Thread Rating:

MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 273
  • Posts: 5629
July 17th, 2015 at 7:27:31 AM permalink
Quote: Relle

i believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.



Historically, Steve Wynn has, by report, kept a close eye on all aspects of his casino operations.

Therefore I'd be amazed to learn that he did not know of and authorize the switch to 2X odds.

Then again he's getting older (73) and his health is not great, so he may have lost a few steps.

I just wonder: what was the impetus for him to authorize the change?

What was he thinking the reaction would be like?

He's been around casinos all his life, he knows the drill.
"What, me worry?"
zoobrew
zoobrew
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
July 17th, 2015 at 8:04:20 AM permalink
One word: INFLATION!!!! How many on this board would want to live on your salary from 10 years ago and still have to pay today's cost. It doesn't help that for Nevada the amount won from craps has gone down 25% since 2000. Any businessman as smart as Mr. Wynn knows that when revenue goes down and cost goes up, you need to change how things are done. How much you want to bet that there has been research done that shows that average bettors will move some of those no longer allowed odds bets to higher house edge prop. bets.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports.html
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 5049
July 17th, 2015 at 9:34:02 AM permalink
Double odds tables (from knowledge in my head)

* Jerry's Nugget
* California Club
* Fremont Casino
* South Point
* Circus Circus

Double odds per internet errors here: (Last update: Jan 8, 2015 reported per this snapshot)

http://wizardofvegas.com/guides/craps-survey



That wrong info might have even factored into a decision at the Wynn. Who knows?
howesmr
howesmr
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 6
July 17th, 2015 at 9:36:58 AM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

One word: INFLATION!!!! How many on this board would want to live on your salary from 10 years ago and still have to pay today's cost. It doesn't help that for Nevada the amount won from craps has gone down 25% since 2000. Any businessman as smart as Mr. Wynn knows that when revenue goes down and cost goes up, you need to change how things are done. How much you want to bet that there has been research done that shows that average bettors will move some of those no longer allowed odds bets to higher house edge prop. bets.


I will take that bet. The guy I met at the Wynn to play with was with was convinced the Pass line bet wasn't worth it any more and moved all his action to the Place Bets. Except when he rolled and he didn't place odds. I took his odds. Seemed like there was more Numbers action than normal but maybe Relle can comment on that from a dealers point of view.

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 17th, 2015 at 10:30:05 AM permalink
Quote: Eric721

Then in purely mathematical argument, can you convince me that playing 100x odds is a smart bet?

Define "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?

Quote:

Going off what I said earlier, assume a $303 bankroll at a $1 minimum table with 100x odds. According to the purely mathematical argument, since this reduces the house edge to virtually nil, it should be a smarter bet. But I would argue that it is not as smart as playing no odds at all, for many reasons.

Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.

Quote:

I'll answer your coinflip question with one of my own. Which would you take:

1) Heads, win $95; Tails, lose $105
2) Heads, win $10,000; Tails lose $10,000


Neither. If I'm gambling, I'll find a better coin flip. Even black on roulette would be better. If I'm investing $10,000, it won't be in something with zero ROI. In short, your example is a terrible analogy and it is a poor comparison to my original question (based on equivalent wager sizes). Would you bet $1,000,000,000 on a 1/10000 chance to win $50,000,000,000,000? Of course not, even though you'd have a +400% edge. Even if you had a billion dollars, you'd never risk it at such long odds to win $50 trillion. You would do well to appreciate that money does not have a constant marginal utility. $50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.

Quote:

Most of us in the real world would take bet 1) every time because we can't afford to lose ten grand. There's just too much variance there. If you came along and scolded us that our choice was illogical due to the EV, we'd rightly laugh in your face.


Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.

In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.

It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
July 17th, 2015 at 10:46:57 AM permalink
Quote: Relle

the odds are an important factor in our game, more importantly to our brand. we, as dealers were shocked when we implemented 6:5 blackjack, we never thought it would come to our property. it's shameful, it's embarrassing and it most certainly isn't what a top tier casino should offer... no one consulted us though. it's a decision made by a bean counter who looks at numbers on a spread sheet and has never spent a day living in the trenches of what our business model is or should be.


Except the 6:5 decision makes sense from a profit standpoint. There is a directly quantifiable increase in win going from 3:2 to 6:5. The same is not true with decreasing odds bets. That just lowers the variance. The only way an analyst could equate lower odds with increased win would be if they've modeled some amount of action moving from free odds to other bets (like bigger line bets).

I've met Charlie and I wouldn't think going from 3/4/5x to 2x would be something he'd do. But it's not like I have any info on the day-to-day ops data at the Wynn. I'd be very interested in vetting the assumptions behind a model that indicated moving to 2x was the right call.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 273
  • Posts: 5629
July 17th, 2015 at 1:28:43 PM permalink
It just complicated the payoffs for the crews, albeit slightly.

With 3-4-5X odds, the payoff was always the same for a ten dollar bet, no matter what the point number was.

Damned strange move by a mogul.
"What, me worry?"
Eric721
Eric721
Joined: Jul 15, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 23
July 17th, 2015 at 2:14:53 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

The intelligent person who doesn't want variance just realizes that in the long run it likely won't matter and just stops.

Yet the difference in Craps to me just goes back to the $55 bettor at the $5 minimum table. I just don't see how it can be argued that it doesnt matter if the player plunks down that $55 on the line every time, or if he instead makes the $5 line bet and adds $50 in odds every time. Yet this thread is proving again that when presented with this argument the former player goes back to his argument about EV and the latter player goes back to his argument about unneeded variance. It's hard for me to picture either as liking to play Craps.



You haven't understood the discussion.

This isn't meaningful in a practical way because you never reach the long term expectation in a session. There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems, though they win their money differently. (With odds, you have to hit a bunch of <50% chance occurances. Without odds, you have to have more ~50% occurances happen than not.)
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 275
  • Posts: 7362
July 17th, 2015 at 2:26:01 PM permalink
Quote: Eric721

You haven't understood the discussion.

This isn't meaningful in a practical way because you never reach the long term expectation in a session. There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems, though they win their money differently. (With odds, you have to hit a bunch of <50% chance occurances. Without odds, you have to have more ~50% occurances happen than not.)



you are just simply completely wrong. It's the same as saying the HE doesn't matter. Or the EV, for that matter.
"Baccarat is a game whereby the croupier gathers in money with a flexible sculling oar, then rakes it home. If I could have borrowed his oar I would have stayed." .......... Mark Twain
Eric721
Eric721
Joined: Jul 15, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 23
July 17th, 2015 at 2:28:54 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Define "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?

Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.


Neither. If I'm gambling, I'll find a better coin flip. Even black on roulette would be better. If I'm investing $10,000, it won't be in something with zero ROI. In short, your example is a terrible analogy and it is a poor comparison to my original question (based on equivalent wager sizes). Would you bet $1,000,000,000 on a 1/10000 chance to win $50,000,000,000,000? Of course not, even though you'd have a +400% edge. Even if you had a billion dollars, you'd never risk it at such long odds to win $50 trillion. You would do well to appreciate that money does not have a constant marginal utility. $50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.


Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.

In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.

It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.



It's so cute when people are righteously indignant about a debate they don't understand.

To give you a hint, I've never argued the point you're so convinced I don't get. Do you know what variance is?

You clearly don't understand the choice between 95/105 and 10k/10k, or what the choice is meant to convey.

See, the Martingale is a mathematical "can't lose" system that simply doesn't work, and the reason isn't so much because of the table limits, but rather the extremely high variance. I bet nobody has ever played the Martingale and lost because they ran into the table limit. I believe Martingale players run out of money long before they hit the table maximums, and that running out of money is the real reason it simply doesn't work.

So if you have an unlimited supply of chips to wager, then odds are great. But because buy-ins are limited, odds are unwise. That is my position. I believe this to such an extent that I predict a large number of trials will bear out the true odds of the Pass Line when simulating the "Let it Ride" system, but the true odds will not be realized for the 100x odds style. Is that even mathematically possible?

  • Jump to: