to make a 5 or 9 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. Yes and that fraction 4/6 = 2/3 or .67. That means the house's advantage is 33% just like the house's advantage on the 4/10 is 50% 3 ways to make a 10 and 6 ways to make a 7, or the 6/8 is a 16.67% advantage with 5 ways to make a 6/8 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. The true odds paid by the house on those numbers are correct with the house paying those odds for point winners with the exception of the 5/9. So the question is: why does the house pay 67% on the don't and not the reverse on the do? What the house is doing is dividing the 6 by 4 and getting the 1.5 payout instead of reducing the fraction to its lowest value which is .67 or 67%. It is a great gimmick and nobody can challenge it because those are the rules.
Fourth grade arithmetic.

Probability of a five (relative to a seven): .4 (40%)---There are four fives and six sevens.

Probability of a seven (relative to a five): .6 (60%)---There are six sevens and four fives.

I don't know where you are getting a 4/6 probability fraction from, but that has nothing to do with the probabilities of one compared to the other. That just refers to the number of ways there are to roll each number. Expressed as a probability, the fractions are 4/10 and 6/10.

If you bet $30 on Pass Odds, then you get paid 3:2, so let's look at that:

(45 * .4) - (30 * .6) = 0

If you bet $45 on Don't Pass Odds, then you get paid 2:3, so let's look at that:

(30 * .6) - (45 * .4) = 0

If fourth grade arithmetic is getting any other result, then that just means that fourth grade arithmetic has really gone downhill since I was in 4th Grade.

Actually, you seem to appreciate practical methods of proving your case, so here is what I want you to do:

ASSUMPTION: The casinos are not required to state the House Edge (or House Percentage), but if they do state them, it would be a violation to flatly lie about them.

1.) I want you to go to any casino in Las Vegas and make bets on Don't Pass.

2.) I want you to wait for either a five or a nine to be rolled on the Come Out roll.

3.) I want you to ask the Craps Supervisor, "If I make an Odds bet, what is the house edge, house advantage or house percentage against me? Use whatever lexicon you prefer."

4.) The Craps Supervisor will respond, "There is no house edge, (or house advantage), (or house percentage) against you."

5.) I want you to call the Nevada Gaming Commission and demand a representative come to the casino because the casino has directly lied to you about the house edge. Explain to them the way that the casino has lied to you.

6a.) When they are done laughing, they will explain why they will not come out to you. Because what the casino is saying is true.

6b.) They will come out and will be very annoyed when you explain your position.

7.) Leave the casino either very amused with yourself, or embarrassed, depending on your perspective of it.

In the alternative, you can pay me to conduct the experiment for you. My price for this experiment is five thousand dollars ($5,000) plus expenses, with plane ticket and $2,500 sent out in advance of my departure.

I already did that except with the dealer at the table. He thought about my premise and said that he knew where I was coming from and agreed that I was correct. However (there is always a "however"), because the game and casino rules only allowed the the 1.5% payout, he was powerless to stray.

I will notify the IRS of your side business of conducting paid experiments off the books and ask them to audit your returns for the past 7 years then you can hire a tax attorney for $5,000 plus expenses and his airfare to your current location. Oh, and be sure you send him $2,500 in advance.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I already did that except with the dealer at the table. He thought about my premise and said that he knew where I was coming from and agreed that I was correct. However (there is always a "however"), because the game and casino rules only allowed the the 1.5% payout, he was powerless to stray.

I will notify the IRS of your side business of conducting paid experiments off the books and ask them to audit your returns for the past 7 years then you can hire a tax attorney for $5,000 plus expenses and his airfare to your current location. Oh, and be sure you send him $2,500 in advance.

tuttigym

Ouch, your posts are salty this morning.

The good news is that the salt isn't going in an open wound. In order for them to have anything on me for conducting paid experiments off the books, I would first have to have conducted a paid experiment off the books, or at all, for that matter.

Secondly, if you did pay me for such an experiment, then we would do the proper tax documentation. I should imagine that you would want the deduction, and given the amount in question, you'd also have to report that you paid me such an amount.

Third, one look at my actual earnings would tell you that I'm probably not even worth auditing.

Quote: tuttigym

4 ways to make a 5 or 9 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. Yes and that fraction 4/6 = 2/3 or .67. That means the house's advantage is 33% just like the house's advantage on the 4/10 is 50% 3 ways to make a 10 and 6 ways to make a 7, or the 6/8 is a 16.67% advantage with 5 ways to make a 6/8 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. The true odds paid by the house on those numbers are correct with the house paying those odds for point winners with the exception of the 5/9. So the question is: why does the house pay 67% on the don't and not the reverse on the do? What the house is doing is dividing the 6 by 4 and getting the 1.5 payout instead of reducing the fraction to its lowest value which is .67 or 67%. It is a great gimmick and nobody can challenge it because those are the rules.
Fourth grade arithmetic.

What follows is tuttigym’ post above applied to the 6 or 8. I’m doing this to point out that the 6/8 is the same as 5/9 and he should believe either that the odds have no house edge or have a house edge on both.

Quote: unJon argument based on tuttigym quote above

5 ways to make a 6 or 8 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. Yes and that fraction 5/6 or .833. That means the house's advantage is 17.67% just like the house's advantage on the 4/10 is 50% 3 ways to make a 10 and 6 ways to make a 7, or the 5/9 is a 33.3% advantage with 4 ways to make a 5/9 and 6 ways to make or throw a 7. The true odds paid by the house on those numbers are correct with the house paying those odds for point winners with the exception of the 6/8. So the question is: why does the house pay 87.3% on the don't and not the reverse on the do? What the house is doing is dividing the 6 by 5 and getting the 1.2 payout instead of reducing the fraction to its lowest value which is 83.3%. It is a great gimmick and nobody can challenge it because those are the rules.
Fourth grade arithmetic.

Quote: Mission146

Ouch, your posts are salty this morning.

The good news is that the salt isn't going in an open wound. In order for them to have anything on me for conducting paid experiments off the books, I would first have to have conducted a paid experiment off the books, or at all, for that matter.

Secondly, if you did pay me for such an experiment, then we would do the proper tax documentation. I should imagine that you would want the deduction, and given the amount in question, you'd also have to report that you paid me such an amount.

Third, one look at my actual earnings would tell you that I'm probably not even worth auditing.

I am glad you recognize my "salty approach" just as I enjoy your fruitless attempt to part me from my retirement earnings, and since those expenses would not be considered a business deduction or a "charitable" contribution (well maybe), they are not deductible.

Moving on: Last night I sat down with my four function calculator (pre-fourth grade arithmetic) and slaved for hours on this very sticky problem. I inverted the fraction, (something I do not think you suggested) and divided the denominator into the numerator. WOW epiphany -- 1.5%, so I was wrong, and my logical mind betrayed me.
Go figure. But it sure is fun sparing with you all, and I learned something.

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

What follows is tuttigym’ post above applied to the 6 or 8. I’m doing this to point out that the 6/8 is the same as 5/9 and he should believe either that the odds have no house edge or have a house edge on both.

Unlike those who dwell on the endless calculations regarding the HE/HA, I understand that gambling is hit and miss but mostly miss. I also understand that the "establishment" ways in craps are losing propositions because those ways, systems, theories, formulas, and equations are solely dependent on one of two happenings: 1) a "hot" shooter or 2) lucky hits on prop bets. I play because I enjoy it; I play because it challenges my gambling "creativity"; I play to win; I do not play "establishment." I try to create "mismatches." Some are successful, and some are not. That is gambling.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I am glad you recognize my "salty approach" just as I enjoy your fruitless attempt to part me from my retirement earnings, and since those expenses would not be considered a business deduction or a "charitable" contribution (well maybe), they are not deductible.

Moving on: Last night I sat down with my four function calculator (pre-fourth grade arithmetic) and slaved for hours on this very sticky problem. I inverted the fraction, (something I do not think you suggested) and divided the denominator into the numerator. WOW epiphany -- 1.5%, so I was wrong, and my logical mind betrayed me.
Go figure. But it sure is fun sparing with you all, and I learned something.

tuttigym

I'm not trying to part you from anything. Do you think that I believe there's even a 0.000000000001% chance you would take me up on such a clearly ridiculous offer?

The Roulette offer is fairly genuine if you are going to only be satisfied with the proof that can be provided by one person physically playing Roulette somewhere, as opposed to accepting math and the fact that the long run does, indeed, play out on the casino's end of things. Just remember, the player isn't the only one making a bet on casino games.

It's always fun. My advice re: sparring is not to take me too seriously. Except for the math; you should take the math seriously.

Quote: tuttigym

Unlike those who dwell on the endless calculations regarding the HE/HA, I understand that gambling is hit and miss but mostly miss. I also understand that the "establishment" ways in craps are losing propositions because those ways, systems, theories, formulas, and equations are solely dependent on one of two happenings: 1) a "hot" shooter or 2) lucky hits on prop bets. I play because I enjoy it; I play because it challenges my gambling "creativity"; I play to win; I do not play "establishment." I try to create "mismatches." Some are successful, and some are not. That is gambling.

tuttigym

tuttigym, when you wrote the term " I try to create mismatches." I am interpreting, possibly incorrectly, that you mean you are hedging some of your advantageous situation positions by playing both sides giving you more ways to win just less money is this correct? If true I hope that you realize all that hedging has a cost and subsequently weakens your original strong position.

Quote: Mission146

The Roulette offer is fairly genuine if you are going to only be satisfied with the proof that can be provided by one person physically playing Roulette somewhere, as opposed to accepting math and the fact that the long run does, indeed, play out on the casino's end of things. Just remember, the player isn't the only one making a bet on casino games.

You are not the only one who would dictate the terms of your "fairly genuine" offer. In order for me to "accept," you would be required to personally sit at the table for the total time it would take to complete the task with no bathroom, sleep, food, water, nor any kind of assistance. You would be required to make sure that the same dealers officiate and pay for their overtime, food, drink, medical attention, or any other necessities they might require. You would not be able to use ANY electronic or mechanical devices to record and maintain each and every spin outcome, and you would have to maintain ALL results in your memory to be recorded one week after the trial. You will be required to stand and sing the National Anthem once every two hours backwards. If you fail any part of these requirements, you will reimburse me X 2 all expenses you received or would have received. Finally, if you sing off key, you lose.

Quote: Mission146

It's always fun. My advice re: sparring is not to take me too seriously. Except for the math; you should take the math seriously.

I take all forms of math "seriously." I my not embrace it simply because I do not need to be distracted from my very serious 4th grade arithmetic which works for me.

Last words which are rhetorical: If one were matriculating for advanced degrees and required to present a thesis or dissertation (research paper) and I was a member of the professional standards committee passing
judgement on the validity of that research, the questions I would require the preparer to answer are: 1) Can you show this committee that your formula/equation/math actually works in real time and real world gambling arenas,? and 2) Can you prove your answer assumptions with real wagers not using any form of computer simulations?

You see Mission, I have personally done an original math and physics analysis study for an advanced degree. My examining committee did not understand my work, but they required me to verify and show proof of the validity of the documented results of the study. I could; I did; they were satisfied; and I got 6 hours of an A grade and my advanced degree. Not bragging here just letting you know that for me, proof of concept is required.

tuttigym

Quote: BoSox

tuttigym, when you wrote the term " I try to create mismatches." I am interpreting, possibly incorrectly, that you mean you are hedging some of your advantageous situation positions by playing both sides guaranteeing you will win either way just less, is this correct? If true I hope that you realize all that hedging has a cost and subsequently weakens your original strong position.

Thank you for the valid question. "Mismatches" include betting patterns that offer more ways to win than lose in craps as well as some hedging yes, but never the same from hand to hand and never for any particular number of rolls of the dice. In 3 or 4 card poker (carnival games), I only play the bonus if the casino allows because my bankroll goes three times farther, and I am not playing against the house. So while the other players are spending 3 X more than I and are concerned about the house's hand, I am not. I realize that my odds of success are longer but it is pretty much stress free. Oh, and I never look at my cards, The dealer turns them over.

Like everyone else, I am playing to win, so if my "strong position" is "weakened" by hedging and I win less and play longer, I am good with that.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Like everyone else, I am playing to win, so if my "strong position" is "weakened" by hedging and I win less and play longer, I am good with that.

tuttigym

I will give you a better example on the above quote:

A basic strategy blackjack player bets $50 dollars and gets a blackjack with the dealer showing an ace-up card and asks the player if he/she wants even money and happily says yes. This is not a rare occurrence, in actuality, the percentages of basic strategists who will take even money are very high. Now the cost of what they lose by doing it is about 8% which is very high. There is enjoyment when this happens and the dealer does have blackjack, and the person who took the even money acts like a fool pretending that he/she is smart.

Quote: BoSox

I will give you a better example on the above quote:

A basic strategy blackjack player bets $50 dollars and gets a blackjack with the dealer showing an ace-up card and asks the player if he/she wants even money and happily says yes. This is not a rare occurrence, in actuality, the percentages of basic strategists who will take even money are very high. Now the cost of what they lose by doing it is about 8% which is very high. There is enjoyment when this happens and the dealer does have blackjack, and the person who took the even money acts like a fool pretending that he/she is smart.

The sad part is that most of them don't understand that taking even money is the same as taking insurance and they have been told not to take insurance.

Quote: DRich

The sad part is that most of them don't understand that taking even money is the same as taking insurance and they have been told not to take insurance.

During the less than six months I was a dealer at Eastside Cannery about a decade ago, after coming off a pitch game to go to break the assistant table games shift manager told me to not offer even money anymore because it’s giving away the casinos money or something along those lines. I tried to tell him it’s the same thing as insurance....he said it was not. I just shook my head and walked away to break. Table games director also called down when I was coming back from break and told the pit not to put me back on dice because last hour there was a hot roll when I was on stick...total clown show management. I had to walk out in the middle of a shift during March Madness because they gave me 5 days despite my insistence I could work no more than three because I had six shifts downtown that week.

Quote: tuttigym

You are not the only one who would dictate the terms of your "fairly genuine" offer. In order for me to "accept," you would be required to personally sit at the table for the total time it would take to complete the task with no bathroom, sleep, food, water, nor any kind of assistance. You would be required to make sure that the same dealers officiate and pay for their overtime, food, drink, medical attention, or any other necessities they might require. You would not be able to use ANY electronic or mechanical devices to record and maintain each and every spin outcome, and you would have to maintain ALL results in your memory to be recorded one week after the trial. You will be required to stand and sing the National Anthem once every two hours backwards. If you fail any part of these requirements, you will reimburse me X 2 all expenses you received or would have received. Finally, if you sing off key, you lose.

I have already stated my terms, which are not negotiable.

Quote:

I take all forms of math "seriously." I my not embrace it simply because I do not need to be distracted from my very serious 4th grade arithmetic which works for me.

Last words which are rhetorical: If one were matriculating for advanced degrees and required to present a thesis or dissertation (research paper) and I was a member of the professional standards committee passing
judgement on the validity of that research, the questions I would require the preparer to answer are: 1) Can you show this committee that your formula/equation/math actually works in real time and real world gambling arenas,? and 2) Can you prove your answer assumptions with real wagers not using any form of computer simulations?

You see Mission, I have personally done an original math and physics analysis study for an advanced degree. My examining committee did not understand my work, but they required me to verify and show proof of the validity of the documented results of the study. I could; I did; they were satisfied; and I got 6 hours of an A grade and my advanced degree. Not bragging here just letting you know that for me, proof of concept is required.

tuttigym

So...is the argument that fourth grade arithmetic is sufficient to prove that my math is unfounded, or is the argument an appeal to your own authority on the grounds that you have done an original math and physics analysis study for an advanced degree?

Is the math I'm doing, in your opinion, somehow simultaneously too complicated and not complicated enough? Which do you want?

1.) Here is your proof of concept: Casinos exist and do not lose for the year on Roulette. That's it. That's your proof.

2.) Thirty-eight players play Roulette and all bet equal amounts. Each player makes a bet on a different single number from the other players. Do it as many times as you want, as long as none go broke, the total balance of the players relative to where they started (sum of their total remaining chips) will always reflect the House Edge.

Math proof of that is this:

(35 * 5) - (37 *5) = -10

One player wins 35 $5 units for profits of $175 for that player, whereas the other 37 players lose a combined $185. In total, $190 in bets were made. 10/190 = 5.26315897%, which is the House Edge of Roulette...who would have guessed it?

With that, House Edge is proven as a concept. It is proven to exist in actuality, in just one spin. Now, the question becomes whether or not there is a way to defeat that mathematical expectation---which for the net result of this spin with 38 different players each betting the same $5 on 38 different numbers is a mathematical certainty. It is 100% probable that one player will win, the other 37 will lose and the net result will be that they have lost $10 overall against $190 in total bets.

---That's it. There's your proof. It would only be a matter of getting 38 people together and doing it, so the, "Can you...," answer is yes. Yes, I can. Easily.

Quote: tuttigym

Like everyone else, I am playing to win, so if my "strong position" is "weakened" by hedging and I win less and play longer, I am good with that.

tuttigym

tuttigym, I would like to clarify something in case of a possible misunderstanding. My motive in my last two posts was not to downgrade you in any way. How your betting patterns are and your gaming objective is none of my business. My only reason for the two posts was to give you some awareness from a different perspective nothing more.

Quote: mcallister3200

During the less than six months I was a dealer at Eastside Cannery about a decade ago, after coming off a pitch game to go to break the assistant table games shift manager told me to not offer even money anymore because it’s giving away the casinos money or something along those lines. I tried to tell him it’s the same thing as insurance....he said it was not. I just shook my head and walked away to break. Table games director also called down when I was coming back from break and told the pit not to put me back on dice because last hour there was a hot roll when I was on stick...total clown show management. I had to walk out in the middle of a shift during March Madness because they gave me 5 days despite my insistence I could work no more than three because I had six shifts downtown that week.

It is not just that way at the small casinos. I have worked with Pit Boss' and slot directors at the largest casinos and it is shocking how little many of them know. I can honestly say that I never worked with a slot director that I thought was sharp.

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you for the valid question. "Mismatches" include betting patterns that offer more ways to win than lose in craps as well as some hedging yes, but never the same from hand to hand and never for any particular number of rolls of the dice.

I don't want to burn your play, but I'd be fascinated to hear exactly what it is.

I'm honestly not sure if you're an unsung creative genius or if the establishment math experts have known what they're doing for the last century.

Quote: mcallister3200

During the less than six months I was a dealer at Eastside Cannery about a decade ago, after coming off a pitch game to go to break the assistant table games shift manager told me to not offer even money anymore because it’s giving away the casinos money or something along those lines. I tried to tell him it’s the same thing as insurance....he said it was not. I just shook my head and walked away to break.

Heh, I had the same argument with a dealer at the Cal-Neva. It was my wife's first time playing in a casino, and she got a BJ vs dealer A. I was explaining to her that she could take even money for a sure thing, but that it's an insurance bet, and I had already explained to her why not to take insurance.

The dealer chimed in adamantly that Even Money and Insurance were two completely different things! I tried to explain to her how it was the same thing, but she would have none of it. At that point, I just decided to bite my tongue. She was an otherwise friendly dealer, and my wife was having fun. No use continuing my argument and upsetting them both.

They are very similar, and the results are the same but they are not exactly the same bet. IF you were playing at a table where every dollar wagered is considered for comp purposes, wouldn't the player who took insurance have wagered more in the end and gotten more in comps?
Over the long run, let's say 400 hours of play, while both players had equal winnings, wouldn't the insurance bettor have put more money in play and earned slightly more in comps?
On the big multi-player video BJ machines with six spots and a simulated dealer, do they even offer even money? It's been a while since I played them but I don't recall them offering it.
For the non-counter, both insurance or even money are bad bets that will cost them money in the long run, so both should be avoided.

Quote: billryan

They are very similar, and the results are the same but they are not exactly the same bet. IF you were playing at a table where every dollar wagered is considered for comp purposes, wouldn't the player who took insurance have wagered more in the end and gotten more in comps?

No! Ridiculous, the average amount of hands that the player would even get the opportunity to make an insurance bet is once every 13 hands played. If by chance you are talking about the stadium blackjack games offered, I am unfamiliar with those types of game rules for comps. I always thought that the comp system was always based upon the average amount bet on the original wager and the amount of time playing the game.

Quote: billryan

Over the long run, let's say 400 hours of play, while both players had equal winnings, wouldn't the insurance bettor have put more money in play and earned slightly more in comps?

No.

Quote: BoSox

No! Ridiculous, the average amount of hands that the player would even get the opportunity to make an insurance bet is once every 13 hands played. If by chance you are talking about the stadium blackjack games offered, I am unfamiliar with those types of game rules for comps. I always thought that the comp system was always based upon the average amount bet on the original wager and the amount of time playing the game.



No.

The video bj in Laughlin gives comp points for every dollar wagered, including doubles, splits and insurance. Most casinos don't do that but as I said- If a casino tracked total money wagered, it would make a difference. It is a small difference but over the long term, it would be noticeable.

Quote: Mission146

I have already stated my terms, which are not negotiable.

I was not negotiating. I know from a number of your posts that you have a high degree of risk aversion. I am pretty sure carrying a tune might also present some challenges. Those are my terms.

tuttigym

Quote: Dieter

I'm honestly not sure if you're an unsung creative genius or if the establishment math experts have known what they're doing for the last century.

How about neither. It seems that virtually all gambling venues are pretty straight forward when it comes to wagering. Craps is the exception. Some might say that roulette provides "creative" approaches, but the game is a single event or play. So one makes their wager(s), crosses their fingers, and a quick outcome. Start again and do over.

For me, sometimes, many times, the table will dictate my play. If the table is "cold," I can play it that way. "Hot?I will switch. As you and most players know, the most difficult and most prevalent play is "choppy." Pretty much unpredictable but manageable if one is willing to be flexible, take a short term risk, and maybe hedge. The fourth grade math and Mr. W says that point play is 60% of all play and that 73+% will result in 7 outs. I can play that way starting with the DP line bet with a hopped 7 as a hedge. Now the purists out there will criticize. I don't care. Nothing is perfect, and I know that. The "short term risk" is wagering $150 across the board with a $4 horn for two maybe three rolls and then down. 30 ways to win and 6 ways to lose. It is a risk/reward deal, and for the most part it has been successful. I can continue playing the hand with various small bets or just wait. It is never the same, and I need to focus.

"Establishment math experts" lose a vast majority of the time simply because their approach almost always is PL + odds + a couple of PB usually the 6 & 8 then press until the inevitable 7 out usually within 6 rolls. They look to make a killing; walk away with big $$$ because they got the elusive "hot" shooter and rode his back to glory or they hit a couple of prop bets big time.

It is easy to criticize one's approach because of perceived valid flaws and that is okay and human nature. There might be a touch of envy to go with the negativism, but the critics will not admit to it.

tutigym

Quote: tuttigym

Now the purists out there will criticize. I don't care. Nothing is perfect, and I know that.

Nope! If you're straight gambling and hoping for a lucky day in spite of the math, no criticism.

Quote: tuttigym

30 ways to win and 6 ways to lose.

I'm sure someone will punch all that into a spreadsheet and figure out for any given roll at any given part of the game how much you stand to win and lose.

Honestly, have fun throwing the dice and cheering with your friends.

Quote: BoSox

I will give you a better example on the above quote:

A basic strategy blackjack player bets $50 dollars and gets a blackjack with the dealer showing an ace-up card and asks the player if he/she wants even money and happily says yes. This is not a rare occurrence, in actuality, the percentages of basic strategists who will take even money are very high. Now the cost of what they lose by doing it is about 8% which is very high. There is enjoyment when this happens and the dealer does have blackjack, and the person who took the even money acts like a fool pretending that he/she is smart.

I do not play "21" so it is hard for me to relate to your example. Perhaps you could address the "strong position" vs "weakened" and hedging in craps. If one is playing "21" betting $50 a hand, that loss amounts to $4. Hardly a fortune considering the number of times one might be faced with that option. Again, my attitude might be unrealistic, but it is what it is.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

I was not negotiating. I know from a number of your posts that you have a high degree of risk aversion. I am pretty sure carrying a tune might also present some challenges. Those are my terms.

tuttigym

How rude! I used to sing, though I wasn't great. It was more screaming and growling. (Kind of punk/metal fusion band)

Anyway, your terms are declined...but not because I can't carry a tune in my chosen style.

Quote: Dieter

I'm sure someone will punch all that into a spreadsheet and figure out for any given roll at any given part of the game how much you stand to win and lose.

Nope it is too complicated; never the same; and pretty much touchy/feely. Using a spreadsheet would not work because one must somehow believe that every hand is going to be played exactly the same way each and every time.

Quote: Dieter

Honestly, have fun throwing the dice and cheering with your friends.

Thank you.

tuttigym

Just to clarify: I did not take Tuttigym's post as an insult. I thought it was funny that he thought singing in tune would be my hangup in all of that! It was a subtle, but very funny, joke.

Quote: BoSox

tuttigym, I would like to clarify something in case of a possible misunderstanding. My motive in my last two posts was not to downgrade you in any way. How your betting patterns are and your gaming objective is none of my business. My only reason for the two posts was to give you some awareness from a different perspective nothing more.

Thank you. I did not believe you were criticizing me or my approach. I was just trying to see if I might clarify how I could be more helpful. We are good.

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

How rude! I used to sing, though I wasn't great. It was more screaming and growling. (Kind of punk/metal fusion band)

Anyway, your terms are declined...but not because I can't carry a tune in my chosen style.

Aww shucks, Mission, sometimes screeching is really good. Imagine standing at the roulette table singing the National Anthem BACKWARDS in a screeching style. You would be a U-Tube sensation and make millions.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Aww shucks, Mission, sometimes screeching is really good. Imagine standing at the roulette table singing the National Anthem BACKWARDS in a screeching style. You would be a U-Tube sensation and make millions.

tuttigym

I still might have a better chance of getting the lyrics right than certain celebrities.

Quote: tuttigym

Nope it is too complicated; never the same; and pretty much touchy/feely.

No worries!

The only analysis I can give is that the casino thinks they have an edge, and there's a reasonable chance that they're right.

Still, if you play a hunch and win, congratulations and enjoy it. There's a pretty decent chance that the next two or three hunches won't be quite right, and you might not win.

Quote: Mission146

Just to clarify: I did not take Tuttigym's post as an insult. I thought it was funny that he thought singing in tune would be my hangup in all of that! It was a subtle, but very funny, joke.

Please know that I'm laughing hysterically.
On the inside.
Quietly.

Quote: billryan

They are very similar, and the results are the same but they are not exactly the same bet. IF you were playing at a table where every dollar wagered is considered for comp purposes, wouldn't the player who took insurance have wagered more in the end and gotten more in comps?
Over the long run, let's say 400 hours of play, while both players had equal winnings, wouldn't the insurance bettor have put more money in play and earned slightly more in comps?
On the big multi-player video BJ machines with six spots and a simulated dealer, do they even offer even money? It's been a while since I played them but I don't recall them offering it.
For the non-counter, both insurance or even money are bad bets that will cost them money in the long run, so both should be avoided.

Definition of a distinction without a difference. Some of those multi player electronic bj machines (I’ve called them big titty blackjack because, well) have European No Hole Card rules; I guess I’m not sure if that would matter much, but many dealers don’t offer even money either (especially when they’re instructed not to...) the player has to ask for it, dealer dependent.

The biggest difference between the two is obvious. If you just bet your last ten dollars on a hand, you can take even money, but you can't buy insurance. It may just be semantics, but they are not the same.

Quote: Joeman

At that point, I just decided to bite my tongue. She was an otherwise friendly dealer, and my wife was having fun. No use continuing my argument and upsetting them both.

link to original post

You are a wise man.

Quote: Dieter

No worries!

The only analysis I can give is that the casino thinks they have an edge, and there's a reasonable chance that they're right.

Or the opposite could be true.

Quote: Dieter

Still, if you play a hunch and win, congratulations and enjoy it. There's a pretty decent chance that the next two or three hunches won't be quite right, and you might not win.

link to original post

\
Or the opposite could be true. Thanks for the well wishes.

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

So...is the argument that fourth grade arithmetic is sufficient to prove that my math is unfounded, or is the argument an appeal to your own authority on the grounds that you have done an original math and physics analysis study for an advanced degree?

The fourth grade arithmetic is sufficient to make your math unnecessary. The second question has nothing to do with authority, ego, vanity, or pride. The post was designed to relate what is required to validate a scientific or mathematical proposition. That research took nine months to accomplish. I am sorry you missed the point.

Quote: Mission 146

Is the math I'm doing, in your opinion, somehow simultaneously too complicated and not complicated enough? Which do you want?

The math you are doing, as I stated above, is unnecessary simply because it does not happen at the tables.

Quote: Mission146

1.) Here is your proof of concept: Casinos exist and do not lose for the year on Roulette. That's it. That's your proof.

That is not proof; that is a statement. Businesses exist to make a profit not just for a year but as long as they can generate a profit. So did the 6 casinos in Tunica, MS that folded and closed their doors not make a profit at their roulette tables? What does that say about your concept?

Quote: Mission146

2.) Thirty-eight players play Roulette and all bet equal amounts. Each player makes a bet on a different single number from the other players. Do it as many times as you want, as long as none go broke, the total balance of the players relative to where they started (sum of their total remaining chips) will always reflect the House Edge.

Math proof of that is this:

(35 * 5) - (37 *5) = -10

One player wins 35 $5 units for profits of $175 for that player, whereas the other 37 players lose a combined $185. In total, $190 in bets were made. 10/190 = 5.26315897%, which is the House Edge of Roulette...who would have guessed it?

With that, House Edge is proven as a concept. It is proven to exist in actuality, in just one spin. Now, the question becomes whether or not there is a way to defeat that mathematical expectation---which for the net result of this spin with 38 different players each betting the same $5 on 38 different numbers is a mathematical certainty. It is 100% probable that one player will win, the other 37 will lose and the net result will be that they have lost $10 overall against $190 in total bets.

---That's it. There's your proof. It would only be a matter of getting 38 people together and doing it, so the, "Can you...," answer is yes. Yes, I can. Easily.

link to original post

Your example above is not real. Roulette, IMHO. is a sucker's game, so the HE is the game itself.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

The fourth grade arithmetic is sufficient to make your math unnecessary. The second question has nothing to do with authority, ego, vanity, or pride. The post was designed to relate what is required to validate a scientific or mathematical proposition. That research took nine months to accomplish. I am sorry you missed the point.

That makes one of us. I'm trying to be reasonable, but am increasingly losing interest with even reading your, 'Points,' much less responding to them.

Besides, if you want to call EV a theory, then call it a theory. The hell do I care? I've yet to see you propose a mathematically better theory, either way.

Quote:

The math you are doing, as I stated above, is unnecessary simply because it does not happen at the tables.

Gambling is the math applied, brother.

Quote:

That is not proof; that is a statement. Businesses exist to make a profit not just for a year but as long as they can generate a profit. So did the 6 casinos in Tunica, MS that folded and closed their doors not make a profit at their roulette tables? What does that say about your concept?

Profit is irrelevant. I'll assume you know the difference between revenue and profit. Casino WIN is a form of revenue. Casinos don't even see all of that revenue, given that states get a substantial percentage of casino WIN. Go look at the annual casino revenues for any jurisdiction that itemizes Roulette, such as New Jersey, casinos don't lose at Roulette.

The Revel in Atlantic City closed, but they never took a direct loss on the game of Roulette for a year. Your counterargument sucks.

Quote:

Your example above is not real. Roulette, IMHO. is a sucker's game, so the HE is the game itself.

tuttigym

link to original post

All -EV games are sucker's games. Some people are just bigger suckers than others.

The guy is in his 80s and insists his fourth-grade math is good enough for him. Why argue? If he thinks he can overcome math by strategically placing his bets, why not let him indulge his fantasy instead of wasting your time trying to correct someone who insists he is not in need of correction. I'm slightly curious why someone who has overcome the house edge isn't super-rich but if he chooses to live a modest life and take his secrets to the grave with him, that's his path to choose.

Quote: billryan

The guy is in his 80s and insists his fourth-grade math is good enough for him. Why argue? If he thinks he can overcome math by strategically placing his bets, why not let him indulge his fantasy instead of wasting your time trying to correct someone who insists he is not in need of correction. I'm slightly curious why someone who has overcome the house edge isn't super-rich but if he chooses to live a modest life and take his secrets to the grave with him, that's his path to choose.

link to original post

First, I discuss, engage, affirm, and rebut without rancor or emotion. Mr. billryan, you obviously did not read the self-imposed correction of mine regarding the 5/9 odds bet. I am curious to wonder why you are not among the world famous clairvoyants. Perhaps you can start a thread or better yet, a Vegas act and list each forum member and use your uncanny ability to list their economic circumstances, net worth, tax bracket, life style, health challenges, mental challenges, and closely held "secrets" they are going take to their grave.

I am also curious to know if you participate at your local casino, what games of chance you might participate, what "math" you might use to enhance your play, and how often you might venture into the darkest bowels of those casinos. I can tell you this: based on what Mr. Mission146 has posted in the past, he does NOT gamble, but he is the most enthusiastic proponent of gambling "math" that he does not use. I am sure his response would be something like: I do not have to jump off a 10 story building to prove that the leap will kill me.
My answer: "Use a parachute."

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

First, I discuss, engage, affirm, and rebut without rancor or emotion. Mr. billryan, you obviously did not read the self-imposed correction of mine regarding the 5/9 odds bet. I am curious to wonder why you are not among the world famous clairvoyants. Perhaps you can start a thread or better yet, a Vegas act and list each forum member and use your uncanny ability to list their economic circumstances, net worth, tax bracket, life style, health challenges, mental challenges, and closely held "secrets" they are going take to their grave.

I am also curious to know if you participate at your local casino, what games of chance you might participate, what "math" you might use to enhance your play, and how often you might venture into the darkest bowels of those casinos. I can tell you this: based on what Mr. Mission146 has posted in the past, he does NOT gamble, but he is the most enthusiastic proponent of gambling "math" that he does not use. I am sure his response would be something like: I do not have to jump off a 10 story building to prove that the leap will kill me.
My answer: "Use a parachute."

tuttigym

link to original post

What do you mean that I don't gamble? I gamble in casinos sometimes. Gambling is venturing any amount of money on an uncertain outcome, so I go to casinos and do that. I'm not going to get into a full list of plays for the purposes of this thread, but let's use vulturing Ultimate X as an example. If I find a game that has multipliers for me to pick off, then I know what my base expected return is for betting, say, 50 credits on a ten-play game. I then take that base return and divide it by ten, which tells me the precise amount that each multiplier over one gets me.

I don't vulture 9/6 Jacks or Better because none of the casinos I visit have it on UX, but let's pretend that they did:

The game would return 99.5439%, or, 50 * .995439 = 49.77195 credits on a fifty-credit total bet (no multipliers and playing without the UX feature), which is five credits bet per each of ten hands. Therefore, each hand gives me 4.977195 credits back, in expectation, if none of those hands have multipliers.

If a single hand has a 2x multiplier, then I get double on any winning results for that hand, which doubles the expectation for that hand. If none of the other nine hands have a multiplier, then you are left with:

(4.977195 * 9 ) + (4.977195 * 2) = 54.749145

Thus, you are expected to get a return of 54.749145 credits on a bet of 50 credits, which reflects an expected return of 1.0949829 credits per each credit bet, or 109.49829% expected return.

Much like with any other gambling game, I don't know that's what going to happen. Certainly, I will not see a return of exactly 54.749145 credits on any specific play, because that's not possible. All returns will either be 0 credits, or some number of credits that is a multiple of five.

Even ignoring the fact that most multiplier configurations that you will find will be more than a 2x on a single-hand for ten-play, or will represent more overall percentage value (say a single 2x multiplier on three-play, for example) just doing this would necessarily result in a long-term profit. You don't always find plays, of course, so we don't know the amount of physical time this advantage would take to resolve in the, 'Long-term," sense...but what we do know is that the long-term advantage exists and, given enough hands played (and assuming at least pretty good holding strategy) that a player would eventually come out ahead.

So, it's just the -EV concept in reverse. There are other games that I play, but some of those are trial-and-error to the extent that you actually can't identify a specific percentage advantage because you don't know the exact return of the game in the first place. For some of these, you do kind of base your assumptions on your actual results and will, "Test," certain configurations accordingly. You'll either add configurations or stop playing configurations accordingly even though, in most instances, you don't necessarily have enough of a sample size as to specific variable-state configurations to be absolutely certain.

We can also turn to online gambling for an example. Some legalized and regulated websites have a promotion by which you make a deposit of a particular amount (or less) and they will match it with bonus money. Some of these only have a 1x playthrough requirement, which is sometimes called, "Rollover," requirement. Obviously, the math on this is pretty simple...you have to make (suppose a $250 match) $500 in total bets, have $500 in credits to do it, but only have $250 in actual cash invested in the proposition. As long as you can make $500 in total bets and lose $250, or less, you will break even or profit.

If you bet small enough, then there are games on which suffering such a loss is all but mathematically impossible. In fact, MOST games are like that, even including most of the slot games, again, if you bet small enough.

Does betting smaller change the expected value? Not usually. So, why bet smaller? That's where you get into a mathematical gambling concept called, "Variance," which you probably also have no appreciation for, considering that, based on your posts, you don't appreciate house edge. If you make the $500 in bets betting only $0.10 per trial, for instance, it is simply all but literally impossible to, "Run badly enough," such that you would fail to profit if the game is anything close to fair.

Anyway, I have never said that I don't gamble at all, so I don't know where you got that. Because I do gamble, I use gambling math. So, while your post is an obvious insult...I request no action be taken by Administrators. It's enough to prove what I already began to suspect...that I have no reason to go back and forth with you.

And yet I think you will ?

Quote: FastEddie

And yet I think you will ?

link to original post

Nah. When the counterargument is essentially reduced to, “You don’t spend your time playing Craps in casinos, trying to devise new betting strategies (using chips for which you paid cash) and losing enough money to be qualified to opine,” I think I’ve pretty safely won the debate.

And even if:

A.) He was making an actual point—as if what I do or don’t do would change the validity of the mathematical argument.

OR:

B.) He was right that I don’t gamble.

Tuttigym himself admitted that Roulette is, “A sucker’s game.” Can I be sure he’s played enough Roulette to know that, by his own standards? What about Big Six? What about every single slot machine title in the place?

What about 6/5 Jacks or Better, perhaps it has been better than 9/6 Jacks or Better this whole time and casino game analysts have simply been deceived that certain results on one paytable objectively paying more than they do on the others changes the return percentage—and that matters.

No. What you are looking at is defeat. He’s defeated because his argument never had a chance anyway…and he’s also going up against someone who is reasonably good at logically/rationally explaining things. I am defeated because I’m out of patience, at least, for the time being.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: FastEddie

And yet I think you will ?

link to original post

Nah. When the counterargument is essentially reduced to, “You don’t spend your time playing Craps in casinos, trying to devise new betting strategies and losing enough money to be qualified to opine,” I think I’ve pretty safely won the debate.

link to original post

Some might argue that by merely engaging in the debate, you already lost.

I’ll concede that.