P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
January 13th, 2011 at 1:36:43 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

You missed my point.
Those are short-term advantages.
The long term / Big Picture is that the gambler doesn't return as often.
Is that a good thing?


Of course it's not. I'm just saying how it makes sense in the short term. And in the long term... people tend to be a lot less risk-averse in the long term than in the short term. The management may think things will work themselves out. Or it may think they won't be there anymore by the time it backfires.

It may be going a bit into politics, but actually optimal strategy for a hired manager is an interesting problem. As a proprietor, your game is simple, company funds is your funds. A hired manager, however, is rewarded a fraction of winnings, potentially unlimited, but has his losses hard-capped. It can be compared to a game where you get high cashback on losses. Such a game rewards a more aggressive, short-term focused strategy: if you win big, you win big, but if you lose big, most of your losses only push. From such a position, it seems hard to resist the temptation of trading the long-term well-being of the company and the industry as a whole for short-term winnings that will earn you rewards while you are still in the position to get them.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Ike
Ike
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 63
January 13th, 2011 at 1:44:33 PM permalink
Quote: P90

Yes. But their solution seems to be exactly that: try and rip off gamblers as fast as they can.



Let's calm down. Yes, you're right here, the term "hold percentage" is used differently for slot machines than for table games, being defined per wager, and being synonymous with house edge. I'm just not into slots at all, and didn't think of this difference in definition right away.

In the case of table games, hold percentage is completely distinct from house edge and is defined per buy-in, not per hand. In these games games, even simple roulette, hold percentage is not easily controlled, and depends on how long the players stay at the table. These are completely different parameters, I'm talking strictly about the table games one.



If you go back and reread my posts, you will realize I said exactly that. House edge on a table game is defined by the rules of the game. House edge on a video poker game is defined by the pay table. Both are visible to the guest, both make the price visible. On a slot machine, the theoretical hold percentage is not visible, hence the price is not visible.
Ike
Ike
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 63
January 13th, 2011 at 1:50:09 PM permalink
I'm starting to get the feeling your arguing just for the sake of arguing, P90.
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
January 13th, 2011 at 2:23:03 PM permalink
I'm not arguing for the sake of it. There just has been a confusion between hold percentage as in table games (which determines casino's winnings) and as in slots (where it's only a function that factors into them).

http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.com/article/hold-on-before-you-compare-hold-percentages-729
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
January 13th, 2011 at 2:52:24 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

You show a basic misunderstanding of probability and expected value. You are far from alone. Because looking at a wager in terms of expected value is counterintuitive, many people simply don't even try to understand it.

Let me restate the situation to see if you understand it this way: At the moment you make the bet, you have a 49.3% chance of ending up with $200, and a 50.7% chance of winding up with nothing (numbers rounded). Mathematically, this is the EXACT SAME THING as now having $98.59 ($100-$1.41).



No, MKL, it isn't. When the bet is resolvled, you either have $0 or $200. It is not the exact same thing, at all. Mathematically, when you make the bet, you have nothing because you can't take back your bet until it is resolved. That is, if you walk away from the table, you still have nothing.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
January 13th, 2011 at 3:06:05 PM permalink
It's really about bringing the customers back which is key to the casino's (or any company's) success. If they have a bad experience and can go somewhere else where they are treated better and have an experience that is more satisfying to them they will go. Different people value different experiences. For experienced gamblers who understand odds and probability, they will flock to the casinos with the best games that give them the best odds of winning. For gamblers who want to have fun, they will go to the casino that provides them the most fun.

That's what 6:5 blackjack should be all about. Experienced gamblers know that they have a better probability to winning on the 3:2 games and they will flock to those games. The issue is that on a weekend night, a casino company under 20 billion of debt can't afford to have a bunch of 3:2 blackjack games at .66 percent or less. They've upped the limits to $25 per hand for these games on the weekend nights, which is beyond the gambling budget of alot of weekend visitors. The inexperienced gambler will flock to the 6:5 games on the party pits and play the $5 - $10 game. Now, who has more fun? The gambling know-it-all knowing that they make an extra $3 per blackjack and maybe make an extra $12 over four hours (on average), or the person staring at the gyrating babe with the amazing bosoms while playing an entertaining game? 6-5 allows the casino to offer an atmosphere of fun while meeting a profit motive.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
January 13th, 2011 at 3:26:26 PM permalink
Maybe, maybe. Just as long as 3:2 doesn't go the way of classic single deck blackjack and original 10:1 AsJ. Pushing proper games to medium-stake tables is already a move towards phasing them out. And then we'll be seeing more even-money 21 games...

How long till they offer the first zero-payout game? "Single-deck progressive draw! Pair or better pays 1 for 1, suited pairs pay 10 for 1, suited aces win the jackpot!"
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 13th, 2011 at 4:08:28 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

No, MKL, it isn't. When the bet is resolvled, you either have $0 or $200. It is not the exact same thing, at all. Mathematically, when you make the bet, you have nothing because you can't take back your bet until it is resolved. That is, if you walk away from the table, you still have nothing.



Again, this is a basic misunderstanding. After the bet is resolved, you will have either $200 or $0. Does this mean that the bet was worth either $200 or $0? Of course not.

A $100 bet on a coin flip is worth exactly $100, even though you will never wind up with exactly $100 after ONE TRIAL.

And the fact that you can't take your bet back means that is is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to its expected value. The fallacy is in thinking that the result of the bet has anything whatsoever to do with that bet's expected value. It doesn't. Therefore, the only way to look at what a bet is worth is to look at it in terms of expected value (and, yes, to ignore the result of that bet).

The Wiz has explained this much better than I ever could, and you should probably consult his writings on the subject, particularly since I seem to be having such a hard time getting the concept across to you. That's no doubt my fault, so try the Wiz instead.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 13th, 2011 at 4:55:40 PM permalink
I think the problem is you are considering the value of the bet after it has been resolved.

Before it's resolved, it's worth the EV, afterwards, we've now resolved the EV into an AV (Actual Value). You either have $0 or $200. You do not have $98.33. And just because you have $200, it does not make the bet -before it was made- worth $200. It doesn't make it a good bet, even if it results in $200. That's fuzzy thinking too (post hoc ergo propter hoc, as I screwed up before hand). The claim that "well I won a massive royal on that lousy VP table so therefore pay tables are meaningless" (for example) or "well I made $500 playing 6:5 blackjack so screw you buddy with your love of 3:2 blackjack, ha!" (for another example) is wrong (which is where I do agree).

As I always state, it's not just about the raw EV... the variance also matters, and you'll be point on the variance curve after making the bet (or bets).
"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
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 13th, 2011 at 5:58:17 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I think the problem is you are considering the value of the bet after it has been resolved.



If you're addressing me, I am REFUSING to consider the value of the bet after it has been resolved, because that is a meaningless measure; the value of the bet is actually the same regardless of the actual outcome. That's why the only meaningful way to measure the bet's value is in terms of EV--AND, the only meaningful TIME to measure the bet's value is WHEN IT IS MADE.

The error in your thinking is shown by "you do not have $98.33". Of course not, but EV is virtually never the same as THE RESULT OF A SINGLE BET. That's where you are going off the rails--in drastically overemphasizing the significance of that ONE outcome.

What you actually wind up with AFTER ONE OUTCOME is not relevant to the EV of a bet.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw

  • Jump to: