Does counting work....
Poll
 | 17 votes (60.71%) | ||
| | 3 votes (10.71%) | ||
| | 8 votes (28.57%) |
28 members have voted
July 13th, 2012 at 11:34:15 AM
permalink
Has anyone here successfully made money counting over the long term? I have already lost money. And I'm scared to try again. Can some of yall give your story.
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:40:13 AM
permalink
The thing to remember is that you are only flipping the casino edge of .5 to 1% over to your favor. It does not mean you will win every time. That is why having a large enough bankroll is necessary. But just like the casino, over a long enough period you will come out ahead, but you are going to have ups and downs along the way. That and making sure you have your skills down perfectly, because the small errors (basic strategy, index plays, converting the true count and keeping an accurate running count) will hurt the small edge you are trying to obtain.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:43:21 AM
permalink
I am down a lot. I've been thinking that if I make one mistake which does happen occasionally that wipes out the work I've put in for an hours work. Because for every 100 hands I'm supposed to be ahead of the dealer by one hand. Is that right?
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:46:02 AM
permalink
Brian. Have you been successful for at least a year?
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:50:24 AM
permalink
I watch for them, not play :)
But I know enough about it to know it is successful, it just can be challenging to do it correctly. And there are plenty of people out there that are good at it enough to make it profitable for them.
But I know enough about it to know it is successful, it just can be challenging to do it correctly. And there are plenty of people out there that are good at it enough to make it profitable for them.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:54:44 AM
permalink
I took a class in person. And I'm convinced he is making money. But he has been playing for maybe over 20 years.
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:58:59 AM
permalink
Think about what a small edge 1% is. You need to play
perfectly with an edge that small. Few can do it, but
many think they are. If you're scared, or don't have
a big enough bankroll, you should find another hobby.
perfectly with an edge that small. Few can do it, but
many think they are. If you're scared, or don't have
a big enough bankroll, you should find another hobby.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 13th, 2012 at 12:02:23 PM
permalink
The pit bosses seem paranoid like it works. Whenever I bet high the dealer says "check". Is this surveillance?
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:03:08 PM
permalink
Here is one way of playing that does not involve counting AND it has a net win over about 50 day sessions.
Playing double deck with good rules. Start with min bet, then upping one unit on each win. No regressions, just keep going up one unit on each win until the end of the deal, then start anew after the next shuffle. Easy and better than any non-counting betting scheme that I have encountered. I typically play at $15 min tables, going up $5 on each win, with session bankroll of 40x my starting bet=$600. As you are finding out, counting is no guarantee either, those big bets when you have a small edge gets real scary.
Playing double deck with good rules. Start with min bet, then upping one unit on each win. No regressions, just keep going up one unit on each win until the end of the deal, then start anew after the next shuffle. Easy and better than any non-counting betting scheme that I have encountered. I typically play at $15 min tables, going up $5 on each win, with session bankroll of 40x my starting bet=$600. As you are finding out, counting is no guarantee either, those big bets when you have a small edge gets real scary.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:07:21 PM
permalink
Simple answer is yes card counting works. But, to really show a profit you have to have the bankroll to be able to play at least $25 tables. The $25 tables and up have better rules, (lower house advantage) and less crowded conditions (more rounds per hour). If you are stuck playing low limit red chip level you can turn the game to your advantage but the higher house edge from worse rules and crowded tables will result in a very small profit and your expenses will eat up most if not all of that.
I am in my ninth year of supporting myself solely from advantage play of which the vast majority is come from card counting blackjack play. I haven't gotten rich. I have not yet had a 6 figure year, although several years have been reasonably close. But I do make what I consider a comfortable living, mid/upper 5 figures and am making more than what I was earning at my last job 9 years ago.
Even playing part-time, or just as a hobby, most people are not willing to invest the time and the funds (bankroll) to have a reasonable chance to turn the math in their favor.
I am in my ninth year of supporting myself solely from advantage play of which the vast majority is come from card counting blackjack play. I haven't gotten rich. I have not yet had a 6 figure year, although several years have been reasonably close. But I do make what I consider a comfortable living, mid/upper 5 figures and am making more than what I was earning at my last job 9 years ago.
Even playing part-time, or just as a hobby, most people are not willing to invest the time and the funds (bankroll) to have a reasonable chance to turn the math in their favor.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:14:18 PM
permalink
Well I live in Texas and there's a few casinos I can drive to. But I'm afraid I'd have to put in a lot of hours at each casino which may expose me as a counter.
Born in Texas and lived in Texas my whole life.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:26:37 PM
permalink
"The pit bosses seem paranoid like it works. Whenever I bet high the dealer says "check". Is this surveillance?"
The dealer is following procedures to let the floor supervisors know when the larger bets are out there. It is not necessarily to detect advantage play. It originates as a way to help keep the pit staff aware of their action on the tables, so they can explain to their bosses where any big wins or losses came from. It does work to help detect advantage play in that if a floor supervisor hears a call for a large wager from a player that had been wagering $5-$10, it definitely rings a few bells as to why. If the floor supervisor sees a continued pattern large bet swings, that may prompt a thourough countdown from surveillance to see if they match up with the count.
And to your later post, yes, counting at the same place over and over (even for practice) will increase your chances of detection. This is another reason why most successful advantage players travel to all the casinos and card rooms around the country.
The dealer is following procedures to let the floor supervisors know when the larger bets are out there. It is not necessarily to detect advantage play. It originates as a way to help keep the pit staff aware of their action on the tables, so they can explain to their bosses where any big wins or losses came from. It does work to help detect advantage play in that if a floor supervisor hears a call for a large wager from a player that had been wagering $5-$10, it definitely rings a few bells as to why. If the floor supervisor sees a continued pattern large bet swings, that may prompt a thourough countdown from surveillance to see if they match up with the count.
And to your later post, yes, counting at the same place over and over (even for practice) will increase your chances of detection. This is another reason why most successful advantage players travel to all the casinos and card rooms around the country.
July 13th, 2012 at 4:11:41 PM
permalink
Quote: JjjoogHas anyone here successfully made money counting over the long term? I have already lost money. And I'm scared to try again. Can some of yall give your story.
Counting is really only good for break even play at best. If you can get rebates working for you, then you might make some money. If you don't tip, then you might make a little here and there. The analytical approach of counting cards is kind of a waste of time, regardless of how mathematically flawless your count is, and you'll stand out like a sore thumb.
If you're wanting to make real money playing, then you should look for hole carding opportunities, sort play + count, and ace tracking.
July 13th, 2012 at 9:12:01 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 13th, 2012 at 9:20:40 PM
permalink
To answer your question, yes a couple of small deviations from BS can most definitely destroy your small edge.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
July 13th, 2012 at 10:04:35 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesAsk yourself this, if it didn't work, why in the hell would casinos sweat the money and barr counters? I've been doing it for over 13 years and its way better than break even.
It worked years ago, but not now. The edge is simply too low, and the mode of play is very easy to spot, even at the El Cortez :)
Players are still banned, but not always for the reasons that most players think. Casinos will sometimes still ban BJ counters because they see them as someone that's willing to cheat within their casino in order to gain an edge. They feel that if the counter is willing to cheat at BJ, then they may be willing to cheat or steal from other games and players as well. They view counters as people of low moral fiber or parasites. So they may occasionally choose to ban them, whether they are winning or not. Often times, the casino will simply put a note on the players card account - instructing the pit to notify someone at ext. xxxx in security whenever they play, and will will label them as a suspected cheat.
These days, the big AP blackjack players are doing other things where they can get a real edge. Rather than perfecting your count, you would be better served developing some new card skills, outside of the obvious.
July 14th, 2012 at 12:58:19 AM
permalink
Second time you have posted this nonsense, Keyser, and it's just not true. Sure it's not as easy as it was years ago (before my time) but the basic principals of card counting still work. You just have to work a little harder to overcome the bigger initial house advantage. Work a little harder, be creative and have a larger bankroll to accommodate the large swings involved. I have supported myself for 8 and a half years now from card counting AP. I network with 6 other professional or semi professional players also based in Vegas, and know many more through the greenchip membership of BJ21.
It is true that some former solo card counters have moved on to other things. Some to hole carding. Some to poker. Some now participate in team play. Some travel all over the country seeking out the best games and/or promotions.
As for hole-carding, I did some hole-carding, several years ago, after I first moved to Vegas. Scouted, found and compiled a list of flashers, much as I scout games now for penetration. Even kept track of the shifts they were working. I didn't care for winning this way and went back to mostly straight counting. I am not going to say it is cheating, as the casino is responsible for it's weak dealers, and frankly the casino industry deserves whatever it gets, but again, I didn't care for winning that way. If I run across a dealer that I can read, I will use the information, but I no longer specifically seek them out.
It is true that some former solo card counters have moved on to other things. Some to hole carding. Some to poker. Some now participate in team play. Some travel all over the country seeking out the best games and/or promotions.
As for hole-carding, I did some hole-carding, several years ago, after I first moved to Vegas. Scouted, found and compiled a list of flashers, much as I scout games now for penetration. Even kept track of the shifts they were working. I didn't care for winning this way and went back to mostly straight counting. I am not going to say it is cheating, as the casino is responsible for it's weak dealers, and frankly the casino industry deserves whatever it gets, but again, I didn't care for winning that way. If I run across a dealer that I can read, I will use the information, but I no longer specifically seek them out.
July 14th, 2012 at 5:26:31 AM
permalink
It depends on what you call "works". I voted "yes", but it really depends ...
From my experience, with an adequate bankroll, of at least 20K, and with some resolve and dedication, you should be able to more or less consistently turn a profit of about 10-15 bucks per hour. You do have to really pay attention though, and be good at it. If you make only one mistake an hour, on average, that will not only negate all your advantage, but will actually make you worse off than if you just used the BS.
My problem with this (and the reason, I stopped doing it almost completely some years ago) is that it just feels too much like work. I guess, some people are better at this then others, and can just do it effortlessly, wile still having fun. Myself - not so much. I was pretty good at it, but I had to really work for it. And the thing is, there are lots of much easier ways to make that measly $15/hr wage. If I needed money that badly, I'd just pick up some consulting work on the side, or did some extra hours at my day job.
I go to casinos to have fun, not to work to earn minimum wage.
From my experience, with an adequate bankroll, of at least 20K, and with some resolve and dedication, you should be able to more or less consistently turn a profit of about 10-15 bucks per hour. You do have to really pay attention though, and be good at it. If you make only one mistake an hour, on average, that will not only negate all your advantage, but will actually make you worse off than if you just used the BS.
My problem with this (and the reason, I stopped doing it almost completely some years ago) is that it just feels too much like work. I guess, some people are better at this then others, and can just do it effortlessly, wile still having fun. Myself - not so much. I was pretty good at it, but I had to really work for it. And the thing is, there are lots of much easier ways to make that measly $15/hr wage. If I needed money that badly, I'd just pick up some consulting work on the side, or did some extra hours at my day job.
I go to casinos to have fun, not to work to earn minimum wage.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 14th, 2012 at 6:40:22 AM
permalink
Quote: kewljSure it's not as easy as it was years ago (before my time) but the basic principals of card counting still work. You just have to work a little harder to overcome the bigger initial house advantage.
I'd be inclined to agree with that. When Darwin Ortiz says that he can make money playing Blackjack, I believe him without question. Check out some of his card cheating videos -- the guy is amazing. I'd never sit down at any card table with him unless he was wanting to teach me magic tricks.
July 14th, 2012 at 7:41:19 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 14th, 2012 at 10:45:09 AM
permalink
Ibeatyouraces,
Card counting alone is a bit like pushing a car around in neutral and then hopping in to coast down the hills. Eventually, you're going to run into some very steep hills that you can push back up. If you're bankroll is only 20k then you could easily starve. Many people encounter some positive variance and then falsely believe that they have conquered the game.
Card counting alone is a bit like pushing a car around in neutral and then hopping in to coast down the hills. Eventually, you're going to run into some very steep hills that you can push back up. If you're bankroll is only 20k then you could easily starve. Many people encounter some positive variance and then falsely believe that they have conquered the game.
July 14th, 2012 at 12:01:19 PM
permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces
And it doesn't take a $20K bankroll to make $10-$15 an hour.
How much would you say it takes? I figure, you are, probably, playing around 50 hands per hour, with about 1% advantage. To make $15, your average bet needs to be about $30. The max would be, at least $200. I would think 100x max bet is a reasonable estimate for the total bankroll. You don't really want to be betting much more than 1% of your total funds, unless you don't really mind losing it all all that much.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 14th, 2012 at 4:08:46 PM
permalink
In other words, by the time you tip you're left making very little while yelling, "Winner, winner, will someone please buy me a chicken dinner!"
(They changed the wording in the movie.)
Inevitably, they encounter a long losing run, and begin creating conspiracy claims about how the automated shuffle machines are somehow countering them.
(They changed the wording in the movie.)
Inevitably, they encounter a long losing run, and begin creating conspiracy claims about how the automated shuffle machines are somehow countering them.
July 14th, 2012 at 5:18:52 PM
permalink
I've counted since 2004 and turned a profit every year...not as a job mind you, as a hobby. Ironically, as I write this I realize I'm down for 2012 so far(but still time yet). You can grind out positive numbers, but it's just that, a grind. Trying to do it for a living is difficult to say the least. I enjoy casinos and all the ahem.....attributes.. that come with being a gambler. To me it's fun just to be there. I know to others it can seem like work. So short answer is: yes counting works. But it's not a magic formula to always win. Just from my experience, and carefully tracking my play, it goes about like this. For every 10 playing sessions I win 5 lose 4 and break even 1. Obviously, sometimes the 5 winning sessions come in a row and you feel like you'll never lose again.....till the 4 losers whap you in the head. Variance is a bitch. Be careful.
July 14th, 2012 at 5:26:01 PM
permalink
Quote: jjjooogggThe pit bosses seem paranoid like it works. Whenever I bet high the dealer says "check". Is this surveillance?
Just saw this question. When a dealer calls check or "black action" it probably means nothing. They are just instructed to let the floor know when there is action at a certain level(usually black chips in a lower limit pit). However it depends a lot on where you play i.e. is it a low roller local joint that sweats green chips....or a major property? Also how you spread your bets and when matters a lot....are you going from a $10 bet to $200....or a more reasonable $25 to say $100-150...the bigger the spread the more likely you are to see heat.
July 14th, 2012 at 7:02:34 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
July 14th, 2012 at 7:08:23 PM
permalink
Too risky. Your edge simply isn't high enough to warrant 2%.
July 14th, 2012 at 8:04:58 PM
permalink
Has nothing to do with counting, but the dealer on Facebook Blackjack is now hitting a soft 17. WTF ??
July 14th, 2012 at 8:08:07 PM
permalink
Yes, the casinos.Quote: jjjooogggHas anyone here successfully made money counting over the long term?
They make money on people who only think they can count. They make money on people who can and do count, they even make money on those who can and do count very well. Its a slim edge and requires luck anyway. Remember the MIT team went first to Foxwoods to practice ... and lost their shirts despite the same excellent counting skills that were later a success in Vegas. Lady Variance can still frown on Counters.
July 14th, 2012 at 8:17:14 PM
permalink
The way I approach it is that the casino offers games with (usually) low house edge advantages to the casino. They expect to win small amounts that accumulate over time. On the game of blackjack, there is an inherent weakness to the game (counting) which can result in the casino basically offering a game with -.05 to -.1% advantage to them for certain players that are able to count. This goes against their business model and they try to identify who is able to implement this skill and ask them to leave when they find them.
While there are some people in the industry that look down on counters (to put it politely) I consider it a game of cat and mouse and hold no animosity towards them. We're just trying to do the same thing (earn money) from opposite sides of the felt. Their job is to find the edge, my job is to protect the edge.
While there are some people in the industry that look down on counters (to put it politely) I consider it a game of cat and mouse and hold no animosity towards them. We're just trying to do the same thing (earn money) from opposite sides of the felt. Their job is to find the edge, my job is to protect the edge.
July 14th, 2012 at 9:33:10 PM
permalink
Although we are on opposite sites of the table, Mr Parks, I can appreciate and respect your position. I wish more people in the industry shared both the views and civility that I have heard from people like yourself and Mr Zender. Unfortunately most have a more antagonistic and hostile approach.
July 14th, 2012 at 9:33:27 PM
permalink
posted in wrong thread
July 14th, 2012 at 9:34:05 PM
permalink
Sorry duplicate post in wrong thread and don't know how to delete.
July 15th, 2012 at 2:09:00 PM
permalink
These days, card counters really aren't a threat. The movie, "21" has probably helped increased the profits for the casino, while naive 21 year olds attempt to duplicate the absurdity of the movie. I believe that most card counters are like roulette system players - they fool themselves into believing that they are playing with an edge when most of the time it's just a lucky run up.
The casinos generally make a good return on most of the counter's action, because they eventually encounter losing runs beyond the size of their bankrolls.
I've often believed that casinos should offer more zero edge games. Since the casino has more money that the player, the casino will win in the long run.
The casinos generally make a good return on most of the counter's action, because they eventually encounter losing runs beyond the size of their bankrolls.
I've often believed that casinos should offer more zero edge games. Since the casino has more money that the player, the casino will win in the long run.
July 15th, 2012 at 2:17:48 PM
permalink
Quote: Keyser
I've often believed that casinos should offer more zero edge games. Since the casino has more money that the player, the casino will win in the long run.
If they got rid of the zeros in roulette, they would still make
money. Its not the zeros that make people lose, its their
bad bet selection and reinvesting their winnings. Sometimes
the zeros will sleep for an entire day on a wheel, and you'd
never see the difference in the hold.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2012 at 2:22:10 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobIf they got rid of the zeros in roulette, they would still make
money. Its not the zeros that make people lose, its their
bad bet selection and reinvesting their winnings. Sometimes
the zeros will sleep for an entire day on a wheel, and you'd
never see the difference in the hold.
Its not the zeros hitting or otherwise. Its the return being 35:1 rather than 37:1. If the wheel offered 37:1, the casino would not make any money.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 15th, 2012 at 2:46:00 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitIts not the zeros hitting or otherwise.
I didn't say it was, did I. That took about as long as I
thought for somebody to point out. I simply said get
rid of the zeros, I didn't say change the payouts. But
really, no matter what the payouts are, most people
keep playing till their money runs out, from making
bad betting decisions. You could have the payout be
39/1 and the casino would still make money, just not
as much. If you're going to sit there and play till your
money is gone, what difference does it make what you win.
The hold on roulette runs anywhere from 16% to
22%. The reason people win at BJ is some of them
know when to bet when its in their favor. Every spin
in roulette is an independent event, there are no
best times to bet.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2012 at 3:11:51 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesWith a $20K BR I bet $25- $400. Max bet never exceeds 2% of your BR. Betting one unit per TC will not get the job done.
How much per hour do you make with a spread like that?
What do you bet at TC=+3?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 15th, 2012 at 3:18:44 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI didn't say it was, did I. That took about as long as I
thought for somebody to point out. I simply said get
rid of the zeros, I didn't say change the payouts.
No you didn't. But if there's 36 slots after you take the two zeroes out, fair pay out is 35:1. You said "the zeroes can sleep, the casino makes money". So you implied it. But it's ALL to do with the payouts.
Quote:But really, no matter what the payouts are, most people
keep playing till their money runs out, from making
bad betting decisions. You could have the payout be
39/1 and the casino would still make money, just not
as much. If you're going to sit there and play till your
money is gone, what difference does it make what you win.
This is mathematically incorrect. If the payouts were increased so the house did not have an edge, the player did, the house would lose money over time. You can believe otherwise, but it's quite easy to prove you are not right. Simple simulations will show that a players who are willing to keep playing to all their money is gone in a positive expectation game... will not always bust out, ever. Thus the casino loses money over time.
I ran simulations on players have a small edge on a coin flip three days ago. Overall, the mass of players made money, even if many busted out through over betting their bank roll.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 15th, 2012 at 3:23:00 PM
permalink
I was being flippant about making it a positive
exp game. Make it an even game and the casino
will win because people don't quit when they're
ahead. And they can't make the correct betting
decision because its impossible to do so on purpose.
exp game. Make it an even game and the casino
will win because people don't quit when they're
ahead. And they can't make the correct betting
decision because its impossible to do so on purpose.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2012 at 3:28:58 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI was being flippant about making it a positive
exp game.
Well, I missed your flippancy icon :)
Quote:Make it an even game and the casino
will win because people don't quit when they're
ahead. And they can't make the correct betting
decision because its impossible to do so on purpose.
The casino will break even in a break even game. As there is no wrong decisions to be made, the bettor will make which ever decision they want and be right/wrong the correct number of times for the pay out.
You could offer a fair pay out BlackJack or Video Poker, and player mistakes would give the house an edge. But as you say, there's no mistake a player can make with a bet, so there's no house edge to gain that way.
Quitting while ahead doesn't matter... are they going to stop and never play again? Course not! It's all one session! They start the next session with a bigger bankroll (even if they never expose it to the house again).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 15th, 2012 at 4:05:55 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspit
The casino will break even in a break even game.
Could not imagine I would ever say that, but I agree with Bob :)
I think, the casino would still be ahead on a zero-sum game due to players having limited bankroll.
Most of the time, on averga the result of the game will be zero. But there will be long streaks happening from time to time, that the casino can cover, but the player can not. So, in the long run, the casino should be ahead, albeit, probably, not by very much.
I think, it would be a cool promotion for a casino to offer a "no-zero: roulette" game.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 15th, 2012 at 4:53:25 PM
permalink
Quote: ThecesspitThe casino will break even in a break even game.
No, that's not correct. The casino would still win money because of what's called varience. In other words, the player would encounter a large enough losing streak that they could not afford to place a bet. In short the casino will win the players money because they have more money.
I feel Evenbob's observations describe it rather well.
July 15th, 2012 at 5:08:44 PM
permalink
I second that opinion. that's why the guy with a huge bankroll in poker has to be a complete idiot to lose in a limit game.
July 15th, 2012 at 5:12:04 PM
permalink
I decided to simulate it and see what happens.
I ran 20,000 players, starting with $100 and betting $5 on even money game. They played until they lost, or 100,000 bets (which is something like 70 days straight gambling at 60 bets an hour).
Of those gamblers, 16787 busted. Only 1011 made a profit, and the other 18,989 made a loss (thus 2,202 players were still in the game with a loss after 100,000 bets). However, overall the casino lost $43,000 (~ $2 per player), with a total EV of 1.0001 (very slightly in favour of the players over this run).
The average loser lost $99.89c, the average winner made $1,921. On average, players made 9,765 bets. In short, most people wiped out, but about 5% of the players got ahead, and stayed ahead.
I used to think a 0 EV game would help the house because of bankroll sizes... but the players OVERALL have about the same size bank roll as the house. So while they can bust lots of players, they won't bust 'em all.
There may of course be error in my simulation. Or my assumptions.
I did run it a second time, and got a similar result. 5% of players survive (this time the EV was 0.9998).
Edit - Note that I was claiming that HOUSE would break even overall. Not that individuals wouldn't probably lose. Think about what we tell the system guys : every bet is independent. Why does a bunch of bets add up to change in advantage EITHER WAY? It doesn't.
I ran 20,000 players, starting with $100 and betting $5 on even money game. They played until they lost, or 100,000 bets (which is something like 70 days straight gambling at 60 bets an hour).
Of those gamblers, 16787 busted. Only 1011 made a profit, and the other 18,989 made a loss (thus 2,202 players were still in the game with a loss after 100,000 bets). However, overall the casino lost $43,000 (~ $2 per player), with a total EV of 1.0001 (very slightly in favour of the players over this run).
The average loser lost $99.89c, the average winner made $1,921. On average, players made 9,765 bets. In short, most people wiped out, but about 5% of the players got ahead, and stayed ahead.
I used to think a 0 EV game would help the house because of bankroll sizes... but the players OVERALL have about the same size bank roll as the house. So while they can bust lots of players, they won't bust 'em all.
There may of course be error in my simulation. Or my assumptions.
I did run it a second time, and got a similar result. 5% of players survive (this time the EV was 0.9998).
Edit - Note that I was claiming that HOUSE would break even overall. Not that individuals wouldn't probably lose. Think about what we tell the system guys : every bet is independent. Why does a bunch of bets add up to change in advantage EITHER WAY? It doesn't.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 15th, 2012 at 5:18:14 PM
permalink
Quote: KeyserI feel Evenbob's observations describe it rather well.
My first thought agrees with EB, but if you think about it, a casino's bankroll is basically unlimited. But, while a patron's bankroll is most definitely limited, you have to think of ALL patrons as the "patron's bankroll", which is likewise unlimited. Unlimited vs unlimited at a 50/50 game equals 50/50.
Edit: Thecesspit beat me to it.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
July 15th, 2012 at 5:21:53 PM
permalink
Face explains it better than me :)
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
July 15th, 2012 at 5:22:47 PM
permalink
The three of you are wrong. The house doesn't care who places a bet, so when someone burns through their bankroll, the money they've lost is still going to end up paid out to other players, with zero house edge, assuming betting doesn't stop entirely. What you're suggesting is essentially an involuntary betting system. Look at it from the casino's perspective - no matter what the frequency of the games, it's always roughly the same money coming in that's going out.
Likewise, a huge bankroll doesn't actually help in a limit game. That's why limit tables don't have maximums. You're less likely to go broke, of course, because of your bankroll, but if you're not ahead of the table, you're just losing more slowly; as long as the table has you outmatched, no matter how many players go broke and are replaced, your greater tolerance for downswings will only take you so far.
EDIT: Oy... beaten to the punch by three different posts.
Likewise, a huge bankroll doesn't actually help in a limit game. That's why limit tables don't have maximums. You're less likely to go broke, of course, because of your bankroll, but if you're not ahead of the table, you're just losing more slowly; as long as the table has you outmatched, no matter how many players go broke and are replaced, your greater tolerance for downswings will only take you so far.
EDIT: Oy... beaten to the punch by three different posts.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
July 15th, 2012 at 5:39:28 PM
permalink
Yeah ... I stand corrected. I was thinking about one player playing against casino, and still not having a very good shot at finishing ahead. On average over all the players, the casino will not be winning.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
July 15th, 2012 at 6:14:24 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanI think, it would be a cool promotion for a casino to offer a "no-zero: roulette" game.
There are at least two online casinos that have been running that exact promotion for a few years now. Must be working out okay for them, because they're still doing it.
