Could casinos exist if we we not pattern-seeking primates?

Thak lived 100,000 years ago. He was a member of a hunter-gatherer tribe on the African veldt.

Thak liked to hunt antelope. They would never let him get close enough to use his bow or spear, however. He did note that they tended to cluster together tightly when they sensed danger, though, so Thak decided to use that to his advantage. He searched and searched until he found a rock that was pointed on one end, and was light enough for him to throw a good distance, yet heavy enough to do some damage. He hefted this rock and crept through the grass toward the antelope herd. When he was close enough, he counted to two (his people hadn't yet mastered the concept of "three") and heaved the rock into the midst of the herd. It thudded harmlessly to earth, however, and the herd scattered.

Thak was an empirical scientist. He came back the next day with another stone. But this time, before counting to two and throwing the rock, he uttered a fervent prayer to Doop-Ra, the moon goddess. Success! His rock brained a fine robust antelope, and Thak and his clan ate well that night.

Thak was a pioneer of the scientific method. The next day, he came back with another rock, and this time, did NOT utter the prayer to Doop-Ra. He heaved the rock into the midst of the herd, and the rock thudded to the ground. The herd scattered, and Thak's clan ate leftovers that night. (And prehistoric leftovers were pretty bad.)

So Thak came back a fourth time with yet another rock. This time, he made sure to utter the prayer. Success! He felled another antelope. Thak brought home another feast for his tribe, and was thus entitled to mate with all of the available females. He was on to something!

For the next 95,000 years. Thak's ancestors hunted antelope on the veldt, always being sure to pray to Doop-Ra just before hurling their rocks or spears, or shooting their bows. If a hunter missed his prey, it was because he hadn't uttered the prayer, or hadn't uttered it correctly. And if he hit his target, the people gave thanks to Doop-Ra, for it was only with her favor, garnered by the hunter's prayer, that he was able to make the kill.

After that, Thak's people built cities and invented the bazooka and the grenade launcher, and they set up a chain of Antelope Kings in their cities, so there was no more need to hunt. But Thak's descendants (the "Thakians") never forgot that lesson learned so long ago on the veldt: that random outcomes could be influenced, if you only knew how. That is why, when the neighboring Ooga Booga tribe built a casino on the border of Thakland, the Thakians all rushed to play roulette, clutching their Doop-Ra prayer books--they had a system. And that, in turn, is why the entire Thakian nation is now utterly destitute, and living on food stamps.

The question is, do casinos survive because most people think like Thak did?

Quote: Tversky and Kahneman

"A cab was involved in a hit and run accident at night. Two cab companies, the Green and the Blue, operate in the city.
85% of the cabs in the city are Green and 15% are Blue. A witness identified the cab as Blue.
The court tested the reliability of the witness under the same circumstances that existed on the night of the accident and
concluded that the witness correctly identified each one of the two colors 80% of the time and failed 20% of the time.

What is the probability that the cab involved in the accident was Blue rather than Green
knowing that this witness identified it as Blue?"

The theory of the representative heuristic is that most people will guess a probability larger than the correct probability.
Make a guess first, then try to calculate the true probability.

What a dumb thread. Have you nothing better to do than come up with time-killing rambles that do absolutely nothing for your desire to be impressive?

Quote: JerryLogan

What a dumb thread. Have you nothing better to do than come up with time-killing rambles that do absolutely nothing for your desire to be impressive?

if it annoyed an asshole like you, then it was time well spent.

Quote: pacomartin

The theory of the representative heuristic is that most people will guess a probability larger than the correct probability.
Make a guess first, then try to calculate the true probability.

The cab was Green but the witness wrongly identified it as Blue: (.85)(.20), or 17 percent.

The cab was Blue and the witness identified it corrrectly: (.15)(.80), or 12 percent.

The probabilities are additive, so the chance that the witness was correct is 100-(12+17), or 71 percent.

Quote: mkl654321

The question is, do casinos survive because most people think like Thak did?

I think that thinking accounts for about 2/3 of casino profits. The other 1/3 is from players who know the odds are against them, but are willing to play anyway for the entertainment value.

I would also add that all religions survive because of most people think like Thak did.

About the cabs:

Blue = 41.38%
Green = 58.62%

Quote: mkl654321

if it annoyed an asshole like you, then it was time well spent.

Speaking of being annoyed, please pull out your arsenal of dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias and carefully look up what it is that drives bored old guys like you into using vulgarity!

Quote: Wizard

About the cabs:

Blue = 41.38%
Green = 58.62%

What was wrong with my calculation? I could only see two possibilities: correct identification of a Blue cab, and false positive (Green identified as Blue). What did I miss?

Quote: mkl654321

What was wrong with my calculation? I could only see two possibilities: correct identification of a Blue cab, and false positive (Green identified as Blue). What did I miss?

You had everything right until the last line:

p(blue, given that the witness said blue) = .12/(.12 + .17) = 41.3793%

Quote: Doc

You had everything right until the last line:

p(blue, given that the witness said blue) = .12/(.12 + .17) = 41.3793%

Ah! Yes, indeed. Thank you.

Quote: Doc

You had everything right until the last line:

p(blue, given that the witness said blue) = .12/(.12 + .17) = 41.3793%

I don't think any line was right. Let's look at the second.

"The cab was Blue and the witness identified it corrrectly: (.15)(.80), or 12 percent."

It was given that the witness said the cab was blue. So if it was blue, then there was a 100% chance the witness was right. I think it would be easier to start all over the with applicable Bayesian formula:

Probability (A given B) = Probability(A and B)/Probability(B).

This this case probability (cab was blue and witness said blue)/probability (witness said blue).

Quote: JerryLogan

Speaking of being annoyed, please pull out your arsenal of dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias and carefully look up what it is that drives bored old guys like you into using vulgarity!

I went to a different source--a college textbook on the psychology of human behavior.

Q: What is the most likely reason Person A will call Person B an asshole?
A: The most likely reason is that Person B is, in fact, an asshole.

Q: What is the most likely reason that Person A will use a vulgarity in his description of Person B?
A: The most likely reason is that Person B is, himself, a walking, breathing vulgarity.

Sorry, Jerry, but you appear to be Person B here.

Quote: Wizard

"The cab was Blue and the witness identified it corrrectly: (.15)(.80), or 12 percent."

It was given that the witness said the cab was blue. So if it was blue, then there was a 100% chance the witness was right.).

Yes, but the witness identifying it as Blue was a sum of correct identifications, and misidentifications. So in a random set of probabilities, the cab would have been Blue 15% of the time, and the witness would have identified it as Blue 80% of those times. The cab would have been Green 85% of the time, and the witness would have misidentified it as Blue 20% of those times. So the witness' identification was more likely to have been a false positive than correct, which is what I find interestiing about this problem.

All that said, I don't see that the above statement was, in fact, incorrect. Wasn't there a 15% chance that the cab was blue, and an 80% chance that the witness identified it correctly? So wouldn't the condition, (Blue cab) AND (correct identification) happen 12% of the time?

Quote: Wizard

I don't think any line was right. Let's look at the second.

"The cab was Blue and the witness identified it corrrectly: (.15)(.80), or 12 percent."

It was given that the witness said the cab was blue. So if it was blue, then there was a 100% chance the witness was right. I think it would be easier to start all over the with applicable Bayesian formula:

Probability (A given B) = Probability(A and B)/Probability(B).

This this case probability (cab was blue and witness said blue)/probability (witness said blue).

I didn't take the neat route of the statistician. I guess I took all of the detours, and I think MKL may have done something similar. Using terminology similar to his, there start out as four possibilities:

1. P(there was a Blue cab correctly called Blue) = P(Blue)*P(correct) = .15*.8 = .12
2. P(there was a Green cab incorrectly called Blue) = P(Green)*P(incorrect) = .85*.2 = .17
3. P(there was a Blue cab incorrectly called Green) = P(Blue)*P(incorrect) = .15*.2 = .03
4. P(there was a Green cab correctly called Green) = P(Green)*P(correct) = .85*.8 = .68

Once we know that the witness said "Blue", the 3rd and 4th lines become irrelevant, and the probability of the cab actually being blue is given from the first two lines: P(Blue, given witness said Blue) = .12/(.12+.17). Which is the non-statistician's way of imitating Bayes.

I think that MKL just described the first two lines but made the fatal mistake in his final line. I think the difference between this interpretation and yours, Wizard, is that you started with the witness's statement, while the above analysis presents all possibilities and then takes the witness's statement into account.

I know about 20 people who are part time players, they only gamble occasionally. Every one of them does it not because they think they can alter random outcomes, but because they think the casino offers a fair game and they might get lucky. They all play slots, know nothing about how they work, and could care less. Most people gamble mindlessly, you give them way too much credit.

Quote: Wizard

About the cabs:
Blue = 41.38%
Green = 58.62%

Most people who are incapable of doing the Bayesian calculation will say something over 50%, and virtually no one said 40% or less.
They are incapable of guestimating the importance of the ratio of blue cabs to green cabs.

Quote: pacomartin

Most people who are incapable of doing the Bayesian calculation will say something over 50%, and virtually no one said 40% or less.
They are incapable of guestimating the importance of the ratio of blue cabs to green cabs.

I think that Neanderthal, Thak, long-hauled me in the cab ride.

Incantations to the Gods of Dice don't seem to work much and are intellectually repugnant to some, but they don't hurt and if someone in a casino believes in their being effective, that's fine. As long as you don't delay the game too much, you may utter any nonsensical phrase you want before rolling the dice. You can even believe that your actions affect the outcome of the roll. You are there to have fun if that term embraces a belief in your having control over the outcome due to your incantations, that is okay. People don't always want to admit they are without either control over or even influence upon the outcome of an event.

Quote: mkl654321

The question is, do casinos survive because most people think like Thak did?

Casinos survive because the vast majority of people who play the games don't know how the games work, what their odds of winning are, and they don't want to know because it would ruin it for them. They want to believe in a fantasy. Its really not anymore complicated than that. People like my brother in law think they will eventually get ahead playing Caribbean Stud and nothing you say will convince him otherwise. They want to be ignorant, they want to believe that luck will prevail, otherwise its no fun. The same person who will take 2 weeks to investigate buying a new TV so he can get the best deal, will blow the same amount of money on a casino game he knows nothing about, trusting to luck alone. This is why casinos thrive, the willing ignorance of the players.

If we define

Pc=80% (probability that the witness is correct)
Pb=15% (probability that the cab is blue)

Probability that cab is blue given that the witness said it was blue is (Pc*Pb)/[(Pc*Pb)+(1-Pc)*(1-Pb)]

If you look at the equation, you can see that Pb and Pc are of equal importance.
However, the average person thinks that the most important probability is Pc
(probability that the witness is correct). They will overestimate the overall probability based on the large Pc.

If you stretch the problem so that the witness is correct 99% of the time, but only 1% of the cabs are blue,
then the overall probability that cab is blue given that the witness said it was blue is still only 50%.

Quote: pacomartin

Most people who are incapable of doing the Bayesian calculation will say something over 50%, and virtually no one said 40% or less.
They are incapable of guestimating the importance of the ratio of blue cabs to green cabs.

Along a related theme of intuition not being reliable:

I used to teach in a business curriculum where courses presented students with problems involving some complex decisions. The students often made these decisions based on their "feelings" about what seemed best. I referred to this as flying by the seat of one's pants and advised the students to improve their decisions by performing a mathematical analysis first.

One of the examples I often used at the beginning of a course involved the old challenge of folding a piece of paper double then quadruple, etc. The original challenge when we were kids was whether you could double the paper ten times. To someone who had never tried, it seemed reasonable, but it turned out to be impossible due to the increasing thickness and stiffness of the paper and the reducing area. We used to try this with newspaper or something even thinner, but we always failed. Most of my students had seen this challenge when they were kids.

In class, I extended upon this problem. I asked the students to assume that it was actually possible to double the paper over as many times as you wanted, with each layer perfectly flat against the next. I then asked them to consider a piece of paper that had been doubled a hundred times. I asked them to make a rough estimate of how thick the folded paper would be. I had students raise their hands when I named the range that included their estimate: less than an inch (would fit in an envelope), less than six inches (fit in a shoebox), less than a foot (fit in a foot locker), six feet, twenty feet, 100 feet, etc. Although I offered much higher limits, I don't think any student ever estimated anything greater than 100 ft. of thickness.

I then told them that, depending on the thickness of one layer of paper, I thought the answer should be in the range of 5 to 15, and (for amusement) asked them to guess what my units were.

To resolve the issue, I then asked them to calculate the thickness, based on a 500-sheet ream of paper being on the order of two inches thick. The students were all able to perform the calculation easily, and they were either generally surprised or in total disbelief as to the real answer. I explained that no one is familiar with a sheet of paper that has been doubled a hundred times, so our intuition can be in error to the extreme. I suggested that if they were faced with a business situation in an area for which they had not previously had relevant experience, they might make extreme errors in their "it feels about right" decisions. A simple calculation might keep them from screwing up royally. The rest of the course, we focused on quantitative analysis techniques that could help in making better business decisions.

For anyone too lazy to perform the calculation yourself, based on a 2-inch-thick ream, I calculate the 100-fold sheet as having a thickness of 13.634. The units? Billions of light years.

Quote: Doc

For anyone too lazy to perform the calculation yourself, based on a 2-inch-thick ream, I calculate the 100-fold sheet as having a thickness of 13.634. The units? Billions of light years.

Too lazy? Au contraire. I performed the calculation in less than a second, and my answer was, "a really f***in' big distance", and then, "about seventeen times as far as the Andromeda galaxy".

It's just another illustration of the fact that certain mathematical concepts are counterintuitive. The illustration I kept hearing in school was the wise man who performed a valuable service for the king, and when asked what reward he wanted, took out a chessboard, and then said he wanted one grain of wheat on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so forth. The king soon realized that if the exercise was carried out to its conclusion, the chessboard would have an amount of wheat equal to one percent of the U.S. national debt in dollars. So, he had the wise man beheaded. The moral of this story: you may be a math whiz, but don't be a smartass about it :)

Quote: mkl654321

Too lazy? Au contraire. I performed the calculation in less than a second, and my answer was...

Just curious, did you make an off-the-top-of-the-head estimate before doing the calculation?

I once mentioned this little problem to a professor of industrial engineering who specialized in operations research. He gasped at the concept and said the paper might be as thick as the distance to the moon. I told him the calculated answer and said he was perhaps the only person I had ever presented the problem to who immediately recognized the outlandish enormousness of the issue. Instead, he felt dismayed that his "distance to the moon" guess was so outrageously small.

Quote: mkl654321

It's just another illustration of the fact that certain mathematical concepts are counterintuitive. The illustration I kept hearing in school was the wise man who performed a valuable service for the king, and when asked what reward he wanted, took out a chessboard, and then said he wanted one grain of wheat on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so forth. The king soon realized that if the exercise was carried out to its conclusion, the chessboard would have an amount of wheat equal to one percent of the U.S. national debt in dollars. So, he had the wise man beheaded. The moral of this story: you may be a math whiz, but don't be a smartass about it :)

He should have known the Martigale never pays off !

EDIT - Note this post is for comedy effect only, and is no way an attempt to hijack this thread to discuss the merits of systems or any other crap that seems to stir the pot up around here. So just laugh.

Quote: Wizard

I think that thinking accounts for about 2/3 of casino profits. The other 1/3 is from players who know the odds are against them, but are willing to play anyway for the entertainment value.

I would put it higher than that. Most people don't even know the odds of the game, or they think it's an even game. I would say 80-90%. The remainder have some vague idea that the "odds are against you," but aren't really sure how or by how much. I'd say out of the hundreds and hundreds of people I've encountered in the casino, I can count on one hand the people who were playing the best strategy for the game. That is: basic strategy for BJ, minimum pass/come + odds for craps, and correct video poker strat. Three of those people were people I met through the WoV message board. Not including the Wizard. Some people hew to a modified basic-strategy for BJ, but then blow their top when they lose X hands in a row. I think one sign of a discplined gambler is keeping a fairly even level of emotion throughout. (Although when I lost 16.5 units in one hour playing BJ this weekend, I was close to blowing my top, too!)

BTW, mkl654321, I watched The Invention of Lying this weekend and I can see why you liked it. It also has a great casino scene.

Quote: mkl654321

The question is, do casinos survive because most people think like Thak did?

Of course. Had Thak and his people not had their pattern-matching instincts, they would have failed as a species and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instinctive pattern-matching and the reactions that go along with it are necessary survival traits of humanity. If we had to consciously analyze every situation and respond appropriately on a case-by-case basis, we would have been killed off a long, long time ago by other animals that didn't.

Quote: mkl654321

I went to a different source--a college textbook on the psychology of human behavior.

Q: What is the most likely reason Person A will call Person B an asshole?
A: The most likely reason is that Person B is, in fact, an asshole.

Q: What is the most likely reason that Person A will use a vulgarity in his description of Person B?
A: The most likely reason is that Person B is, himself, a walking, breathing vulgarity.

Sorry, Jerry, but you appear to be Person B here.

Whoops! I meant "lonely old man" who curses when rattled.

Quote: JerryLogan

Whoops! I meant "lonely old man" who curses when rattled.

Personally, I'm still waiting for the thread in which -- by some quirk -- EvenBob, mkl654321, and JerryLogan actually hold fast to exactly the same opinion and have to find some way to argue offensively with each other about it. Two vs. one seems to be as close as we have come so far, and that level of agreement has been rare.

Quote: Doc

Personally, I'm still waiting for the thread in which -- by some quirk -- EvenBob, mkl654321, and JerryLogan actually hold fast to exactly the same opinion and have to find some way to argue offensively with each other about it. Two vs. one seems to be as close as we have come so far, and that level of agreement has been rare.

I have issued instructions to several friends that if they found me agreeing with both EvenBob and JerryLogan on anything but the most trivial issues, they should kill me instantly.

My disagreements with JerryLogan have been more based on his illogic; those with EvenBob have been more based on his mean-spirited ideology. Those are two things I greatly oppose in general, so I have been predisposed to react to them more than I probably should have. In the future, I will resist the urge to unblock either one of them; which in EvenBob's case, is regrettable because he often does have something worthwhile to say. I apologize to you and other posters who may have been offended by my reactions and language in responding to those two. It accomplishes nothing to debate with either one, and the proper reaction to them is to ignore them.

We now return you to civilized discussion among civilized beings.

Casinos win because they have both math and psychology on their side. The psychology they use to separate the player from their money has very little to do with what you described

Quote: TomG

Casinos win because they have both math and psychology on their side. The psychology they use to separate the player from their money has very little to do with what you described

I disagree. Look at most roulette and baccarat tables and there will be a large LED board showing the results of the last couple dozen spins or deals. The casinos know damn well this is useless information, but they post it prominently to bait the pattern-seeking animal. Let's say that the tally board for the roulette wheel shows eleven reds in a row. Wouldn't there be quite a few people who, seeing that, would be strongly inclined to make a sharp left turn and pull a hundo out of their pockets to bet on red (and probably, an equal number who, seeing those exact same recent results, would bet on black)?

I think you underestimate the ability of the casinos to identify, target, and exploit human weaknesses and human psychology. I've said before that a casino is the best laboratory for applied psychology in the world.

Quote: mkl654321

I have issued instructions to several friends that if they found me agreeing with both EvenBob and JerryLogan on anything but the most trivial issues, they should kill me instantly.

My disagreements with JerryLogan have been more based on his illogic; those with EvenBob have been more based on his mean-spirited ideology. Those are two things I greatly oppose in general, so I have been predisposed to react to them more than I probably should have. In the future, I will resist the urge to unblock either one of them; which in EvenBob's case, is regrettable because he often does have something worthwhile to say. I apologize to you and other posters who may have been offended by my reactions and language in responding to those two. It accomplishes nothing to debate with either one, and the proper reaction to them is to ignore them.

We now return you to civilized discussion among civilized beings.

You're such a weird old man....and you know it. You want to believe people care about and are impressed by your meaningless rambles, and if there's ever been anyone who takes 10 times the required words to put half a sentence together, it's you.

Quote: mkl654321

I disagree. Look at most roulette and baccarat tables and there will be a large LED board showing the results of the last couple dozen spins or deals. The casinos know damn well this is useless information, but they post it prominently to bait the pattern-seeking animal. Let's say that the tally board for the roulette wheel shows eleven reds in a row. Wouldn't there be quite a few people who, seeing that, would be strongly inclined to make a sharp left turn and pull a hundo out of their pockets to bet on red (and probably, an equal number who, seeing those exact same recent results, would bet on black)?

Indeed, one vendor of these LED display cites a 20% increase in drop when a display is first installed on a table. Drop goes up for precisely those reasons.
http://www.gripsusa.com/Displays/Roulette_LED.html

Quote: mkl654321

the roulette wheel shows eleven reds in a row. Wouldn't there be quite a few people who, seeing that, would be strongly inclined to make a sharp left turn and pull a hundo out of their pockets to bet on red (and probably, an equal number who, seeing those exact same recent results, would bet on black)?

As someone who plays nothing but roulette, and has for years, 95%+ of the players in that situation will always bet black. 11 reds in a row on a marquee that holds 12-15 numbers looks overwhelming and they all feel that a black number is long overdue. Classic gamblers fallacy.

Absolute true story. 5 years ago I was in the MGM in Vegas in the afternoon. There were 13 blacks in a row on the marquee, and here comes this guy in his 30's running up carrying 2 suitcases. He was checking in and had seen 13 blacks and plopped down $100 on red. Lost. Bet $200. Lost. $400, lost. $800, lost. He only had $3000 to begin with, and couldn't double again, so he bet the $1500 he had left and lost. He looked like a balloon somebody had let the air out of. He said the 3 grand was his whole BR for the weekend & he'd blown it before he even checked in. I told him that the odds of black or red coming up at any time are exactly the same and if he'd bet with the trend instead of against it, he could only lose once and never more than once on that sequence. He looked at me like I had a wad of dogshit stuck to my shoe. I never learn.

Quote: mkl654321

I think you underestimate the ability of the casinos to identify, target, and exploit human weaknesses and human psychology. I've said before that a casino is the best laboratory for applied psychology in the world.

To think that if they lost but one of their exploitation tactics the entire casino industry would fail is hugely underestimating how many psychological weapons they use. You have to use chips instead of cash ... they give you these things called "points" and "comps" ... they use colors and sounds and revealing clothing ... and then there is the alcohol. . .

The roulette scorecard is merely one among hundreds

Quote: EvenBob

As someone who plays nothing but roulette, and has for years, 95%+ of the players in that situation will always bet black. 11 reds in a row on a marquee that holds 12-15 numbers looks overwhelming and they all feel that a black number is long overdue. Classic gamblers fallacy.

Of course the odds are still 50/50 (not counting the zeros). However, in my very limited time playing baccarat, I've noticed that players in that game tend to be with streaks. So if they saw 15 wins on Player in a row, I think everybody would be betting on Player. This is usuful information to know if you ever find yourself in a baccarat tournament.

Quote: Wizard

Of course the odds are still 50/50 (not counting the zeros). However, in my very limited time playing baccarat, I've noticed that players in that game tend to be with streaks. So if they saw 15 wins on Player in a row, I think everybody would be betting on Player. This is usuful information to know if you ever find yourself in a baccarat tournament.

Bac punters are notorious trend players, they love to follow the dominant side. In roulette, there are very few people who play the even chances, everybody plays the inside numbers. So when they see a red trend, they tend to bet against it because it seems to make sense to them.

Quote: EvenBob

Bac punters are notorious trend players, they love to follow the dominant side. In roulette, there are very few people who play the even chances, everybody plays the inside numbers. So when they see a red trend, they tend to bet against it because it seems to make sense to them.

I find that interesting. The difference I don't think is because of the game, but because of the players. If a coin were flipped 10 times in a row, and it was tails each time, I think a white gambler would bet on heads the next flip, and an Asian on tails.

Again, this may seem trivial, but knowing this stuff DOES help in tournaments, where your enemy is not the dealer, but the other players.

Watch a crowded table of roulette players. In an hour you'll be lucky to see 2 bets on one of the even chances. Even though in the long run all bets in roulette pay the same, all most people see are the big 35/1 payouts on the inside numbers. In bac, there is only an even money bet, so they are very experencied with it. I don't count the tie, because no serious player ever bets it. (yes MKL, I know its not really even money because of the commission, F off)

Come over here. Plenty of lower limit players play the outsides as a way to make their bankroll stretch a bit.

Quote: Croupier

Come over here. Plenty of lower limit players play the outsides as a way to make their bankroll stretch a bit.

Thats because roulette is the favorite game in EU. In the States its the least favorite.

Quote: Croupier

Come over here. Plenty of lower limit players play the outsides as a way to make their bankroll stretch a bit.

AS Bob says, it's hardly a dominant game in the US. I wonder if that's because of the double-0 wheel or something else?

Quote: thecesspit

AS Bob says, it's hardly a dominant game in the US. I wonder if that's because of the double-0 wheel or something else?

Why when the 00 gices you an extra way to win?? (joke). It might be because you would be hard pressed to find a craps table here. The most popular games are blackjack and roulette, and everything else just seems to have its little niche. For example the casino I work in offers 3 card poker, one in Chinatown offers PaiGow poker and another larger casino offers a whole slew of carnival games

Quote: thecesspit

AS Bob says, it's hardly a dominant game in the US. I wonder if that's because of the double-0 wheel or something else?

I remember reading in a blackjack book (I think it was Revere's "Playing Blackjack as a Business"): "Greed has killed roulette in Nevada." He was, of course, referring to the double zero. I think that's part of of it; roulette is a kind of mindless, dumb game where you can leave your brain in the glove compartment. It seems to me that the more popular casino games include a decision by the player (blackjack, video poker) or there are a wide range and/or variety of bets and payoffs (craps, poker-based carny games). Slots appeal because of visuals, the chance of a big payoff, and a wide variety of outcomes. So roulette has failed in the US partly because of the gigantic house edge on double-zero wheels, and partly because it's about as interesting as ironing a t-shirt, especially after you've played it for five or ten minutes.