Poll

4 votes (33.33%)
1 vote (8.33%)
3 votes (25%)
4 votes (33.33%)

12 members have voted

muleyvoice
muleyvoice
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 135
December 9th, 2015 at 11:12:26 AM permalink
Of the 4,222 casino customers, just 2.8%—or 119 big losers—provided half of the casino's take, and 10.7% provided 80% of the take.

Among the whole group of 4,222 gamblers, just seven won more than $5,000 (€3,698) over the two years, while 217 lost more than $5,000. That's a 31-1 ratio of big losers to big winners.

"Politically, we don't want to talk about it being more concentrated than other industries," said Andrew Klebanow, a marketing specialist who has consulted for dozens of casinos. He said the Bwin results are in line with his own estimates, based on confidential casino data, that many U.S. casinos get about 90% of their revenue from 10% of customers. (The two professors found that 9.3% of the gamblers at the Native American casino produced 80% of the group's revenue.)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304626104579123383535635644

These stats are from a Wall Street Journal article. Now I understand why funding was so easy to get for AC casinos, even after the handwriting was on the wall.

Big losers of more than $5,000 among these heavy gamblers outnumbered big winners by a staggering 128 to 1.
DMSCR
DMSCR
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 774
December 9th, 2015 at 11:30:49 AM permalink
It's Pareto's Law at work. Wow just 7. Not even one percent!
muleyvoice
muleyvoice
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 135
December 9th, 2015 at 11:45:35 AM permalink
I expected Vehemently Disagree to be the first vote. And no documentation as well. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 302
  • Posts: 8345
December 9th, 2015 at 1:31:17 PM permalink
Quote: muleyvoice

I expected Vehemently Disagree to be the first vote. And no documentation as well. There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Why disagree?

If you ask me the article is a little disingenuous. That whales provide most of the profit has been known and discussed for a long time.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
APEppink
APEppink
Joined: Aug 20, 2013
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 69
April 28th, 2016 at 3:03:26 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Why disagree?

If you ask me the article is a little disingenuous. That whales provide most of the profit has been known and discussed for a long time.




To the contrary I'd always read that in large gambling markets (e.g. Vegas) ploppies on slots provided by far the lion's share of casino profits.
Casinodepositor
Casinodepositor
Joined: Mar 13, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 55
September 2nd, 2016 at 10:33:03 PM permalink
I don't know where did you get all that statistics but yes their are more losers than winners in a casino. We know some of them said they manage to make some bankroll by playing in casino specially poker but for those who just go to casino to have fun are the one who loose most. If all of us are winners then how can a casino become profitable.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 7999
September 3rd, 2016 at 12:43:25 AM permalink
Those numbers are staggering the ratio of "big winners" to big losers. There is a certain dollar figure for everyone which they will never ever get their money back. It can be a really low figure. My guess for a typical 40-50c penny slot player it is below $500.

In many casinos you'll have people losing $100,000 playing slots over a few year period while the biggest jackpot possible is 25-50k, if you play the right machine. The casino knows the martingale can hurt them if used to maim them, even if others fail, their ego just won't let that much walk out the door due to luck.

Locals around here the inside max bet is $100 on roulette. $3500 is the most they're willing to part with. It's a thing they really care about because they don't care when it doesn't work, they care when it works. They could take $20,000 bets, but they don't want years of work breaking a man being undone in an instant, then losing the gambler altogether.
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the care taker. Hold my beer.
Romes
Romes
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 5490
September 6th, 2016 at 9:41:54 AM permalink
There are a lot more factors that go in to people losing more often than winning. It really shouldn't be a surprise.

1) The casino doesn't get drunk and play poorly.
2) The casino has the edge on 99.9% of the people that walk in the door.
3) The casino never stops playing, always getting closer to the "long run" and realizing it's advantage/profits.
4) etc.

Take a simple example... You have an AP who's playing a winning game (whatever that may be). If said AP is severely under funded and playing with a very high RoR then it doesn't matter the game, advantage, etc, etc, basically. If he's betting >2x kelly he's going to go broke... It's a mathematical fact (at least for blackjack). So in this scenario you can even flip the edge on the casino and you're still set up to lose unless you're properly funded.

Casinos are properly funded, and they have the edge on 99.9% of the patrons that walk through the door. How would you expect any different result at that point?
Playing it correctly means you've already won.

  • Jump to: