On cnn now

Watching Morgan sperlock on gambling - on cnn right now - or ten o'clock local time


Fact checking


Alresdy off - listed bj house edge as 2 percent
Also listed house edge in craps as 1.4 percent - kind of misleading without any other info

And giant wtf lists poker as having a 3.4 percent house edge ??? What what what?????

And roulette 5.3 percent house edge

'What better place to start than roulette'. Lol. I don't think you'll learn too much from this.

Ugh - playing 1-2 limit and they are showing its a 160 dollar pot- NOT EVEN CLOSE

Two out of five people earning less than 25k think the lotto/gambling is the way to wealth? I forget his exact words, but it was shocking. At least he touched on this... mentioning the HE of scratchers would have really helped with the "predatory gambling" argument.

Gonna go play some firebet craps and $100 WoF...

Quote: Wizardofnothing

... And roulette 5.3 percent house edge

At least they got that one right.

Double zero house edge is 5.263158%. I would have rounded it to 5.26%, but 5.3% isn't too far off.

Yea the poker one was the worst

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Yea the poker one was the worst

I thought the worst was giving the appearance that with only a thousand bucks you could be considered a high roller at the Palms getting comped their villa.

Yea that may have topped it but I think it's was inferred it was just given because of the filming

Super Size me was BS, and so are most of his docu-series.

"Watch as I eat 8000 calories a day and become unhealthy!"

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Alresdy off - listed bj house edge as 2 percent
Also listed house edge in craps as 1.4 percent - kind of misleading without any other info

And giant wtf lists poker as having a 3.4 percent house edge ??? What what what?????

And roulette 5.3 percent house edge

Those numbers are probably accurate as an average across all players. You're thinking of optimal play but not everyone knows those strategies. The aggregate casino hold on VP is easily greater than 3% for a place like the Vegas Strip. I know directly from a Reno casino GM that their holds are about 1.5-2% more than the optimal hold listed on the par sheet, so a 9/6 JoB game has an effective hold of about 2-2.5% (in Reno). In Vegas, on average your players are worse and the games tighter. Given that, 3.4% sounds conservative.

The same logic applies to blackjack. I'd be surprised if the Strip average edge on BJ, at least for the lower-rent 6:5 games, isn't closer to 3% given the way many tourists play. The casino can't track edge the way it can with VP, though.

It's interesting to look at BJ holds throughout the state, and how different even the Strip numbers are by casino size. The only truly good BJ games are high dollar, and that's where the good players play, so the holds for big Strip casinos are in the 11-12% range. Go lower, to the sub-36M casinos, and it shoots up to 18%. In Wendover it's 20%. Ouch.

LINK?

Quote: MathExtremist

It's interesting to look at BJ holds throughout the state, and how different even the Strip numbers are by casino size. The only truly good BJ games are high dollar, and that's where the good players play, so the holds for big Strip casinos are in the 11-12% range. Go lower, to the sub-36M casinos, and it shoots up to 18%. In Wendover it's 20%. Ouch.

definition of '36M casinos'?

The show was clearly intended for the average gambler and not the people who come here. But there were still inconsistencies.

While the hold is probably correct as an aggregate in VP, the show simply says poker and then shows Morgan trying to make money at live poker. Again, it's misleading, although, I got the impression no one working on that show knew enough about the subject to get it right.

They attacked it from the house always wins viewpoint. The producers probably don't even know about AP'ing.

Yes math, the 3.4 wasn't video poker it was live poker

It is always amazing when you see a TV documentary on something you actually know a lot about, how inaccurate or at least misleading it is.

It just reminds you that when you see one on something you don't know much about (chicken industry, how lobbyists work, dangers of nail salons, eg..) that those are often inaccurate as well. The person presenting the info often has an agenda and won't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Quote: odiousgambit

definition of '36M casinos'?

Casinos making more (or in this case less) than $36M in gaming revenue. The GCB publishes statistics that are grouped by revenue ranges, but not individual casinos. That means you or I can't look at the revenue reports and know exactly how a specific casino is doing, but a casino operator can understand how their competition stacks up.

http://gaming.nv.gov/index.aspx?page=149

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Yes math, the 3.4 wasn't video poker it was live poker

Ok, I totally misread that. I don't know where they get an edge at all for live poker, a rake in a PvP game isn't an edge. And I don't know what the assumptions would be in order to get to 3.4% either -- I haven't played live poker in a while but I thought rakes were still on the order of 10% ($1 for every $10) capped after some amount like $50 or $80. That doesn't turn into 3.4%-ish unless you assume an average pot that's 3x the rake cutoff, but I don't have any statistics on average pot sizes...

Interested in watching this "for fun" at some point. Is the name of the actual show "Inside Man" or something along those lines?

Quote: Romes

Interested in watching this "for fun" at some point. Is the name of the actual show "Inside Man" or something along those lines?

Don't lie Romes. You are going to be sitting there pen and paper in hand taking diligent notes... Can I get a copy of those notes :P

Yes it's probably on demand it was on cnn. Season premiere episode

Quote: PokerGrinder

Don't lie Romes. You are going to be sitting there pen and paper in hand taking diligent notes... Can I get a copy of those notes :P

But most of what they say will probably go over my head =(... lol

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Yes it's probably on demand it was on cnn. Season premiere episode

Okay, thanks.

Quote: SOOPOO

It just reminds you that when you see one on something you don't know much about (chicken industry, how lobbyists work, dangers of nail salons, eg..) that those are often inaccurate as well. The person presenting the info often has an agenda and won't let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Clinton News Network comes to mind!

Quote: MathExtremist

Ok, I totally misread that. I don't know where they get an edge at all for live poker, a rake in a PvP game isn't an edge. And I don't know what the assumptions would be in order to get to 3.4% either -- I haven't played live poker in a while but I thought rakes were still on the order of 10% ($1 for every $10) capped after some amount like $50 or $80. That doesn't turn into 3.4%-ish unless you assume an average pot that's 3x the rake cutoff, but I don't have any statistics on average pot sizes...

Your recollection/thought is about right. In Nevada poker house rake in cash games can't ever exceed 10% of current pot size, with very detailed procedures for exactly how and when each chip raked for the house is to be taken, displayed, and dropped into the house rake box. That 10% max Nevada Gaming requirement (which I think may also be statutory) is only about cash games; tournaments are a very different matter.

While the maximum rate of 10% is a requirement, the existence and amount of a cap on the total is at the discretion of the house. Every place I'm aware of does choose to cap the total rake per pot, and four dollars is by far the most common cap among poker rooms in Nevada, while Caesars properties are an outllier capping it at five. Some rooms (mostly limited to just a few of the higher end and biggest and most successful rooms such as Venetian) choose to take it at a slower rate than the 10% maximum that's allowed at any time, but one chip taken with each ten in the pot until four (or five) is by far the most common. About as you described.

So obviously, the denominator (the size of the final pot) is essential to knowing the real effective rake percentage, and you're not alone in not having stats on average pot sizes. Management of poker rooms doesn't either, and there is no mechanism for gathering that information in live casino poker. So they are making assumptions or guesses about that question of pot size, which will of course vary enormously by stakes, structure, and game type, with say 1/2 NLHE, 5/10 NLHE, 4/8 LHE, 2-6 spread limit, and say pot limit Omaha each having wildly different average pot sizes. Like ten or twenty times the size from one to another just among those, and without even getting into higher stakes where there may be no rake of the pot but a 'time-charge' is taken.

Cliff Notes: They have no way of knowing, so the number is made up, and reality will be so enormously different from one specific type of live poker game to another that cooking up such a general number for "poker" overall without any distinctions will be an inherently ridiculous enterprise.

>>> listed bj house edge as 2 percent
For a skilled sober player that is about right; for a ploppy who drinks and tips, it sure ain't.

>>>>Also listed house edge in craps as 1.4 percent - kind of misleading without any other info
1.414 is too precise for CNN.... and they ain't gonna mention Big Red.

And giant wtf lists poker as having a 3.4 percent house edge ??? What what what?????
Video Poker perhaps?

>>>>And roulette 5.3 percent house edge
Its 5.26 so 5.3 ain't so bad.... no one who watches CNN has the attention span to deal with American Wheels, European Wheels or European Rules.

Big deal.

Quote: Romes

Interested in watching this "for fun" at some point. Is the name of the actual show "Inside Man" or something along those lines?

It's Morgan Spurlock: Inside Man. I've got the dvr set to record all episodes and the next one is Fri 6/10 at 10 PM eastern time.

I am too confident the show blows to actually watch just any episode. I'll just keep hitting the 'skip' button most of the time. Next one is about the future of space exploration, I might fast-forward through it LOL.

He did one on bitcoin, I thought that one was good.

I'm a bit skeptical of Supersize Me. Many years ago I ate a big mac or quarter pounder, fries and a drink 2 times a day for at least a month. It was dumb I know. I just happened to be in a location and situation where it was convenient. It did seem to be addicting. I guess different food affects everyone differently.

My GF has eaten 1 hamburger in 10+ years and that was only because she didn't want to offend my father wanted to go to In-N-Out.

Quote: AxelWolf

He did one on bitcoin, I thought that one was good.

I'm a bit skeptical of Supersize Me. Many years ago I ate a big mac or quarter pounder, fries and a drink 2 times a day for at least a month. It was dumb I know. I just happened to be in a location and situation where it was convenient. It did seem to be addicting. I guess different food affects everyone differently.

My GF has eaten 1 hamburger in 10+ years and that was only because she didn't want to offend my father wanted to go to In-N-Out.

Yeah, I read somewhere that he gained so much weight and bad cholesterol level because he ate 8000 calories a day. Had he eaten 8000 calories of any food, the same result would most likely have happened.

The average person does not supersize all three meals breakfast lunch and dinner throughout the day. Should be noted he was also forcing himself to eat when his body was telling him he was full for the film -- again something the average person doesn't and shouldn't do.

Quote: AxelWolf

My GF has eaten 1 hamburger in 10+ years and that was only because she didn't want to offend my father wanted to go to In-N-Out.

Wow. Is she just a healthy eater or does she not like hamburgers? I am not a big fan of burgers but I will still eat a few a year. In my case it has nothing to do with health, in fact I would guess I eat the most unhealthy diet of anyone on this site.

I had a lot of talks with the producers to play the role of the gambling expert on this show. However, I was out of town the week Morgan was here so it just didn't work out. I thought Olaf did a good job and I would have said more or less the same things.

When the producers talked to me about doing the show they said that Morgan would be attempting to be a professional gambler for a week. I tried to explain many times that it isn't like being a trash man for a week but a skill that takes months or years to learn.

While I didn't find anything on the show blatantly incorrect, which is almost always the case with gambling advice shows, I felt it also didn't have a clear goal, as Morgan usually has on the Inside Man. For example, being a garbage man for a week or living on a Bitcoin for a week. Yes, they stated he had a goal of doubling a $1,000 bankroll, but who cares? He clearly didn't take to heart any of Olaf's advice but rather threw his money away on such things as lottery tickets and slots. In short, I don't think the viewer learned anything useful about how to improve his odds in the casino.

Finally, what was the point of him getting a high roller suite at the Palms? They certainly aren't going to give that kind of comp to somebody with a $1,000 bankroll.

Maybe it is because I know the topic so well, but I found this to be the worst Inside Man episode I've seen, and I've seen several of them. Normally a good show but that one gets a thumbs down from me.

Does Mr. Spurlock do his own research and writing, or is he an "actor" merely playing a part?