Pick only ONE casino game?
Ken
I do have a favorite game, and I play it whenever I can. I didn't pick it up until about seven years ago, and it wasn't my favorite until later than that. I sometimes go back and play one of my old favorites. For the current year-to-date, I am ahead moneywise at my current favorite game at behind at my old favorite, but that is not how my favorite is established.
Quote: DocNah. Just play whatever game you like. If your likes change from day to day, why not change your game? It's not as if most of us are really going to be making a bunch of money in a casino.
I do have a favorite game, and I play it whenever I can. I didn't pick it up until about seven years ago, and it wasn't my favorite until later than that. I sometimes go back and play one of my old favorites. For the current year-to-date, I am ahead moneywise at my current favorite game at behind at my old favorite, but that is not how my favorite is established.
The answer to that would depend on how rewarding additional time spent playing that one game would be--the concept of marginal utility. If you were playing roulette, it would be silly to devote all your time to it to the exclusion of all else, because you can't get "better" at roulette (or worse, for that matter) no matter how much time you spend at it. The same goes for craps (past the point where you learn what the best bets are) and other negative expectation games. However, a singleminded devotion to blackjack might pay increasing dividends. The same could be true of sports betting, or video poker.
The ability to play many different casino games well not only increases your enjoyment, but also may open up profit-making opportunities that are tied to one particular game, such as a free entry into a blackjack or pai gow poker tournament.
Quote: DocI think my viewpoint on this topic is biased by the fact that I do not go to a casino for the express purpose of making money. I play only negative-expectation games, and I understand that it is only reasonable to expect to lose money overall. The fact that I happen to be ahead at craps after 53 sessions thus far in 2010 (and was ahead for the 21 sessions I had in the last half of 2009) does not lead me to want to accept Mr. Bluejay's challenge with my "system." I'm not quite that stupid. I do wish, though, that I wasn't running behind in my limited play at blackjack over the same period, but that's just an example of deviation on the other side of the mean.
I think that your objective is more congruent with that of most players than mine is, but I also think that both kinds of players have reasons to learn and play many different games. For the recreational -EV player, it increases variety and enjoyment. Also, if you only play one game, you might get to the casino only to find that that game is full. It's also nice to take a break and play cards instead of dice.
As I mentioned above, there are opportunities out there for both types of players, if they keep their eyes open; I got an invite to a free pai gow poker tournament several years ago, so I took an hour or so to learn basic PGP strategy, and as luck would have it, won the whole thing--$5,000! A recreational player may have entered just for the fun of playing a new game; I entered it because it offered about $75 of expected value.
I think that there's nothing wrong with playing casino games for fun, but I also think that I have just as much fun when I play a +EV game. I don't look on the extra effort needed to do that as actual work---since I play chess, bridge, Scrabble, backgammon, etc. etc. etc., it's just another game to try to outmaneuver the casino.
......(I was waiting for the PC guy) "you can't get "better" at roulette (or worse, for that matter) no matter how much time you spend at it." >>> This is a GREAT opinion and I have done threads on it in the past. I overall disagree with you mkl but I agree on ONE item, it depends on what definitions we are using, correct?Quote: mkl654321Quote: DocNah. Just play whatever game you like. If your likes change from day to day, why not change your game? It's not as if most of us are really going to be making a bunch of money in a casino.
I do have a favorite game, and I play it whenever I can. I didn't pick it up until about seven years ago, and it wasn't my favorite until later than that. I sometimes go back and play one of my old favorites. For the current year-to-date, I am ahead moneywise at my current favorite game at behind at my old favorite, but that is not how my favorite is established.
The answer to that would depend on how rewarding additional time spent playing that one game would be--the concept of marginal utility. If you were playing roulette, it would be silly to devote all your time to it to the exclusion of all else, because you can't get "better" at roulette (or worse, for that matter) no matter how much time you spend at it. The same goes for craps (past the point where you learn what the best bets are) and other negative expectation games. However, a singleminded devotion to blackjack might pay increasing dividends. The same could be true of sports betting, or video poker.
The ability to play many different casino games well not only increases your enjoyment, but also may open up profit-making opportunities that are tied to one particular game, such as a free entry into a blackjack or pai gow poker tournament.
Lets say we have two different guys, each gets 10K. One guy has been playing roulette for three months and the other guy has been playing roulette for 20 years. Each guy must go to the casino at least 20 times. This is NOT a challenge in ANY way so keep the 'what if' comments at bay. Both guys have no idea of one another etc. My point/question being.....are you saying if this donation of 10K was done over and over again, BOTH guys would finish about the SAME over and over again? It does not have to be roulette. Same 10K but craps or bacc. A gambler "cant get better" over time? Ken
In contrast, I cannot visualize what a "smart" roulette wager would be. Some combinations may provide additional entertainment occasionally, but I don't see how one would be "smarter" than another. For this reason, I don't see how your roulette play would get better with practice, if "better" means increased expected value of the result.
....I'll give another example from a couple years ago. This guy sitting next to me was betting $400 on red and $300 on black. I asked about it. He said, either way, he'll still make money. (WTF?) I asked how long he has been playing. Yep, under a year. My point being.....a one year guy compared to a 20 year guy, the *SAME*? No way. KenQuote: DocIt is indeed possible to make stupid bets at roulette. There is of course the five-number bet, but I am thinking about combination wagers that reduce variance so much that a net win is either impossible or very unlikely. Hopefully, it should not take very much experience to learn not to make the stupid wagers, though I did once watch a gentleman in Cairo place 40+ inside bets (apparently randomly) on a single spin.
In contrast, I cannot visualize what a "smart" roulette wager would be. Some combinations may provide additional entertainment occasionally, but I don't see how one would be "smarter" than another. For this reason, I don't see how your roulette play would get better with practice, if "better" means increased expected value of the result.
Quote: DocIt is indeed possible to make stupid bets at roulette. There is of course the five-number bet, but I am thinking about combination wagers that reduce variance so much that a net win is either impossible or very unlikely. Hopefully, it should not take very much experience to learn not to make the stupid wagers, though I did once watch a gentleman in Cairo place 40+ inside bets (apparently randomly) on a single spin.
In contrast, I cannot visualize what a "smart" roulette wager would be. Some combinations may provide additional entertainment occasionally, but I don't see how one would be "smarter" than another. For this reason, I don't see how your roulette play would get better with practice, if "better" means increased expected value of the result.
I was ignoring the five-number bet, and I don't think it's any more stupid to place combinations of bets that have equal negative EVs than it is to make a single similar bet of the same aggregate size.
In other words, it's actually no more stupid to place a dollar on each number than it is to place $38 on a single number (or red, or black...). The expected loss is exactly the same in either case. In the case of betting every number, you can't possibly win, but that is balanced by the fact that you can't possibly lose more than $2. To posit a somewhat fanciful situation, if you were being comped on a straight 6% of your action (or more), betting that way might actually make some sense, rather than betting $38/spin and risking a long, horrible losing streak.
Shouldn't take long to get past that foolishness. If the guy betting that way had anywhere close to a year of experience at it, then he would probably continue to bet that way for fifty years if he kept playing the game. People that stupid don't learn from their mistakes.Quote: mrjjj.... This guy sitting next to me was betting $400 on red and $300 on black.
Different perspective, I guess. It should be obvious that I am not playing to seek comps, so I don't place a whole lot of value on them -- I just deal in terms of what happens at the table. I can accept the idea of placing a wager where you expect to lose money in the long term, but I have a lot of trouble with the idea of placing a wager where you can lose money but can never win money.Quote: mkl654321... I don't think it's any more stupid to place combinations of bets that have equal negative EVs than it is to make a single similar bet of the same aggregate size. ...
