House Edge Effect over Time

This post by Mission146

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, nobody says that there absolutely are not any gamblers who play negative expectation games (with or without a system) who are currently ahead for life.
link to original post

got me to thinking.

As someone who has wagered (passed across the circle) billions of dollars, certainly if I had whatever I had PAID OUT in commission at Baccarat in a nice neat little stack in front of me right now, or if all the Blackjack I had played had rules that reduced the house edge to practically zero (which - actually - I am currently playing a private double deck where the house edge is only 0.14), I'd be lifetime ahead even more than I am - BUT, what if I had played zero house edge Baccarat and Blackjack all along the way? would I really have held on to all that "house edge" money in winnings all along the way?

I say, NO.

First of all, I am not a flat bettor. I vary my bet wildly. So, I can't say that I'd just have experienced a zero net effect by playing a zero house edge game.

Secondly:
Reason being that although yes the house edge wears you down over time, if my goal is to win a certain amount at a session, at best, the house edge might hinder me from achieving that goal a tad earlier. As well, in sessions where I end up to the felt, with nothing, which I have had many sessions like that years ago, I don't think I'd end up walking away with the house edge money at the end - I'd still walk away with nothing after putting it all out there on that final hand I lost.

I could see how okay - if things start going south on that penultimate hand which would have been obviated if I had not had to "pay out" house edge money (say, Bacc commission) and had enough to fulfill a goal sooner - then all right yes, the house edge for that session might've made a big tangible difference, but otherwise, no - it's just pennies that for a given session would not affect an end result of all or nothing.

It just gets back to my believe that many (not all) Vegas bettors would still end up either winning big or losing big house edge or no house edge. If a person is determined to try to win a lot, and willing to risk his entire bankroll for it, I think the results will typically end up either big win or big loss, and perhaps - more typically, big loss due to trying to achieve too much with a too small a bankroll given the table limit.

I just don't see the house edge as the be all or end all to final results for many bettors. Certainly I don't believe that every Vegas table game big big player would automatically be up today whatever he paid out over the years due to house edge.

I mean, how did Terrance Watanabe lose $202,000,000. in one year? You think if he'd been playing games with no house edge he would not have lost all that anyway? that he would have lost a little less? or none? I think that guy was just betting until he lost everything in front of him, every session.

Duplicate

I just want to say that YES a high roller could gamble BILLIONS of dollars.

If your average bet was $5000 and you made one bet per minute it would take 833 hours to bet one quarter of a billion dollars.

Quote: MDawg

This post by Mission146
got me to thinking.

As someone who has wagered (passed across the circle) billions of dollars, certainly if I had whatever I had PAID OUT in commission at Baccarat in a nice neat little stack in front of me right now, or if all the Blackjack I had played had rules that reduced the house edge to practically zero (which - actually - I am currently playing a private double deck where the house edge is only 0.14), I'd be lifetime ahead even more than I am - BUT, what if I had played zero house edge Baccarat and Blackjack all along the way? would I really have held on to all that "house edge" money in winnings all along the way?

I say, NO.

First of all, I am not a flat bettor. I vary my bet wildly. So, I can't say that I'd just have experienced a zero net effect by playing a zero house edge game.

Secondly:
Reason being that although yes the house edge wears you down over time, if my goal is to win a certain amount at a session, at best, the house edge might hinder me from achieving that goal a tad earlier. As well, in sessions where I end up to the felt, with nothing, which I have had many sessions like that years ago, I don't think I'd end up walking away with the house edge money at the end - I'd still walk away with nothing after putting it all out there on that final hand I lost.

Interesting point, MDawg. You have a valid point that by varying your bet wildly, you are introducing more variance than if you were to flat bet any amount.
The thread suggests that time at the table is how the House Edge nobbles us. I tend to think it's more that the house edge attacks the total action placed. If you flat bet your billions through as min bets, Which will take more time, with no advantage, then your results would tend to be far closer to Expected Value (Loss) than if you placed fewer, larger wagers.

Quote:

I just don't see the house edge as the be all or end all to final results for many bettors. Certainly I don't believe that every Vegas table game big big player would automatically be up today whatever he paid out over the years due to house edge.
link to original post

"billions of dollars" : Let me run a slide rule over that. Say $2Billion
If I'd passed that action through the table, playing that great blackjack game at 0.14% house edge, bearing in mind I'm rubbish at card counting, then I might reasonable expect to have lost...
0.0014 x 2,000,000,000 =$2.8Million. Lost.
So for you to be ahead lifetime AND fit in some high stakes Baccarat, I tip my hat to you sir.

In actuality, I've passed barely £6M or so across the table with HE of about 0.5% giving me Expected loss in the region of £6,000,000 * 0.005 = £30,000. Thankfully I've done better than that, as well.

6 million quid is still a lot when you think about it, and shows how quickly the handle adds up. But yes, I have been told that my handle in just one night of Blackjack was once $1.2M USD - yes it adds up quickly. I'd daresay that I have exceeded $2M handles in one day/night during this trip on heavy sessions. During such heavy sessions, I have almost always lost or won differently from the expected house edge -$20K.

Handle = amount passed across the circle.

Quote: MDawg

6 million quid is still a lot when you think about it, and shows how quickly the handle adds up. But yes, I have been told that my handle in just one night of Blackjack was once $1.2M USD - yes it adds up quickly. I'd daresay that I have exceeded $2M handles in one day/night during this trip on heavy sessions. During such heavy sessions, I have almost always lost or won differently from the expected house edge -$20K.

Handle = amount passed across the circle.
link to original post

Yes. I derived the 6M from my online player points scheme. Definitely > 4 Million and probably less than 10 M ( The player point scheme was withdrawn a few years ago. )
We would seldom lose a number close to the house edge, simply because we are not min betting. Good old variance.

What you call 'handle', I call 'total action' I'm unsure what convention calls it in the US or UK.