## Poll

 never on one bet 1 vote (4%) on a win only 4 votes (16%) on a loss only 1 vote (4%) on a win and a loss 16 votes (64%) never on a Sunday 1 vote (4%) on thousands and 10's of thousands of bets 4 votes (16%) is football on yet? 9 votes (36%)

25 members have voted

AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
• Posts: 4299
January 11th, 2014 at 4:36:44 PM permalink
My god, we've stooped this low? Jesus Christ.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
January 11th, 2014 at 4:49:48 PM permalink
If you take the house edge to be the expected value, then the house edge is on every bet, before it's made.

The actual value of the bet (win or lose) is where the house makes or loses money. As clearly it pays out, or takes in cash every time a bet is resolved. If you want to get technical, on some wagers it has the money before the bet is resolved and pays out when it loses. But in any event, the house's cash flow is based on those hundreds of pluses and minuses every day. But every bet has an expected value to the house (which may be not in their favour).

Words like 'anything can happen' and 'playing in the short term' is just guff that misses out the simple fact that the variance on a single bet is much much larger than the size of the house edge on that bet. Or even on a short sequence of bets. But we can still easily work out what sorts of things can happen in the short term, with how much regularity, and work out what happens in 10 bets as well as we can what happens in 10,000,000 bets. The picture is easier to read on the second than than the first, but pretending that all the 'math' doesn't work over ten bets is to be ignorant of the mathematics of probability.
"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
scepticus
Joined: Oct 16, 2013
• Posts: 57
January 11th, 2014 at 5:00:19 PM permalink
I know I will die at some undefined date but I don't know when so I don't worry about it - so why should I worry about losing my bankroll in some undefined "Long Run" ? Until someone tells me when this Long Run will happen I will continue to ignore it . In any case, theoretical mathematicians will not allow us to win even without the House Edge because they claim that " he with the deepest pockets will win in the end ".
Gambling is about" beating the odds" so if you think you can't beat the odds then you shouldn't gamble . I think our human failings contribute more to casinos' profits than their HE.
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
• Posts: 21101
January 11th, 2014 at 5:21:42 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Even with the HE in place, it can be worked around
if you know what you're doing. And many do know
exactly what they're doing.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying you can consistently beat a casino is a -EV situation with money management.

I understand if they are doing something extra to gain an advantage. But, if you are saying people can use a selective betting system or money management then give a explanation how.

I would agree there are guys that are up money playing "coin flip bets" But it has nothing to do with money management or some system they think it working. its called LUCK. the dumbest guy in the world could achieve the same thing on a game like BAC.

I always laugh at guys that use the term smart BAC play. WTF seriously how smart do you have to be, to pick player or banker? Money management selective betting is not hard anyone can do it. Just set a limit, bet when you think you are due and hope for the best. If enough people try this someone will succeed this dose not mean they are BAC gurus or special in any way. At any moment they could start losing and never win again.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
January 11th, 2014 at 6:57:06 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

If the HE manifested itself on every bet,
that wouldn't happen. The key word here
is 'manifest', which means to show evidence
of. You can't see the evidence of the HE on
a single bet, the house can win or lose, it's
gambling in the short term just like you are.

The reason that the house edge affects every bet is that when the house wins, they win more than they should, and when they lose, they lose less than they should.

Suppose you make a \$19 bet on red in roulette. If you win, you win \$19, and if you lose, you lose \$19.

If there were no house edge, you could, instead, bet \$18 to win \$20. By betting \$19 to win \$19, you win \$1 less when you win, and lose \$1 more when you lose. Win or lose, the house edge costs you a dollar. The effect on EVERY SINGLE BET is that is costs you a dollar. It doesnt affect the outcome (you are just as likely to win the bet) but it affects the amount of money that changes hands, every single time.
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
January 11th, 2014 at 7:15:37 PM permalink
Some of the Money Management guys are playing long Labouchere-like progressions, having carefully calculated that they are 86.732% likely to succeed (or some such number), and they ply these into a series of progressions, assuming that they'd never lose X sessions out of Y, because they live in the short term and 1 in 1,000 chances won't happen.

It's all trying to avoid the 'house edge' which still exists on every bet, and you just can't sum a series of negatives into a positive. You can change the variance, and turn a game from a series of single coin flips into bet on event X happening before Y number of bad events. The Martingale is one way. But if you then look at this new game, it's still got a negative expected value, but with wider variance, were you win a little most of the time, or lose a lot a little of the time. There's still a house edge in the new game. They may not have to pay it as often, but it's still a negative expectation game.

And that's fine. Just don't piss on my leg and call it an Advantage Play.

Others tell you can flat bet and read the results (reading random, streaks, variance, quarters of the moon). This is, as far as I can tell, akin to reading the entrails. They'll compare it to weather forecasting, but one of those two arts has a lot more basis in fact and repeatability behind it. As a clue, it's the one with a 24 hour TV channel dedicated to it.

Both methods start talking about discipline, money management (and then the evils of the casino, as well hit and run short sessions), as this is enough to ensure a win. Those things may all be necessary conditions. They are not sufficient conditions to have the upper hand. The mathematical models are very strong. Given the axioms of independent events, etc. The problem these geniuses have is that they can never point where the central axioms of probability theory are wrong. They'll bluster and bloviate, but a short education in Statistics seems to be much to hard for a reasonable assault on the logic behind them. Which is a shame. I'd have far more respect if they'd happily say 'oh well, I assume that the series of events are interdependent on a roulette wheel, so...'. But they never do. Because they don't really actually understand the little Maths they choose to use.
"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
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
• Posts: 8277
January 11th, 2014 at 7:36:40 PM permalink
You're too focused on losing months. Like has been said before, large bets can affect performance because a few people bet very large and win during this time and profits are still made from the smaller bettors.
You can be winning but can't win with a negative expectation game right. If you want, you could just make 1-3 bets containing every thing you're willing to lose and walk away either way. Casinos don't like it, but it can either be heaven or he'll for you. Again, just boils down to them needing to smooth out the bets and not gambling themselves.
I am a robot.
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
• Posts: 1348
January 11th, 2014 at 8:02:44 PM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

The Bettor and the Accountant are each aware of other "thumbs on the scale": alcohol, females, music, social groups, festive atmospheres.... these are all house edges that lack precision measurement.

Well, no, these only affect volume. The scales are still right where they belong.

I'm going to say on wins and losses. I sort of imagine it as the casino playing a fair game, but on all bets, taking a fee. Since the casino is taking those risks, their bankroll isn't likely to exhibit a steady rise, but if they have any idea what they're doing, it will rise quickly enough to bankroll the "gamble."
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.
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 26078
January 11th, 2014 at 8:24:44 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I'd have far more respect if... .

nothing. Maybe that's why they don't bother.
The only people they have to convince is
the casino, they're the only ones paying.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 26078
January 11th, 2014 at 8:36:05 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

but it affects the amount of money that changes hands, every single time.

No, it doesn't. The house says they'll pay me even
money if I bet red or black. If I bet \$1000 on red and win
and leave, the HE did not effect that bet. It only
manifests itself in the long term. This is why casinos
hate hit and run players. Do you think the pit winks
and high fives each other after I go, congratulating
themselves on having the edge working for them
on that bet? I don't think so.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal