Poll

17 votes (60.71%)
3 votes (10.71%)
8 votes (28.57%)

28 members have voted

thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 15th, 2012 at 3:28:58 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I 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
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
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"
Keyser
Keyser
Joined: Apr 16, 2010
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2058
July 15th, 2012 at 4:53:25 PM permalink
Quote: Thecesspit

The 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.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
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.
"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
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
July 15th, 2012 at 5:18:14 PM permalink
Quote: Keyser

I 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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
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
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
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.
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.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
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"
heather
heather
Joined: Jun 12, 2011
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 437
July 15th, 2012 at 6:14:24 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I 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.

  • Jump to: