Sacrilege

I'm about to post something that's possibly dumb and certainly controversial.

You've been warned.

The gambling advice based on sound mathematical analysis of various games boils down to "get the lowest house edge possible so as to minimize your losses." Of course there are subtleties and complexities peculiar to each game, not to mention outside effects like comps, promotions, etc.

But there's an assumption, too, and that is the gambleris in it for the long haul.

Many of us are, certainly. I won't speculate how many hands other posters here play and wat what denomination, but we've read of plenty of people who play hundreds to thousands of hands per session. But some of us gamble sporadically, at best, and for very low amounts.

Take me as an example. My bankroll per gambling trip is US $600 and I gamble once a year. Excluding the occasional lotto ticket andfriendly wager with acquaintances, that's a perfect exampel of the opposite of a long-term gambler. For the record there was a visit to a casino in Monterrey, Mexico, last year, which I posted about, but that was only to pass the time and the bankroll was under US $50.

Probability is the same whether you gamble short term or long. Your odds of winning a high-paying, high-edge bet are the same per bet regardless of how much you play and how often. But let us look at concrete numbers:

Take 3 Card Poker for example. A long term player is better off betting only ante and play and staying away from Pair+. It can be easily demonstrated, and it stands to reason, that over 2,000 hands, said gambler will be very far behind on the pair+ but not so far behind in ante and play.

But what about a gambler playing only 100 hands? If distribution were the same over both long and short term, then the asnwer would be the same. but is it? Would it make more sense for such a player to bet the pair+ on every hand, or even to bet only pair+? Is there even a way to tell?

Likewise this would apply to VP where, for example, a short term player might keep a 10,J, suited and discard a second unsuited J and trash.

My feeling is that the term of play isn't very relevant, if it is relevant at all, and that both types of gamblers ought to stick to low HE bets in their preferred games. I will add that my feelings on such matters are usually right. After all, I played mostly the right strategy in DW before I even knew there was such a thing as a rigth strategy. And there's two of Nareed's Vegas Laws "Sucer bets were not devised by suckers" and "System is not equivalent to Startegy." To quote Sheldon Cooper "How can I argue with me?" (actually I argue with me all the time when I write, but that's just for the conflict...)

Anyway, I'd like to ahve something more rational than a feeling to base my next gambling trip on. Any thoughts?

Perception is Reality

In Colorado the return on Quarter slots is 94-96% Most require 3 quarters to receive full play. Penny slots return
90-92%. The average play is 73 cents. Penny slots dominate the field. The only answer I can come up with is
entertainment minutes per dollar spent. Might be calledvariance if I was a math wiz. I am not and neither are the
great majority of casino players. If we are lucky Paco will post some stats from only god knows where to prove or disprove our assumptions

"In the long run we are all dead."
-- Keynes

Gambling is supposed to be entertainment. For the majority of gamblers it is. For some gamblers, who really want to grind away finding small edges in house-banked games and making advantage plays, it's a business. Still others prefer to make advantage plays against other people (sports book, poker) rather than an immutable source of randomness. You have to decide which kind of gambler you are.

If you're going to once a year with a budget of $600, chances are you're looking to have a good time for the duration of your stay. Your play should, in my opinion, be designed to make that $600 last for your trip. Don't overbet your bankroll, but beyond that, don't overthink it. Most people don't have a good time if they're thinking too hard. Learn enough about the betting options to make intelligent decisions, but remember that those decisions are predicated on the fact that you've already agreed to play a -EV game. This isn't about making money, it's about having a good time and hoping you get lucky.

So how do you decide? Here's an example:
The average BJ game has an effective edge of about 1% if you're making a few mistakes. On the strip, minimums are $10/hand for a decent game, maybe you'll get 100 hands/hour at a semi-full table. Play for an hour and your EV is -$10. If you're unlucky though, you'll bust out over that hour -- you only have $600.
The average multiline penny slot has an edge of 6-8%. Wager is variable, but usually you can make a play for a $1. You can get 400 pulls/hour at a reasonable pace, taking into account features like free spins or bonus rounds (and flagging down cocktail waitresses). Play for an hour and your EV is between -$24 and -$32, but you have no shot at busting out, and a non-zero chance at a jackpot.

You can spend lots of time crunching numbers, or reviewing previously-crunched numbers, if that makes you feel better about the games you play. Or you can realize that, over the course of your trip, most of that doesn't matter much. If blackjack has a better edge than roulette but you like roulette better, play roulette. Or if it'll be more fun, play a little of both. Point is, if you're making a significant investment and effort to go to Las Vegas (and you are, relative to your bankroll), you should be concerned more with having a good time than with shaving a few points off your edge.

To me, the desired outcome plays a big role. There are times I go to the casino to hang out and watch a ballgame with other players. Those times, I'm happy to play the ante and limit variance. Then, other times, I go in with $100 and the goal of either busting or doubling up in some time frame (1 hour, maybe 2 hours). Those times, I'll play the pair plus to increase the odds of reaching either monetary outcome in the set timeframe (FWIW, the PP here has a 50-40-30-5-4-1 paytable).

The currency is not money. the currency is pleasure. Maximize your return.

An 8-ball can give you a lot more pleasure for same amount of money.

Quote: P90

An 8-ball can give you a lot more pleasure for same amount of money.

Thing is, if that's what works for you, then that's what you should do (taking in account the risk, of course). My underlying point is that we are responsible to no one but ourselves for deciding how the equation balances. I would be bored stiff working advantage play, so I shouldn't do it. Another player would find it foolish to take anything but the lowest odds, so that's how she should play.

The currency is pleasure, satisfaction. The money exists to give it relative value.

I do gamble for entertainment. I also find it a relaxing way to spend an afternoon.

Perhaps if I restate the question.

Let's say I'm playing regular, single-hand JoB VP. I get dealt 10h, Jh, Jd, 2s, 6c. The right play is to keep the pair of jacks. It pays your bet back and no more. If I were playing for, say, $5 or $25 per hand I would keep the jacks, as I get my bet back at least and ahve a decent chance for a two pair or trips (not a good chance, but a decent one), and less decent chances for quads or a full house.

On the other hand if I'm playing $0.50 or $1.25 per hand, my loss for making the wrong play, which would be to keep the suited 10 and J, is too small to worry about. Then I have a terrible chance at a royal, a less horrid one for a flush, and a not too decent one at a pair of jacks (still two in the deck, right)

What I'm sayign is I know the right play, the wrong play and the expected payoff for both. The question is whether a small, short-term gambler should take the risk of the bad play because the risk is tiny.

My feeling is still no, but it's just a feeling.

As to my goals at the casino, I've two: to enjoy myself, and to get a big payoff someday. The latter is more like a wish, as I know with the amounts I bet I'm not likely to win big.

Quote: Nareed

I do gamble for entertainment. I also find it a relaxing way to spend an afternoon.

Perhaps if I restate the question.

Let's say I'm playing regular, single-hand JoB VP. I get dealt 10h, Jh, Jd, 2s, 6c. The right play is to keep the pair of jacks. It pays your bet back and no more. If I were playing for, say, $5 or $25 per hand I would keep the jacks, as I get my bet back at least and ahve a decent chance for a two pair or trips (not a good chance, but a decent one), and less decent chances for quads or a full house.

On the other hand if I'm playing $0.50 or $1.25 per hand, my loss for making the wrong play, which would be to keep the suited 10 and J, is too small to worry about. Then I have a terrible chance at a royal, a less horrid one for a flush, and a not too decent one at a pair of jacks (still two in the deck, right)

What I'm sayign is I know the right play, the wrong play and the expected payoff for both. The question is whether a small, short-term gambler should take the risk of the bad play because the risk is tiny.

My feeling is still no, but it's just a feeling.

As to my goals at the casino, I've two: to enjoy myself, and to get a big payoff someday. The latter is more like a wish, as I know with the amounts I bet I'm not likely to win big.

Only you can answer these questions for yourself. Would you rather have me give you $1000 or a 1% chance at $105000? We all know there is a better EV by trying for the big payout, but your own personal feelings will guide you. I say as long as you understand the odds, EV, etc.... then do what makes you happiest. If I leave a casino up $100 or up $500 I feel almost the same. So I don't 'shoot for a big win' I am very happy with small ones. But that is me...

This is a subject I'd actually like to see the Wizard to weigh in on.

As it stands, Variance only seems to an informational footnote when it comes to bankroll and playing strategies. The conventional wisdom says go for the maximum EV. But, shouldn't variance count for something? Here is a real world example:

Suppose your BR is sized such that the maximum bet you are comfortable with is $5/spin. At most strip casinos, you have two viable choices when it comes to JorB:

1) Play 5 coins in a 9/5 $1 machine, or
2) Play 1 coin in a 9/6 $5 machine

I have found that almost all major strip casinos offer these two games. The 9/5 $1 5 coin game has an EV of .9845 with a variance of 19.5. The 9/6 $5 1 coin game has a slightly lower EV of .9803, but the variance is only 3.76

I think to most of us (including me) the variance figures are just numbers. But, they must mean something when it comes to sizing your bet and determining your risk over a series of X number of hands.

If we all were in it for the long term - say 100,000 hands - and could take the swings, it would seem that the higher EV game would be best. But, for my style of play (weekend play of maybe 2,000 hands per session), I choose to take the slightly lower EV and the lower variance. It basically comes down to this: Would you rather receive the extra unit every time you get a flush, or do you want the RF bonus? For me, the extra unit far outweighs the RF bonus, especially when you figure in the tax man. If you do hit the RF bonus, the $4K payout gets you a 1099 and puts you on the tax man's radar.

It would be great to see a well formulated study of EV and Varance vs. BR size, bet size, risk tolerance and tax liability. If one already exists, I aplogize that I haven't found it.

Quote: Nareed

What I'm sayign is I know the right play, the wrong play and the expected payoff for both. The question is whether a small, short-term gambler should take the risk of the bad play because the risk is tiny.

Even a tiny risk is still a risk. I mean you need to have a reason to take it. All other things being equal, there is no reason to chose a bad bet over a good one, long term or short.
If what you are saying is that you somehow like the bad bet better, as in it is more fun to you, then by all means, yeah, that's the one to take, as long as the risk is acceptable to you. I don't see how short vs. long term matters here.
Every bet is an individual decision. If you want to take it, and the risk is acceptable, take it, if not, do not.
If you do it often, and for a long time, sure, you will lose more, but you will have more fun too ...

To build your bank for the casino trip, you could try following Shackleford (the horse).
His last start second in $1m race confirms that he has a lot of ability.
Progressive betting on him should bring a profit.

Quote: SOOPOO

I say as long as you understand the odds, EV, etc.... then do what makes you happiest.

I'm reminded of a B5 ep where a character says "It's no use calling a foolish person a fool, but at least the truth is where it needs to be" :)

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I also always look with scorn at people playing slots, or laying $10 in pair+ and $5 on ante and play.

Quote:

If I leave a casino up $100 or up $500 I feel almost the same. So I don't 'shoot for a big win' I am very happy with small ones. But that is me...

The most I've ever won in one session is $100 at Fitzgerald's last year. Added to smaller wins at the Rampart and Bally's, I was so happy I went shopping (a much better use for the money, of course, especially at Border's). If I won $500 I think I'd fall over.

Quote: scotty81

This is a subject I'd actually like to see the Wizard to weigh in on.

I wouldn't mind it myself. But I can't tell you for certain he hasn't already.

Quote:

I think to most of us (including me) the variance figures are just numbers.

That goes for me too. I'm really bad at math.

Sometiems when playing free VP simulators online I make bad plays on purpose to see what happens. Most often I lose, but from time to time I score big. Just not often enough to feel justified in adopting a bad play for higher payoff policy.

Variance = the second moment around the mean; the expected value of the square of the deviations of a random variable from its mean value

Yeah, sure, whatever LOL

I am pretty sure at least sometimes in BJ I am going to go by hunch and stand on 16 *if* I wound up with that total after 5 cards or so. I hate hitting at that point. One of the WoO's charts, blackjack appendix one, shows that vs 10 you aren't screwing yourself too bad. Assuming I understand what I am looking at, the cost for that error is 0.0006 so wtf. I'll try to stick to BS and hit if it is another number. But I am going to feel better about that one lapse and not worry about it, no more chances to play than I get these days.

I'd say this is a case of what you are talking about, but I don't know how it would affect the variance exactly.

edits

Quote: odiousgambit

I am pretty sure at least sometimes in BJ I am going to go by hunch and stand on 16 *if* I wound up with that total after 5 cards or so. I hate hitting at that point.

You are actually supposed to stand with 3 or more cards (unless you are counting, and the count is significantly negative), so ... good hunch :)

Speaking of hunches, I will sometimes hit a 12 vs. 4 or 6 on a hunch, or double 11 vs A or 9 vs. 2. I like to think, that "hunch" in this case means that even though I was not counting, I still have noticed subconsciously that many tens and faces have been eliminated from the deck (or the opposite of that in the case of doubling), so it's got to be more than just my personal preference to doubling vs. hitting or to hitting vs. standing :)

Quote: weaselman

You are actually supposed to stand with 3 or more cards (unless you are counting, and the count is significantly negative), so ... good hunch :)

maybe so but the wizard's game only scolds me for standing unless I am very much mistaken!

Huh? The correct move with 3-card or more 16 versus 10 is to stand.

Let me try his game a while and report back.

edit: no doubt about it, 3 card 16 with his game, you get scolded if you stand, you are to hit. With this computer, can't take a picture.

Flip on that searchlight that hits the clouds and calls on the Wiz to appear! [like in Batman]

Quote: P90

Huh? The correct move with 3-card or more 16 versus 10 is to stand.

Single Deck Not 6 or 8 deck shoe. That extra card means nothing

I must admit I don't get BJ. I know the objective and I understand the rules. But I don't grasp the odds the way I do with poker hands, even to know what a good play is. I understand why it's a bad idea to split tens and a good idea to split aces, but that's it. I also undertsand, and agree, that 6:5 or 1:1 is not BJ, but that's just common sense.

I guess BJ is from Mars and Poker is from Venus ;)

No, single deck, dual deck, a 6-deck shoe, even an 8-deck shoe. You stand, that extra card still means enough.

In a LS game the only situation when you should hit on 16v10 is when you split 8s and get dealt a 10 on one hand and an 8 on another, playing without resplits. Seeing how it's such an exact and rare set of circumstances, suggesting to hit on 16v10 is in fact a basic strategy error. Not as in failing to follow BS, but as in basic strategy being wrong.

I beg to differ . That extra card means nothing in 6 deck. Hell, you don't even stand on all 16's vs a 10 in single deck,
at least so says the WIZ

# 16 (6+6+4) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (7+6+3) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (8+6+2) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (9+6+A) vs 10 = Hit

if those combinations mean you hit in SD, I can not see 1 card of 416 making you stand on any 16. Hopefully some math whiz will enlighten us both

Quote: buzzpaff

I beg to differ . That extra card means nothing in 6 deck. Hell, you don't even stand on all 16's vs a 10 in single deck,
at least so says the WIZ

# 16 (6+6+4) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (7+6+3) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (8+6+2) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (9+6+A) vs 10 = Hit

if those combinations mean you hit in SD, I can not see 1 card of 416 making you stand on any 16. Hopefully some math whiz will enlighten us both

As Rosanna Danna Danna would say, " Never Mind "

So standing is the marginally better play. Following this rule will result in an extra unit once every 1117910 hands. It would take about 5 years playing blackjack 40 hours a week before this piece of advice saved the player one unit.

I was wrong again !!

Quote: buzzpaff

I was wrong again !!

you don't explain what convinced you that you were wrong.

Quote: Nareed

Let's say I'm playing regular, single-hand JoB VP. I get dealt 10h, Jh, Jd, 2s, 6c. The right play is to keep the pair of jacks. It pays your bet back and no more. If I were playing for, say, $5 or $25 per hand I would keep the jacks, as I get my bet back at least and ahve a decent chance for a two pair or trips (not a good chance, but a decent one), and less decent chances for quads or a full house.

On the other hand if I'm playing $0.50 or $1.25 per hand, my loss for making the wrong play, which would be to keep the suited 10 and J, is too small to worry about. Then I have a terrible chance at a royal, a less horrid one for a flush, and a not too decent one at a pair of jacks (still two in the deck, right)

Poor example, because not only is keeping the jacks the better play, it is also the play with less variance. If you really wanted to gamble a bit, you could hold a suited 10 and an A with no other good cards. (Strategy says to just hold the Ace). This is a higher variance play, and gives you a shot at the royal (but not more straights or flushes). You will give up very little in E.V., and have a little excitement on the draw.

Found that info on the wiz other site. But I am still right that is not always right to stand. And I aint worried about one unit every 50
years LOL

Quote: buzzpaff

I beg to differ . That extra card means nothing in 6 deck. Hell, you don't even stand on all 16's vs a 10 in single deck

Well, yes, there are some very specific exceptions. So you don't stand on outright *any* 16, just almost any. Very close to all of the time you still need to stand though.

The general rule for standing on 3-card 16 has been mathematically calculated to apply to shoe games as well. It's not a matter of guesswork, the math has been done.

And the math says in a 8 deck shoe if you play 40 hours a week and stand versus hit you will be 1 count em again folks 1 unit ahead after 5 YEARS
No exactly a massive amount I hit 3 card 16 against the shoe and sleep at night LOL

Quote: teddys

Poor example, because not only is keeping the jacks the better play, it is also the play with less variance. If you really wanted to gamble a bit, you could hold a suited 10 and an A with no other good cards. (Strategy says to just hold the Ace).

It was the first obvious good play vs bad play that came to mind. I have sometimes held a suited 10,A in simualtions, but always in 50 hand or higher. You get back a few JoB, two pair and other winners every time, too. In some many hands you're bound to. I've yet to hit a royal, but I've had the odd straight and full house. I haven't kept track, but I don't think I've ever had a positive outcome, considering the credits bet per 50/100 hands, when holding the suited 10,A.

But that's the kind of thing I meant. Should I hold the suited 10,A? You've seen how much (meaning how little) I play, so that gives you a better notion.

Another thing I thought of is that I might prefer to play the fire bet for $5 (or less where allowed) rather than craps tables with high free odds like the 20X allowed at MSS or the 100X at Casino Royale and Rampart (BTW that's the only kind of sentence where you see those two casinos mentioned together <g>) I envision betting $5 on don't pass, then backing it with odds and placing a fire bet for a hedge (I'm desecrating the Wizard's commandments already, so I might as well hedge, too).

And yet my feeling is still "Don't go for the bad bets. And for the love of God don't go for the sucker bets!!!!!"

Maybe I was just born with a gambling instinct.

Just as well I get another year to figure it out :/

Quote:

This is a higher variance play, and gives you a shot at the royal (but not more straights or flushes). You will give up very little in E.V., and have a little excitement on the draw.

Well, technically the royal is a kind of straight flush (and the H bomb is a kind of explosive device).

PS I've been noticing more typos than usual lately. I apologize for that. I'm letting my fingernails grow out, which actually allows me to type faster and make more mistakes. I still don't proofread. And sometimes a longer nail will hit the wrong key while I am aiming ro the right one. I do tend to notice that and correct it when it happens.

Quote: buzzpaff

And the math says in a 8 deck shoe if you play 40 hours a week and stand versus hit you will be 1 count em again folks 1 unit ahead after 5 YEARS
No exactly a massive amount I hit 3 card 16 against the shoe and sleep at night LOL

Make one such mistake on every hand, though, and it will not be one unit.

It's really more of a curiosity, showcasing how theoretically perfectly calculated BS ends up being wrong.

Quote: Nareed

What I'm sayign is I know the right play, the wrong play and the expected payoff for both. The question is whether a small, short-term gambler should take the risk of the bad play because the risk is tiny.

That's actually an easy question to answer if you frame it properly.

You know the right play and how much worse, in EV terms, is the wrong play. Presumably you'll feel bad about making the wrong play if you lose the bet. The question is how good will you feel about making the wrong play if you win the bet? A better example is hunch play. If you get a "hunch", say at the dice table, and throw out a buck on a hopping hardway and hit it, you'll feel pretty good. If that feeling outweighs your knowledge that a hopping hardway has a high EV, don't let that high EV stop you from throwing the buck out.

The Wizard's sig says it's all about whether you had a good or a bad bet, not whether you win. If that's true for you too, then always make the best EV play (or don't play at all). If, on the other hand, you are *more* entertained by hitting long shots occasionally than playing safe, low-EV, low variance bets, there's no reason you shouldn't.

Even sloppy basic strategy is only 1 unit or so an hour. Hell if that bothered me, I'd never tip.

Quote: MathExtremist

You know the right play and how much worse, in EV terms, is the wrong play. Presumably you'll feel bad about making the wrong play if you lose the bet. The question is how good will you feel about making the wrong play if you win the bet?

I don't exactly feel bad after making a bad, high risk bet. I do sometimes regret it. I think "That'll teach you to make bad bets." Since none ahve yet hit, I can't say for sure. But I imagine any royal should make me feel great.

Quote:

A better example is hunch play. If you get a "hunch", say at the dice table, and throw out a buck on a hopping hardway and hit it, you'll feel pretty good. If that feeling outweighs your knowledge that a hopping hardway has a high EV, don't let that high EV stop you from throwing the buck out.

I've a firm rule not to play hunches. I accept there's no way to predict the next roll of the dice or the next card. If I decide to play a bad bet then just wanting to is good reason. A hunch isn't.

Quote: buzzpaff

I beg to differ . That extra card means nothing in 6 deck. Hell, you don't even stand on all 16's vs a 10 in single deck,
at least so says the WIZ

# 16 (6+6+4) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (7+6+3) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (8+6+2) vs 10 = Hit
# 16 (9+6+A) vs 10 = Hit

if those combinations mean you hit in SD, I can not see 1 card of 416 making you stand on any 16. Hopefully some math whiz will enlighten us both

Well, I'm not the math whiz, but the WoO site has a Blackjack Appendix 18 in which the Wizard says:

Quote:

There are only a few exceptions for 2 to 8 decks, as follows.

Always: Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards.
Two decks, dealer stands on soft 17: Stand soft 18 vs A with 3 or more cards.
Four or six decks, dealer stands on soft 17: Stand soft 18 vs A with 4 or more cards.

The first exception there seems to support the position described by weaselman and P90. In the Wizard's on-line blackjack game, the advice does not recognize the composition dependent strategy exceptions, which explains why it doesn't recommend to odiousgambit that he stand on 3-card 16 vs. 10.

I don't know why this WoO page disagrees with the quote you have for the Wizard, unless single deck exceptions differ from 2 to 8 decks.

Quote: Doc

In the Wizard's on-line blackjack game, the advice does not recognize the composition dependent strategy exceptions, which explains why it doesn't recommend to odiousgambit that he stand on 3-card 16 vs. 10.

thanks for figuring this out btw