And sometimes the odds dont mean a thing.

Went to the casino the other night- but $200 down at $10 blackjack- was down to $50 and left in no time.

Went and put $10 in slots left the machine some time later with $50

Went and played let it ride- won 5 times in a row- start $200 left with $350.

Sat at bacarrat- it was a players night, that banker bet won maybe 1/3rd of the time. Lost $100 of a starting $200 at a $10 table.


Sometimes, all the strategy in the world means nadda to luck and the slip of the game.

I agree completely, and long ago decided that the idea was to have fun. Sometimes that is going to mean sitting with my sweetie at the penny slots, but if it's fun, I don't care what kind of bet it is.... Wheee, lights flashing and bells ringing, I won $2.68! If I make the bankroll last to the end, I am successful. I got my money's worth, based on how I value my time.

>Sometimes all the strategy in the world means naada to luck.
>>Sometimes that is going to mean sitting with my sweetie at the penny slots,

I think each of you have expressed marvelous sentiments. Luck plays a role. Banker is the best bet but some nights, Players win over and over again. Sometimes you get 20 and the dealer gets 21. It happens.
Accepting things for what they are rather than what the odds say they should be is the essence of gambling. Seven is most likely to roll, but that doesn't mean it will. And if at the end of the night you've won a grand total of 2.68, so be it. Leave a tip and leave the casino with your sweetie ... and leave happy.

Here's the way I would look at it: You lost $60 for the night, playing four different games with at least two of the three card games having a $10/hand minimum. (You didn't say what level you were playing the slots.) So on average you lost at each game the equivalent of 1.5 minimal hands. The rest of your not-the-calculated-average-result experience I would just write off to to typical randomness. You didn't say how long you played, but maybe you got your money's worth in entertainment. Or are you a player who is in it only for the money and always considers it a bad experience if you wind up down at all?

Edit: So I'm a slow typist. While I was typing, Mosca and FleaStiff basically covered my sentiments.

There's something I'd like to call the Mathematician's Fallacy when it comes to casino games. It's the tendency for mathematicians to repeatedly tell people that, because of statistical laws, there is always a house edge and ergo, one shouldn't play the games.

In fact, those statistics are based on quite large sample sizes. These sample sizes that are so large, that they are applicable ONLY to the house, and NOT to the individual experience of any given gamer.

The mathematical truth is that in the short run, it is extremely unlikely for dice rolls or wheel spins to follow anything close to an even distribution. It is far more likely that trends happen in the short run. There is a theorem for this idea, and I wish I could remember the name of the person who came up with it. Someone in the 1900's who was doing work on error rates in manufacturing processes. The theorem says that when things are suppose to follow a known random distribution over the long term, in the short term certain events will occur more closely together. For an extreme but illustrative example, say a batch of light bulbs are supposed to have an average life span of 1,000 hours. I buy and install 5 light bulbs. It's really unlikely that my 5 light bulbs will burn out all at exactly 1,000 hours. What's COMPARATIVELY more likely is 1 will burn out in 5000 hours, 3 burning out within 800 - 825 hours, and 1 burning out in 1,100 hours.

In gaming, from the perspective of the casino, it's true that their results should approach the mathematician's printed odds. However, from the perspective of the individual gamer, this should never happen. There are just TOO SMALL samples. When dealing with SMALL SAMPLES, another set of thereoms kick in, which say some people WILL do better than others.

I wish mathematicians would present this individual gamers perspective more often. That is, large samples are only applicable to casino's, and not to individual players. In fact, almost half of the people playing will have a great time, because they'll come out ahead. The other half will come out behind. For those half that comes out ahead, they'll have a great time!! Which is the point of it all.

Maybe I'll be in the half that comes out ahead (someone will), and that's why I keep playing. It just depends on luck.

The only invalid point in your argument is how quickly large house edges will show up in a relatively small number of plays. If you are repeatedly playing roulette, then the 5.26% house edge makes a big difference over the pass line 1.41% edge in craps. It makes a big a difference over four hours of play.

But I agree with your point about the lightbulbs. Five samples will be scattered, and not near the expected value.

I am not against roulette. I personally think if you are going to risk a 5.26% house edge you should shoot for 12:1 or 18:1 or 36:1 payouts. If you are playing for returns less than two to one, you should switch to the craps table where the edge is better.

Generally I don't like slots because the edge is so high. It will grind away you money very quickly.

But the shot at a big jackpot is entertaining, so sometimes you must risk the probabilities. It is supposed to be entertaining. It's not a way to make money.

Just so everyone knows I was not complaining or anything. I did have a good time and all- I just was reporting my small experiance.

In all I played for 4 hours with a starting bankroll of $300. I had a good time.

Notes to self- REMEMBER TO TIP THE WAITRESS!!! God, Im soo good about tipping the dealer but osmetimes those waitresses are flying around and they handme something and I say thank you and they are gone before I remember to give a tip! #$%^& I feel like crap when that happens. lol.

The slots I was playing were 2 cents/50 lines. I perfer the penny to nickle slots over most others- just a personal preferance when I do play slots- which is not often.

Quote: lajollagamer

...in the short term certain events will occur more closely together.

Is that anything like the theory that bad things happen in threes?

Quote: lajollagamer

In fact, almost half of the people playing will have a great time, because they'll come out ahead. The other half will come out behind.

But a lot of the people that come out behind also had a great time. It's all about getting value out of the entertainment dollar.

Quote: pacomartin

The only invalid point in your argument is how quickly large house edges will show up in a relatively small number of plays. If you are repeatedly playing roulette, then the 5.26% house edge makes a big difference over the pass line 1.41% edge in craps. It makes a big a difference over four hours of play.

I see your points, ye various. But Mr. Martin's should not be missed. Betting on, say, boxcars coming up in craps is pretty much guaranteed to be a loser even in the short run, except for some occasional blasts of fun in the very, very, short run.

I think what I am learning is that the benefit of playing vs. small house edges is that it offers a variance that, over a lifetime for someone who only occasionally plays, whether you would be up or down in bankroll is, well, a roll of the dice. And the odds of really, say, losing the mortgage money is fairly slim when you can reduce the house edge to less than 1% as you do with free odds in craps.

Quote: odiousgambit

And the odds of really, say, losing the mortgage money is fairly slim when you can reduce the house edge to less than 1% as you do with free odds in craps.

Even if you only have a house advantage of 1%, the probability of going from 100 units to 200 units without going bust are 11.9% that you will make it, and 88.1% that you won't. That's what they mean by the grind.

lol. You know when I see how this site makes arguments/opinion/facts show- it really shows its a geek's site. lmao.

Star Trek, accounting, im sure several out there have been role game players,... & gambling.



No wonder they tried to have star trek the experiance in las vegas- DUH. Who here DIDNT want to see that? ;)

Quote: lajollagamer

In fact, almost half of the people playing will have a great time, because they'll come out ahead. The other half will come out behind. For those half that comes out ahead, they'll have a great time!! Which is the point of it all.

Maybe I'll be in the half that comes out ahead (someone will), and that's why I keep playing. It just depends on luck.

I'm one of those who doesn't sweat the losses, but I'll take a little issue with the assertion that anywhere even close to half the people come out ahead...

The only difference between winners and losers is when they decide to stop, and most people don't stop until they've lost the bankroll for the session, or the session ends. There's nothing wrong with this, and think about how you yourself handle the situation where you get up $500 early... then it slowly gets whittled down over the next hour or so, and then you are sitting there with two hours left to play at even, or up $20, and you have the choice to walk away, or bet into your bankroll again. And you think to yourself (I know this because it's what I think), "Well, this is the money I brought that I could afford to lose. Anything can happen on the next roll... I came here with this amount to gamble, so let's gamble it!" And of course, that decision is far more enjoyable than going back to my room to watch TV!

Casinos aren't built on the edge. They are built on the grind. And the grind works because we don't stop when we're ahead. And we don't stop because we like to gamble, and it's fun, and if we had fun then we got our money's worth!

Quote: Malaru

lol. You know when I see how this site makes arguments/opinion/facts show- it really shows its a geek's site. lmao.

Star Trek, accounting, im sure several out there have been role game players,... & gambling.



No wonder they tried to have star trek the experiance in las vegas- DUH. Who here DIDNT want to see that? ;)

I agree completely. What I love is that this is a place where people like me, someone who thinks and talks about gambling and gaming from the emotional and social side, can intersect with those who think and talk about it from the scientific and mathematical side. All of us care deeply about both dimensions. But from where we start digging deeper is different, and both angles are needed to get the big picture. Because gambling is not just about math, and not just about fun. We are all driven not only by the games, but by the need to understand the games and why we love to play them.

Quote: Mosca

I agree completely. What I love is that this is a place where people like me, someone who thinks and talks about gambling and gaming from the emotional and social side, can intersect with those who think and talk about it from the scientific and mathematical side. All of us care deeply about both dimensions. But from where we start digging deeper is different, and both angles are needed to get the big picture. Because gambling is not just about math, and not just about fun. We are all driven not only by the games, but by the need to understand the games and why we love to play them.

No matter how much you know numbers you can't avoid the emotions that go with gambling. You can say to yourself that dice have no memory, but at the same time you feel you are due. If I am down, I have a bad habit of increasing my bets to try and win it back quickly.

Mathematically I know it is worse to stand on a player 16 against a dealer 7, then it is to stand on a player 16 against a dealer 10. If enough small cards have been played, the best move might be to stand on a 16 against a 10. But it feels much worse to hit a 16 against a 7.

I have a friend who thinks she is gifted at video poker. She deliberately draws against inside straights to prove she can make them. She thinks she pulls four of a kind inordinately often. Logically it seems like she's delusional, but it feels like she really does draw a lot of four of a kind.

Quote: Malaru

Notes to self- REMEMBER TO TIP THE WAITRESS!!! God, Im soo good about tipping the dealer but osmetimes those waitresses are flying around and they handme something and I say thank you and they are gone before I remember to give a tip! #$%^& I feel like crap when that happens. lol.

Something I learned from www.cocktaildoll.com: Try giving the tip at the time you order the drink. I usually hand the waitress $1 chip as I'm ordering the drink. This helps me to not forget to tip her when she comes back. Plus, most of the time, I've found that the waitress remembers me, remembers my drink for next time, and brings me my drink fairly quickly. (Assuming she can, of course, depending on how busy they are.) If the service is particularly fast, and I'm winning some money, I'll sometimes even give another $1 when she gets back with the drink.

You're mileage may vary. In more ritzy casinos where the waitresses are used to larger tips and/or if there are high-rollers around you tipping $5 a drink, you may find that your $1 doesn't make much of an impression. Still, give the $1 at the time you order the drink, and then you won't forget later. Plus, if you're rolling the dice, you won't have to stop your mojo to make sure you tip her. :)

Quote: Mosca

The only difference between winners and losers is when they decide to stop, and most people don't stop until they've lost the bankroll for the session, or the session ends.

Not so. It is quite possible to get behind right away and never catch up. I gave a formula for that recently, which works for even-money bets. This whole idea of "quit when you are ahead" is like the "trivial solution" to an equation. Does this mean that if you win the first bet you quit? The second? I ran a simulation in WinCraps a couple of years ago where the session ended whenever the bankroll was higher than the starting bankroll. Guess what the result was! Edge * action. And the little electronic players were pretty $%(*^)^)ing bored, too! >:-)

Quote: Mosca

There's nothing wrong with this, and think about how you yourself handle the situation where you get up $500 early... then it slowly gets whittled down over the next hour or so, and then you are sitting there with two hours left to play at even, or up $20, and you have the choice to walk away, or bet into your bankroll again. And you think to yourself (I know this because it's what I think), "Well, this is the money I brought that I could afford to lose. Anything can happen on the next roll... I came here with this amount to gamble, so let's gamble it!" And of course, that decision is far more enjoyable than going back to my room to watch TV!

It's really a matter of utility, I guess. If that $500 is very important to you, more important than the chance to turn it into $750, or whatever, then you'll stop. One way to approach this is to establish, ahead of time, an amount that will satisfy you, regardless of time. Of course, if you have some very good luck early on and reach the win goal, you might change your mind about stopping!

Quote: Mosca

Casinos aren't built on the edge. They are built on the grind. And the grind works because we don't stop when we're ahead. And we don't stop because we like to gamble, and it's fun, and if we had fun then we got our money's worth!

Well, they're built on edge * action, both equally important. The edge applies to the total amount bet, not to one's starting bankroll. I ran another simulation where the session ended when the bet handle equaled the starting bankroll. The average loss was, of course, considerably less than without that condition.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: lajollagamer

There's something I'd like to call the Mathematician's Fallacy when it comes to casino games. It's the tendency for mathematicians to repeatedly tell people that, because of statistical laws, there is always a house edge and ergo, one shouldn't play the games.

That's really a "Half-Mathematician's Fallacy". >:-) Many people think that, because they understand how to calculate the HA of a bet or strategy, they have a deep understanding of it. Of course, HA (or ev) is just one aspect of a game, and not necessarily the most important. Variance, skew and kurtosis are necessary to give a description of a distribution - or, better yet, a graph.

Quote: lajollagamer

In fact, those statistics are based on quite large sample sizes. These sample sizes that are so large, that they are applicable ONLY to the house, and NOT to the individual experience of any given gamer.

They are applicable to the house, to the casinos as an aggregate and to the players as an aggregate.

Quote: lajollagamer

The mathematical truth is that in the short run, it is extremely unlikely for dice rolls or wheel spins to follow anything close to an even distribution.
In gaming, from the perspective of the casino, it's true that their results should approach the mathematician's printed odds. However, from the perspective of the individual gamer, this should never happen. There are just TOO SMALL samples. When dealing with SMALL SAMPLES, another set of thereoms kick in, which say some people WILL do better than others.

I wish mathematicians would present this individual gamers perspective more often. That is, large samples are only applicable to casino's, and not to individual players. In fact, almost half of the people playing will have a great time, because they'll come out ahead. The other half will come out behind. For those half that comes out ahead, they'll have a great time!! Which is the point of it all.

Maybe I'll be in the half that comes out ahead (someone will), and that's why I keep playing. It just depends on luck.

The probability of coming out ahead is a function of the expected value of a session (always negative) and the standard deviation. Since all casino games carry a house edge, there is not a 50-50 chance of coming out ahead, but low edge and high variance gives the best chance of coming out ahead; however, high variance cuts both ways, "punishing" the player for having bad luck. The higher the standard deviation, the less luck (positive variance) required to overcome the house edge.

In my view, the biggest failure of books on craps is, as you say, to over-emphasize HA and not deal with variance.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: pacomartin

Mathematically I know it is worse to stand on a player 16 against a dealer 7, then it is to stand on a player 16 against a dealer 10. If enough small cards have been played, the best move might be to stand on a 16 against a 10. But it feels much worse to hit a 16 against a 7.

if you hit good vs a 7, you are likely to have a winning hand.

if you hit good vs a 10, you might make a hand but not enough to win.

Alan,

Quote:

Not so. It is quite possible to get behind right away and never catch up.

LOL, yeah, I forgot about that one; I shouldn't have, it's happened often enough! I always enjoy, look forward to, and appreciate your input. edge*action; that is what I think I meant when I wrote "grind". A perfect slot machine that always returns exactly 95% will eventually get it all if you keep pulling the handle, until the last penny. That is what I meant by using the edge to grind away the bankroll.

Regarding the $500, I was considering that if the $500 was important in that way, a person wouldn't have gone to the casino in the first place. I wasn't thinking widely enough; $500 means different things if your session budget is $100 or $10k. If I was on a $500 budget and won $2500, I guarantee you I would not gamble all of it back, just as if someone on a $100 budget won $500. Mrs Mosca would definitely take home some of that $500!

Quote: Mosca

I'm one of those who doesn't sweat the losses, but I'll take a little issue with the assertion that anywhere even close to half the people come out ahead...

The only difference between winners and losers is when they decide to stop, and most people don't stop until they've lost the bankroll for the session, or the session ends. There's nothing wrong with this, and think about how you yourself handle the situation where you get up $500 early... then it slowly gets whittled down over the next hour or so, and then you are sitting there with two hours left to play at even, or up $20, and you have the choice to walk away, or bet into your bankroll again. And you think to yourself (I know this because it's what I think), "Well, this is the money I brought that I could afford to lose. Anything can happen on the next roll... I came here with this amount to gamble, so let's gamble it!" And of course, that decision is far more enjoyable than going back to my room to watch TV!

Casinos aren't built on the edge. They are built on the grind. And the grind works because we don't stop when we're ahead. And we don't stop because we like to gamble, and it's fun, and if we had fun then we got our money's worth!

Well said. I couldn't say it any better.

We experience the grind all of the time when we gamble. Sometimes we know enough when to stop and sometimes we don't. I like to play to a win goal of triple of what I started with on a particular game, or bust. So, in video poker, I might put in $50 goal on my machine with the goal of leaving with $150. If I get to say, $140, I'll get down to $100 and my wife will say, "cash out, cash out!", but I'll keep on merrily gambling away, until my bankroll is at the goal or at zero. That's the grind working against me.

And it goes the other way around as well. My wife will sit at Let it Ride with $100 and when she loses 3 hands in a row, she'll get up and leave, and I'll say, you haven't let the variance kick in yet, meaning that about 2 in 9 hands win in Let it Ride and you have to play long enough to experience a win (and hope to hell that you're right). Most of the time, the money does come back.

Or we'll play Craps, and my wife suddenly got the belief that she throws better when she's next to the stickman to the point where she won't roll unless she's at the spot. So, at the casino the other night, the spot opens and she takes the spot and sevens out immediately. I know that we're down a bit from the other shooters on the table and she wants to leave. So I say to her, "No, you have to try again". So she does, and sevens out again after two rolls. We're down a bit more, and she wants to leave again, but I say to her, "try again", and she does, and sevens out yet again. Now I'm happy because I've pretty much have broken her belief and now she'll roll from anywhere. Of course she blames me for putting pressure on her...

The point is that Odds are quite relevant when determining the quality of the game that you are playing. All things being equal, you should play at a blackjack game where it pays 1.5x for a blackjack game instead of 1.2x. That said, given that you get Blackjack only 8/169th of the time (or something like that), on a game where you get 80 hands per hour, do you give up the 1.2 units/hour and go to the table that "feels lucky" or play at the 1.5x game. There is no guarantee that you will do better... in fact I have just shaken my head when I hear the cheers at the 1.2x game while my bankroll disappears at the "better" game. But over time, my cheers will outnumber theirs. That's what the odds call for.

If you gamble only once your entire life, say a weekend gambling trip, you may come out ahead, and such things as the HA are meaningless. If you gamble once or twice a year, you may also come out ahead sometimes, but in the long run you'll probably end up losing money. If you gamble frequently, then you're more likely still to lose money in the long run, unless you gain an advantage on the house (say by card counting).

That's why occasional and casual gamblers, like lots of people in this forum, are enthusiastic about side bets, hedges and such, while the more frequent gamblers mind the HA and other factors to minimze losses.

I've been playing online simulations of table games lately. In many of these, such as 3 card poker, I can best get ahead of the house by betting recklessly and making use of the pair plus bet. Even then I usually lose, but since it's play money (or virtual play money), who cares? What I do notice is that the pair plus bet usually loses even when I win. I win a lot of hands with Q, K and A high against the unqualified dealer or sometimes a dealer with a lower high hand. This is common sense, as with three cards the odds of makin a pair ought to be lower than in regular 5 card draw poker.