Have you ever tried to explain the mathematics of gambling to...
Thread Rating:
If so, were you at all successful? And was the concept somewhat abstruse, such as variance and standard deviation, or was it fifth-grade algebra?
A few of my own experiences:
Trying to explain why the cost of a $110 Super Bowl bet was $10, regardless of the actual outcome. Explained to a live-in girlfriend; unsuccessful.
Trying to show why I needed a $5000 bankroll to play .25 fullpay deuces wild VP. Explained to a good friend; successful.
Trying to show why neither red nor black was "due" after red came up five times in a row. To a co-worker I was dating; completely unsuccessful.
Trying to explain why the fact that the dealer turned out to have a stiff hand (with a 10 up) didn't make the decision to hit hard 15 "wrong". Casual girlfriend (in the midst of a weekend trip to Tahoe); kind of sort of successful, but I don't think she was really convinced.
2. Please provide evidence that you've ever in your life had $5000 for anything.
3. Please name that co-worker you were "dating".
4. Please identify this "casual girlfriend" in your tale.
5. If you are attempting to label yourself as some kind of stud here, please explain the reason for the obvious.
*psst...pictures will do
Quote: JerryLogan1. Please provide evidence of you ever having a "live-in girlfriend".
2. Please provide evidence that you've ever in your life had $5000 for anything.
3. Please name that co-worker you were "dating".
4. Please identify this "casual girlfriend" in your tale.
5. If you are attempting to label yourself as some kind of stud here, please explain the reason for the obvious.
*psst...pictures will do
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote: mkl654321...someone who you would really like to understand it, as in, a close friend or family member? The question came to mind after reflecting on the totally fruitless discussions that arise from time to time here where some members make the quixotic and doomed effort to explain some (often, quite simple) gambling concepts to others.
If so, were you at all successful? And was the concept somewhat abstruse, such as variance and standard deviation, or was it fifth-grade algebra?
A few of my own experiences:
Trying to explain why the cost of a $110 Super Bowl bet was $10, regardless of the actual outcome. Explained to a live-in girlfriend; unsuccessful.
Because the cost of the bet is $100 and it either wins $210 or nothing. The VALUE of the bet is -$10 (or the value of the ticket after purchase is $90 before it gets resolved).
Your either out $100 or not, so explaining it as costing $10, while I see where your going, isn't a good explanation to someone who doesn't live in your world.
Quote: thecesspitBecause the cost of the bet is $100 and it either wins $210 or nothing. The VALUE of the bet is -$10 (or the value of the ticket after purchase is $90 before it gets resolved).
Your either out $100 or not, so explaining it as costing $10, while I see where your going, isn't a good explanation to someone who doesn't live in your world.
I've never actually met anyone who doesn't live in "my" world, as in, Earth. Might be fun, though.
The cost of the bet is indeed $10. If there was no vig (the bet paid even money, not -110), then the cost of the bet would be zero. Look at it this way--the cost of the bet is equal to its expected profit to the house. If a $100 bet truly cost $100, then the house would make $100 from every such bet made--which they obviously don't.
The VALUE, as you put it, of the bet is MINUS $10 because you are exchanging $110 in cash for a bet with a mathematical value of $100. You have to look at it in this way--as in, BEFORE the actual outcome. Otherwise, you paddle up an existential creek. If you buy fire insurance, what's its value? Is it zero if your house never burns down? The value of a bet has to be expressed BEFORE the outcome, in terms of relative probabilities and the resultant payoff(s).
Later that night I had the same conversation with one of the walls in the room--better results as the wall didn't keep insisting it could affect the delaer busting.
I now try to avoid "explaining" anything about the math of gaming unless asked. I will discuss it for hours with others who know. To the rest I will let them think that the new 11:10 BJ at the Flamingo is better than 6:5 since 10 is more than 6 and over three times more than 3.
Quote: mkl654321
The cost of the bet is indeed $10. If there was no vig (the bet paid even money, not -110), then the cost of the bet would be zero. Look at it this way--the cost of the bet is equal to its expected profit to the house. If a $100 bet truly cost $100, then the house would make $100 from every such bet made--which they obviously don't.
The VALUE, as you put it, of the bet is MINUS $10 because you are exchanging $110 in cash for a bet with a mathematical value of $100. You have to look at it in this way--as in, BEFORE the actual outcome. Otherwise, you paddle up an existential creek. If you buy fire insurance, what's its value? Is it zero if your house never burns down? The value of a bet has to be expressed BEFORE the outcome, in terms of relative probabilities and the resultant payoff(s).
Unfortunately you are wrong while making a good point. The cost of the best is the EV of the bet. Half the time you lose $110 and half the time you win $100. So on average you bet $220 dollars and win $210. Over two bets you lose $10 making the cost per bet $5.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo the rest I will let them think that the new 11:10 BJ at the Flamingo is better than 6:5 since 10 is more than 6 and over three times more than 3.
11:10 BJ ?! I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. Disgraceful.
Quote: clarkacal11:10 BJ ?! I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. Disgraceful.
Sorry, I should have mentioned that was a joke.
Quote: AZDuffmanhow she played at third base could not affect if the dealer would bust or not.
This fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set. One either goes on to the logic that an unknown card distributed randomly remains a random distribution when another unknown randomly distributed card is substituted... or one goes to the fallacy that the distribution is set along the lines of things being "due" and "you don't disrupt that. "
Actually I first ran into this playing poker, and having players get mad at me for folding and making them get "my" card.
Quote: crazyiamUnfortunately you are wrong while making a good point. The cost of the best is the EV of the bet. Half the time you lose $110 and half the time you win $100. So on average you bet $220 dollars and win $210. Over two bets you lose $10 making the cost per bet $5.
I believe you are correct. My mistake, in trying to make the larger point. I still do think the value of a $110 bet is $100, though, since it pays just like a completely fair bet of $100 would.
Quote: odiousgambitThis fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set. One either goes on to the logic that an unknown card distributed randomly remains a random distribution when another unknown randomly distributed card is substituted... or one goes to the fallacy that the distribution is set along the lines of things being "due" and "you don't disrupt that. "
That's a very good way to describe it.
I don't get worked up if the guy at third plays badly and "takes the dealer's card" because the deck could have been shuffled differently.
But that's the math guy in me talking.
A non-math person looks at it that the shuffle is already done, and the cards aren't shifting around in the shoe.
Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.
I was playing blackjack last week, and hit a soft 18 against a 10, getting a face for a hard 18. Everyone at the table got upset. The dealer flipped over a 12 and pulled another 10. That shut everyone up.
...until the next hand, when the dealer turned over a blackjack. The Asian woman next to me started cursing me out in her native tongue, because I obviously had caused that to happen. :rolleyes: Oh, and the very next hand, SHE got a blackjack. I didn't get any credit for that.
Quote: DJTeddyBearA non-math person looks at it that the shuffle is already done, and the cards aren't shifting around in the shoe.
Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.
I wouldn't characterize such thinking as a math error; more a conceptual error. The vast majority of people don't understand randomness; they think much more of the universe is causal than it actually is.
You have a $1000 bankroll and being conservative you find a game with a mere 1% house advantage. You are determined to play until you either double your money or go broke.
If you bet the full $1000 on a single roll you have a 49.50% of leaving with double your money, and a 50.5% of going broke. But you are want to gamble for a while and have some fun. You have to choose between the following options:
Option A) Bet $100 per hand
Option B) Bet $10 per hand
Which option (if any) gives you the highest probability of going home with $2000?
After you've answered that question, tell me which of the following statements is closest to the truth.
1) Options are the same
2) Best option is slightly better than the worst option
3) Best option is twice as good as the worst option
4) Best option is four times as good as the worst option
5) Best option is ten times as good as the worst option
How would you explain your reasoning to your date?
Quote: pacomartin
Which option (if any) gives you the highest probability of going home with $2000?
After you've answered that question, tell me which of the following statements is closest to the truth.
1) Options are the same
2) Best option is slightly better than the worst option
3) Best option is twice as good as the worst option
4) Best option is four times as good as the worst option
5) Best option is ten times as good as the worst option
How would you explain your reasoning to your date?
Obviously, the larger bet is better for that purpose, just as a one-time bet of the whole $1000 would be best, and a series of $1 bets would be worst, again, for that purpose.
To answer your second question, I'd need to know if "good" or "better" are only considered in the light of "chance to double your money", or whether other considerations, such as staying in action/less likelihood of losing the entire amount, etc. apply. Also, are you asking for the "best" option, or the "better" option?
Quote: mkl654321Obviously, the larger bet is better for that purpose, just as a one-time bet of the whole $1000 would be best, and a series of $1 bets would be worst, again, for that purpose.
To answer your second question, I'd need to know if "good" or "better" are only considered in the light of "chance to double your money", or whether other considerations, such as staying in action/less likelihood of losing the entire amount, etc. apply. Also, are you asking for the "best" option, or the "better" option?
Well your right the best option in the light of "chance to double your money" is to make a single bet. You have to choose the better of the two options in the same light.
Quote: mkl654321I've never actually met anyone who doesn't live in "my" world, as in, Earth. Might be fun, though.
I am sure you've met many people who don't live in the world of gambling and advantage play, or deal with maths regularly.
Quote:The cost of the bet is indeed $10. If there was no vig (the bet paid even money, not -110), then the cost of the bet would be zero. Look at it this way--the cost of the bet is equal to its expected profit to the house. If a $100 bet truly cost $100, then the house would make $100 from every such bet made--which they obviously don't.
Cost to me and most people in the day to day world is the price you pay for an item. When I buy a banana, I pay 37c. That is the cost. The Banana may be worth 25c to my buddy who needs some fruit. The banana has a 25c Value, and I lost 12c (if I was playing some sort of fruit trading at work scheme).
If I told someone the banana cost me 12c, they'd not understand what I meant exactly, and hence if they don't live in the same paradigm, would insist that the banana cost 37c. Just as your bet on the superbowl cost $110. The difference is the exact final value is unknown, and the expect value is known (*)
I believe most financial sheets would list the cost at $110 on one side, and an asset (the betting slip) worth $100, giving you a -$10 on the total value on the books. I could be wrong. Accountancy is certainly not my forte.
(I realize I stated $100 before, when I in fact meant $110).
Quote:The VALUE, as you put it, of the bet is MINUS $10 because you are exchanging $110 in cash for a bet with a mathematical value of $100. You have to look at it in this way--as in, BEFORE the actual outcome. Otherwise, you paddle up an existential creek. If you buy fire insurance, what's its value? Is it zero if your house never burns down? The value of a bet has to be expressed BEFORE the outcome, in terms of relative probabilities and the resultant payoff(s).
I don't disagree with your explanation of the VALUE of the bet at all.
In short, calling it a "cost" maybe using a word in a way that non-gamblers are not used to, and hence your explanation didn't work out with the lady in question.
(*) assuming it's a 50/50 bet, which I think is fair assumption here, right?
Quote: odiousgambitThis fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set.
So what's surprising? It's not exclusive to gambling. A lot of people, present audience included, will blame whoever they prefer for the current economic recession and their relevant losses, despite recessions only being natural and necessary in the cycle of economic growth.
They lost their bets - their high-paying jobs, their cheap mortgages, their stocks value. Someone else won their bets - got cheap workforce, bought a home el cheapo, did some good shorts. In the overall scheme of things, we lost some, like current income levels, and we won some, like stopping price escalation for a while and weeding out some of the weaker players, paying the way for new ones.
It is to be admitted that some players were more deserving of blame than in a card game, but their blame is limited to how exactly the recession is proceeding and being handled, while people incorrectly blame them for the recession itself.
Quote: clarkacal11:10 BJ ?! I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. Disgraceful.
I believe in my lifetime I will see a natural 21 pay even money be the new standard, or the disappearance of the game, by the time I am 80 (if I am unlucky enough to live that long) I foresee all games having a house advantage of 5% or more!
Since you know that the vig is $10, you can reasonably record that as an temporary expense. Your accounting entry would look like:
DR $100 Gambling note (asset) -
DR $10 Betting Expense (expense)
CR $110 Cash
When resolved, if you win:
DR $200 cash
CR $190 gambling Wins
CR $10 betting expense
If you lose,
CR $100 Gambling note
DR $100 Gambling Losses
From the IRS standpoint, it doesn't care about your betting expense on the VIG. That would be like having accounting for the house advantage. It would care however about the value of unresolved bets you have at the end of the year (such as super bowl bets) and I think would accept the "vig" as the best way to record the expense (if you are using accrual accounting).
Quote: SOOPOOI used to put epidurals in laboring women.
...
What do you think the initial reactions to my string of success were?
Any chance the answer lies in the phrase "used to" ?
Quote: DJTeddyBearAny chance the answer lies in the phrase "used to" ?
LOL!!! I moved to a hospital that doesn't do obstetrics. But, touche!!!
Quote: mkl654321
Trying to explain why the fact that the dealer turned out to have a stiff hand (with a 10 up) didn't make the decision to hit hard 15 "wrong". Casual girlfriend (in the midst of a weekend trip to Tahoe); kind of sort of successful, but I don't think she was really convinced.
I have had some success with this. My wife and I were playing at a table with some college kids who had no idea how to play. "Should I split every pair?" "Why did you hit that 16?" So they were impressionable learners.
Losing by busting *feels* very bad, especially at 1st base. You're out of the game early. You lose based on your decision, not the "random chance" of what cards the dealer gets. A player may feel like an idiot, "why did I do that? I could have won!" I admit, despite knowing the math, that losing by busting *feels* worse to me as well.
But if you stand a 15 and the dealer gets a 17, you've lost the exact same amount of money. The mathematical outcome is what matters, not the psychological chill you get as the cards turn over.
Actually, the feeling does matter. It's what makes gambling fun. But you'll be gambling a lot longer with basic strategy.
Quote: dudestupidBut if you stand a 15 and the dealer gets a 17, you've lost the exact same amount of money. The mathematical outcome is what matters, not the psychological chill you get as the cards turn over.
Actually, the feeling does matter. It's what makes gambling fun. But you'll be gambling a lot longer with basic strategy.
I have just the opposite feeling in such a situation, that with a hard 15 and the dealer showing a 10, she probably already has a made hand, in which case not hitting would be like taking a called third strike. I know I'll probably lose if I hit, but the pitch is probably in the strike zone, so I'm dead if I don't swing.
Quote: SOOPOOI used to put epidurals in laboring women. There is one risk, a severe headache, that occurs in a reported 2% of women due to inadvertently puuting the needle in slightly too far. Having done thousands, I estimated my personal rate was about 1%. When getting informed consent I would tell the patient that my patients have this 1% chance of getting a headache. I would then also mention that I have not had one in my last 99 consecutive patients! What do you think the initial reactions to my string of success were?
I don't know what the mathematics are to precisely quantify this, but my sense is that you were extremely lucky to fade 99 1-in-100 chances in a row. But if that 1% chance was constant, then there was no significance to your winning streak for any given patient: the chance of a headache was 1%. Quite possibly your streak was due to the fact that the real chance of your screwing up was much less than 1%.
Parenthetically, I wonder if telling the patient that she might get a headache increases the chance that she would indeed get one.
Quote: SOOPOOI used to put epidurals in laboring women.
Would you mind if I PMd you a question on topical anesthetics?
Quote: SOOPOOI used to put epidurals in laboring women. There is one risk, a severe headache, that occurs in a reported 2% of women due to inadvertently puuting the needle in slightly too far. Having done thousands, I estimated my personal rate was about 1%. When getting informed consent I would tell the patient that my patients have this 1% chance of getting a headache. I would then also mention that I have not had one in my last 99 consecutive patients! What do you think the initial reactions to my string of success were?
no doubt in my mind they said "oh no, you're due and I'm it!" most of the time
How Statistics Works
