Study shows 83% of gamblers quit right before they would have hit the big one
Gotta love The Onion..
Gotta love the onionhead.
Quote: MrVThat ranks up there with John Patrick's unsubstantiated declaration that "70% of the people who enter a casino get ahead at some time during their stay, yet...90% of that 70% give the money back."
.
I read that on a plane to Vegas in Vegas Magazine about
10 years ago. 70% of players are ahead at some point,
but 93% leave Vegas with less than they came with. Patrick
didn't make it up.
Quote: EvenBobI read that on a plane to Vegas in Vegas Magazine about
10 years ago. 70% of players are ahead at some point,
but 93% leave Vegas with less than they came with. Patrick
didn't make it up.
So he actually surveyed? From a survey of gamblers, I can believe these numbers. If surveying gamblers though, the harder one to believe is the 93% left with less than what they came with.
Most will say something like "I broke even"Quote: tringlomaneSo he actually surveyed? From a survey of gamblers, I can believe these numbers. If surveying gamblers though, the harder one to believe is the 93% left with less than what they came with.
Quote: EvenBobI read that on a plane to Vegas in Vegas Magazine about
10 years ago. 70% of players are ahead at some point,
but 93% leave Vegas with less than they came with. Patrick
didn't make it up.
It's about right... the key part is -at some point- and -up-, which implies one or two dollars.
If you look at VP, for example, most sessions are in the black for at least one hand (around 90% on some payouts, as I recall, there's a whole set of numbers of this I did elsewhere). Thing is, the other 20% never get ahead, and lose more than the 80% are ever ahead (so it's not as if you can just quit while ahead, bank the win and profit, it don't work like that).
Logan and Singer made this claim about their magic methods... but it turns out just playing normal VP can result in a lot of winning sessions (if you quit while ahead). People don't, cos the $5 win on a $100 buy in... you keep going. Only 80% of those people ahead by $5 make it to be ahead again. And again, and again, and it all works out.
VP has better than evens pay outs, so it makes it a higher number of total people 'ahead at some point', I think, but even in a 49/51 game, 49% of people are ahead on the first result. Of those 51% who go behind, .49*.49 of those will will get back ahead in 2 more plays (61% of people ahead at some point). Do the infinite series and you can see that the number of sequences that are ahead -at some point- will be higher than you might think.
Quote: HunterhillMost will say something like "I broke even"
When reading Vegas Message Board, usually this is the case. Worst case scenario, "break even after comps". My last trip, I think I was close to even gaming (not lying I swear...lol), but down for drink purchases and/or tips and food. We splurged on 3 24 oz frozen drinks at full cost last trip...bah. The rest of my alcohol i got from the gaming floor.
Quote: tringlomaneSo he actually surveyed? From a survey of gamblers, I can believe these numbers. .
The stat was from the Vegas visitors bureau,
or some such..
Quote: MrVGotta call "ha ha, I think not" on this one.
Well, its the truth. It was a stat put out by Vegas
in a tourist magazine. Whats so hard to believe?
7 out of 10 people are up at least once, and 93%
leave without making enough to even pay for
their trip. They aren't saying 93% were losers on
the tables, just that they spent more for hotels
and food then they won.
Quote: thecesspit
If you look at VP, for example, most sessions are in the black for at least one hand (around 90% on some payouts, as I recall, there's a whole set of numbers of this I did elsewhere).
Yep you are right. Running 5000 simulations of 9/6 JoB with maximum of 10000 hands (weekend trip for slow player) betting $5/hand, I got 95.88% of "ever being ahead" and quitting immediately when ahead.
$`Win/Loss Summary`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
-4285.00 5.00 10.00 -23.92 20.00 3975.00
$`Summary of Play length`
Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
1.0....2.0......6.0.......562.8....34.0..10000.0
Mean Quads: 1.375 (562.8/422 = 1.334)
Max Quads: 32
A little surprising since the expected number of quads over 10000 hands is only 23.626), so being over 33% above expectation for quads doesn't guarantee ever seeing a win over 10,000 hands.
Quote: EvenBobWell, its the truth.
Really?
Gotta love these unsubstantiated declarations.
"It's the truth! There really ARE unicorns."
Quote: MrVReally?
Gotta love these unsubstantiated declarations.
"It's the truth! There really ARE unicorns."
Other than the fact that their bankrolls aren't scientifically monitiored, if you look at my Video Poker Stats I just threw up there, it's possible that 70% of people are ahead in gaming at ANY point in the trip. And I literally mean ANY point. The numbers Bob wrote aren't completely out of whack if you take them literally.
For the record, "breaking even" is anything within 5% of your bankroll. I bring $2000, lose $50, that's breaking even.
Quote: MrVReally?
Gotta love these unsubstantiated declarations.
Why would I make up something so boring and
so meaningless. I read it on a plane, live with it.
You have it wrong anyway. This is what Patrick
says, which is totally different from what I read.
"90% of the people who enter a casino get ahead, yet 70% of that 90% give the money back".
http://johnpatrickcasino.com/biography.htm
Quote: ahiromuI really hate how "I broke even" is kind of a popular phrase for everyone, even those that lose their asses. I'm very honest about whether I won or lost when people ask me, and tend to break even quite a bit. My emotions basically force me to turn any small win (within 100% of my buy-in) into a huge win, then leave when I lose it. So I get a lot of people that think I am lying and lost, when I actually broke even.
For the record, "breaking even" is anything within 5% of your bankroll. I bring $2000, lose $50, that's breaking even.
I have written down wins and losses for every session. It is a little frustrating that Mrs. Q is playing more and more slots but is ahead of me, even though I have predominantly played 9/6 JoB. When I hit my Royal, the results will be reversed ! ( spoken like a true gambler, huh ? ).
Quote: Mosca83% Of Gamblers Quit Right Before They Would Have Hit The Big One
Great link, funny "article". The only thing missing at the end was one of those Yahoo-Finance disclosures that the authors are consultants to the "Gaming" industry, or better yet, ex-Social Security Administration actuaries.
Quote: JohnnyQI have written down wins and losses for every session. It is a little frustrating that Mrs. Q is playing more and more slots but is ahead of me, even though I have predominantly played 9/6 JoB. When I hit my Royal, the results will be reversed ! ( spoken like a true gambler, huh ? ).
My g/f may be ahead of me as well, even though I play more video poker vs. slots compared to her. She did hit Aces with a kicker on nickel DDB before I did. She pales in comparison to my ex-fiancee though. She hit a quarter Royal while playing just a few thousand hands at the most of video poker lifetime! She asked me (since she was next to me) whether to hold 4 to a flush or 3 to a Royal. I told her the right answer, then bam!! Her Royal (spades) is the only suit I haven't got...doh Last time I asked, she said she hasn't gambled since we broke up either...bitch...lol
Quote: MrVReally?
Gotta love these unsubstantiated declarations.
"It's the truth! There really ARE unicorns."
This follows their previous study which showed conclusively that 50% of gamblers actually have take home winnings that are below average.
This one is actually true!
Quote: paisielloThis follows their previous study which showed conclusively that 50% of gamblers actually have take home winnings that are below average.
This one is actually true!
78% of statistics are made up on the spot. 100% of what I just wrote is true.
Look at Craps, bet the Pass Line, 49.29% of players are up immediately. So, now you're talking what? Around 2 out of 5 players that lose their first bet that have to recover and get into the Black? What's so unbelievable about that?
If you lose, say you bet the Pass Line again, flat betting, now you need to win two in a row:
(.4929) * (.4929) = 0.24295041
There you go, if you're flat betting the PL at Craps, then .4929 + .24295041 = 0.7358504100000001 = 73.585% will be in the Black, at some point, within three bets.
Now, I know not everyone plays Craps, so these numbers aren't universally applicable, but 70% to be ahead at some point is extremely believable to me. Like I said, if the simulator will work on this computer, I'll do some other games Monday.
Quote: Mission146What's wrong with 70%, maybe I'll use that Beating Bonuses simulator on Monday, if this computer can handle it.
Look at Craps, bet the Pass Line, 49.29% of players are up immediately. So, now you're talking what? Around 2 out of 5 players that lose their first bet that have to recover and get into the Black? What's so unbelievable about that?
If you lose, say you bet the Pass Line again, flat betting, now you need to win two in a row:
(.4929) * (.4929) = 0.24295041
There you go, if you're flat betting the PL at Craps, then .4929 + .24295041 = 0.7358504100000001 = 73.585% will be in the Black, at some point, within three bets.
Now, I know not everyone plays Craps, so these numbers aren't universally applicable, but 70% to be ahead at some point is extremely believable to me. Like I said, if the simulator will work on this computer, I'll do some other games Monday.
You need to multiply the .49^2 by the .51 who lose on the first game.
Quote: EvenBob
You have it wrong anyway. This is what Patrick
says, which is totally different from what I read.
"90% of the people who enter a casino get ahead, yet 70% of that 90% give the money back".
http://johnpatrickcasino.com/biography.htm
LOL
Take a look at the opening page of his main website, johnpatrickcasino.com.
(I tried to hotlink to it, but the Wiz's software prohibited my linking to a "competitor's site," so you'll have to do the heavy lifting on your own)
Scroll down to the text ... it says: "70% of the people who enter a casino get ahead at some time during their stay, yet...90% of that 70% give the money back...is this you?"
So, YOUR quote has Patrick claiming 90%; MINE has him braying it is only 70%.
Such evidence of B.S.ing innumeracy should NOT go unremarked.
The old boy must be using Frank Stanton as his copy editor.
Quote: MrV
Scroll down to the text ... it says: "70% of the people who enter a casino get ahead at some time during their stay, yet...90% of that 70% give the money back...is this you?"
What I read in the magazine was totally different. 93%
leave with less than they came with, thats the figure
thats important to Vegas. They spent money on food
and hotels and shows AND gambling. It all adds up as profit
for the casino/hotels.
Quote: MrVLOL
Take a look at the opening page of his main website, johnpatrickcasino.com.
(I tried to hotlink to it, but the Wiz's software prohibited my linking to a "competitor's site," so you'll have to do the heavy lifting on your own)
Scroll down to the text ... it says: "70% of the people who enter a casino get ahead at some time during their stay, yet...90% of that 70% give the money back...is this you?"
The biography says : "90% of the people who enter a casino get ahead, yet 70% of that 90% give the money back"
The front page says : "70% of the people who enter a casino get ahead at some time during their stay, yet...90% of that 70% give the money back...is this you?"
he also has this quote ""There are only two kinds of gamblers", Patrick states unequivocally: "Experts and Dopes. If you're not and Expert, you should stay away from the games."
Quote:
So, YOUR quote has Patrick claiming 90%; MINE has him braying it is only 70%.
Such evidence of B.S.ing innumeracy should NOT go unremarked.
The old boy must be using Frank Stanton as his copy editor.
With the 70% 'saying' (it's his "His favorite quote is...") is probably about right. But even a stopped watch is right twice a day. Patrick is an odious little twerp of man, whose hanging onto past glories as an 'expert' like a drowning man hangs onto a deflating life raft. His attitude to everyone is condescension and patronizing, but he has little to actually be proud of. It reminds me of the key scene in Apocalypse now :
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
It's also one of those things that makes it look like it's a pearl of wisdom that will lead to the promised land, but you soon realise you are into ever diminishing returns. 70% of those 70% of people will get ahead of the point they were ahead at a later time (thats 49%). 70% of those will have a third 'high point'. And so on and so forth. It doesn't tell you anything. The 'cost' (amount you risk to get ahead) is more than the value.
Nobody really ever wants to be at a Penny Slot in the first place!Quote: CrystalMathI believe that 70% are up at some point, but nobody wants to walk away a "winner" with just 1 unit or even a couple of cents on a penny slot.
Quote: thecesspit
You need to multiply the .49^2 by the .51 who lose on the first game.
....rigggghhhhttttt
LOL
(.5071) * (.4929)^2 = 0.123200152911 + .4929 = 0.616100152911 or 61.61% total.
Like I said, I might simulate this bad boy on Monday, if the computer can handle that, and other scenarios. Either way, it's not at all hard to imagine getting up to 70%, for instance:
(.5071)^2 * (.4929)^3 = 0.030793827708041756
(.5071) * (.4929) * (.5071) * (.4929)^2 = 0.030793827708041756
Thus, the combinations of L-L-W-W-W and L-W-L-W-W give you another 0.030793827708041756 * 2 = 0.06158765541608351
Which gives us, 0.616100152911 + 0.06158765541608351 = 0.6776878083270834 or 67.76878% just between those four (total) combinations.
For those who don't realize it, they are the weekly world news of the internet, but it's so obvious, it's supposed to be funny.
Quote: onenickelmiracleIs the Onion a foreign website to this community?
For those who don't realize it, they are the weekly world news of the internet, but it's so obvious, it's supposed to be funny.
I was puzzled at the reaction here at first too. Onion aren't going deep undercover. You usually get the joke at about 83% through any article.
Quote: P90I was puzzled at the reaction here at first too. Onion aren't going deep undercover. You usually get the joke at about 83% through any article.
I didn't think anyone was taking the Onion article seriously. Much like no-one take John Patrick seriously.
Quote: Sabretom2The remainder of this thread will be dedicated to the morons who took the Onion article seriously. Good luck getting some degree of self respect back.
I don't know that anyone did. I was addressing the Vegas Magazine article that EvenBob cited. I didn't even read The Onion article, therefore, could not have taken it seriously.
Quote: Mission146I don't know that anyone did. I was addressing the Vegas Magazine article that EvenBob cited. I didn't even read The Onion article, therefore, could not have taken it seriously.
You should have, it's a blast!
And yeah, most of the thread is about some other guy, but so what.
http://www.beatingbonuses.com/simulator_java.htm
And, it doesn't. The simulator is returning nonsense, unless more than 50.71% of people lose their first bet...a lot more.
Does anyone know of a free simulator for something like this, I'm just curious, but not curious enough to pay for it!
