Poll

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

28 members have voted

mustangsally
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
July 15th, 2012 at 10:36:13 PM permalink
Quote: kewlj

and was playing lower limit and had more travel time involved, so the number of hands played (which I didn't keep track of then) was probably closer to 40,000 a year. But still that is closing in on half a million hands in my 8 and a half years.
At what point can I expect variance to catch up to me?? lol

Thanks for all the good news.
I do agree that bankroll and travel limits most card counters.

the formula, as you should know is ev/sd and your value should be a positive number.
Do you know what that is?
Get it as high as possible, even if that that means playing up to a million of hands more :)
I Heart Vi Hart
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 15th, 2012 at 10:48:11 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The casino does not have a bottomless bank, no more than the SUM TOTAL OF -ALL PLAYERS- have a bottomless bank.



If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 15th, 2012 at 10:56:50 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.



Hmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas over a year is greater than the sum total of the casino's bankrolls. 38 Million people visited Vegas last year. At a $1000 bank roll per person : $38 Billion bankroll. That's about the market capitalisation of the Big Three casino chains (and that's a stock market number, not what the casino has on hand).

In any case, doesn't matter. A 0 EV game is a zero EV game is a zero sum game. You can't add lots of Zeroes and get anything but 0.

In short : the casino doesn't get any advantage from spreading a zero sum game. My results show that even if there is an effect, over 1.8 million made bets, there was no net gain by the house or player. The casino gets an advantage by slicing of tiny pieces of your bank roll with it's house advantage.
"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
brianparkes
brianparkes
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 74
July 15th, 2012 at 11:00:34 PM permalink
The only argument I'd like to put out there to the "casinos have an unlimited bankroll" is that they have very large bills to pay, so they technically don't have an unlimited bankroll. If they have a month or two in a row without making enough money, they can easily go broke if there are no investors willing to pony up the cash. The payments on the buildings is massive, along with payroll. To open 1 table game, a casino has to have around 8 employees on the clock, minimum. Consider that their expected win from one table is around $80/hour depending on how many players are on the table. Once you start adding up the wages for the pit boss, at least 2 dealers, cage cashier, security, surveillance, and waitstaff for just servicing that one table, you are easily underwater. Of course the slots are much cheaper to operate, but there are still fees to the state for each game and table.
That being said, I expect that is why you will likely never see more than a promotional game or two that offers a 0% house edge game, even if the casino could expect to make a few bucks off of it per month.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 15th, 2012 at 11:03:34 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Hmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas



Vegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos
in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking
about roulette.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
July 16th, 2012 at 4:23:21 AM permalink
Quote: mustangsally



1,000 to 1
NOT bad odds at all.


Well ... I guess, you and I have very different notions of "good odds", that's all :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
July 16th, 2012 at 6:12:14 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.



All players at a given casino. The reason they're being added together is to show you how they look to the casino, so there's no reason to add all casinos together, the same way when you're looking at how your own bankroll is faring against a trip up and down the strip, there's no reason to consider all the other suckers there just because you're considering all the casinos.

The point is that, as far as the casino's concerned, all bets are the same. They're making even-money bets against a faceless mass of "the public," and losing or winning just like you are when you make your bets with the casino. The public have essentially unlimited money, no matter how many individuals go broke, or just stop playing. What you're saying would be true if a group of people sat down, only leaving when their bankrolls were exhausted, and weren't replaced. But that's not how it works anywhere; even if they only left on exhausting their bankrolls, but were replaced, the upswings, although they'd inevitably end for each individual, would hold the house's money in perpetual abeyance. Moreover, no matter how far they get from even, over infinite time, they will always get back, since given infinite time, there will be winning and losing streaks of any arbitrary length, and it's equally likely that the casino will be down as up. It's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back. And, again, there's no reason for that to favor the casino, not until every last patron is broke.
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.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 6:52:32 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Vegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos
in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking
about roulette.



They still dont have as big a bank roll as the players. Should be clear from my example of Vegas.... its nothing to do with bankrolls. Its all about a zero game cant be made to be non-zero. No more than a negative expectation game can be made positive via a series of negative bets.

By the way, I ran the sim ten times longer. 1.5% of the players were still in, and the house still had no advantage. Sixty million bets, three hundred million wagered, and the house still hasnt won any of the $2,000,000 bank roll. Sounds like a real money maker for the house.
"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
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
July 16th, 2012 at 8:57:08 AM permalink
e431312
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 12:28:55 PM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

It's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back.



This just is not true. Taking one stream of results for
millions of spins and into infinity, one side will get
ahead and stay ahead forever. They will get closer
statistically, but never reach equality. In fact, the closer
they become % wise, the farther apart they become
in reality.

What happens is, there comes a point where one side
gets just far enough ahead, that no matter what happens
the other side can never catch up. So the gap just keeps
widening.

But you can't just look at one stream of outcomes. You
have to look at multiple streams, ultimately millions
of streams, to see where the equality is. For every
stream where red is far ahead of black, theres a stream
where black is ahead of red. If could look at enough
streams, there would be total equality.

When a player see's 12 reds in a row on a tote board,
he wrongly assumes that equality is right around the
corner, black will catch up soon. Maybe, maybe not.
In reality, on some tote board somewhere in the world,
there are 12 blacks in a row, and there's your equality.
Random numbers have to be looked at in very large
amounts, a small isolated stream tells you nothing
at all.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal

  • Jump to: