Posted on 03/05/2014 7:38:49 AM PST by Kaslin
The casinos depend on mathematics to generate predictable earnings. Players are almost universally guided by their human brains with its inherent cognitive biases. Those biases are well-suited to normal life but are not designed to think in terms of probabilities or events that have no memory. Casino slot machines are designed to pay out based on probabilities and pay-out schedules that are relatively simple in nature. A slot machine doesn’t need to care about whether it has paid out any money in the past, it only needs to reliably follow the programmed pay-out probabilities and schedule for each new play. Card games are, in essence, versions of the same probability-based payout system.
The player has to fight the powerful influence of memory of prior play outcomes. He also has to fight internal motivation to win and internal upset at losing.
If the player plays five times and loses, then suddenly has a winning play, that can motivate further play. A player will start with, say, $100 and play down to $40. Then he wins $30 and is motivated to spend another $50. He now has $20 and the next play gets him $50! He is on a roll and “feels like a winner”. He plays again and again, eventually winning $10 but finally emptying his pocket. He goes home “entertained” and human nature tends to remember the positive events such as winning $30 followed by an even bigger $50 win. But, in the end, the casino earns $100.
The more times you play, the more closely to the programmed probabilities you will get. Those probabilities always favor the casino, of course. If you want to “beat the casino”, you should reduce the number of plays to a minimum (one play). You should have unemotional rules of play—you are playing an unemotional mathematical system—it has neither memory nor feelings. By doing these two things, you will increase the possibility of a net positive outcome—but you do so at a mathematical disadvantage to the casino. Alternatively, construct a team of experts trained in all aspects of a winning strategy, including perfectly-controlled strategy, fail-proof security, and the ability to avoid pattern detection. You have to be better than an MIT team because their approach is now known.
No, I got a couple of hours of fun and entertainment, which is exactly what I wanted.
Same as I would have gotten from going out any place else. Some free drinks too.
“Just how do you “count cards” with SIX deck black jacK. With six decks that is 24 aces to keep track of. It is ridiculous.”
I doubt I could do that. I believe the MIT team was working in an era of fewer decks, however, they “counted” a lot of things besides cards and used a tightly-trained and coordinated group to track the game and other matters. The mathematical part of it is relatively basic—it has to be or the casino could expose itself to uncertainty through complexity. Another “team” I was told about was an organization of different size and approach in contrast with the MIT team.
I've never tried to count every single card. You're right - that would be ridiculous. But, even paying just a little attention to patterns - i.e. how many face cards versus other cards are being dealt - can help. Even with 6 decks.
Those wanting to pay more attention can go with the old-fashioned plus/minus system. "+" or every face card, "-" for others. If you find the minuses are greatly outweighing the pluses at some point, don't be afraid to bet bigger on the next hand.
I like how the casino industry has changed the word “gambling” into “gaming”. Less ominous, I suppose.
“What do you think we’re doing out here in the middle of the desert? It’s all this money. This is the end result of all the bright lights and the comped trips, of all the champagne and free hotel suites, and all the broads and all the booze. It’s all been arranged just for us to get your money. That’s the truth about Las Vegas.”
I once remarked to another statistician that I could achieve the expected value by not playing. His reply was that I must think it's a fair game. He was right. The expected value is negative. By not playing, I do better than the expected value of playing.
I went to high school with a guy who inherited a lot of money, including a farm. He worked hard and increased his wealth quite a bit. He lost every thing at a casino. I’ve heard numbers from $3 million to $8 million. He’s 62 years old now lives with his 90 year old mother.
Maybe because any game you play can be risky like gambling is?
Yeah thats how they pay for all those really nice casino’s. With the money they pay out.
(The chips can be cashed in casinos worldwide.)
With all due respect, I’m not sure that is correct.
Whichever casino issues the chips, is the casino that accepts them back. Were I to take chips from MGM and head over to Ceaser’s, they would not accept those chips.
Just curious what you meant by that statement.
“Slots KEEP 97-98% of the money they take in.”
Other way around. House take on the slots is typically 2-10%
Most is returned to the players but the house always wins their take
Card counting is not keeping track of every card. Each card is assigned +1, -1 or zero value. When the value gets high (more aces, tens and face cards left to deal), counters bet large.
It's not just an issue of counting cards. With just a single deck there are four aces. The probability of the four aces being grouped toward the bottom of the deck is what the card counter is hoping for. This increases the odds of a better payoff.
If you count cards in a single deck and the aces appear at the top of the deck, the opportunity to benefit has disappeared before you can take advantage and it would be disadvantageous to continue playing with the remainder of the deck.
With six decks, and twenty-four aces, the probability goes way down that the aces will group toward the bottom of the deck. No matter how accurately you count, you will still have to wait an inordinate amount of time before the six decks are arranged in such a way that the bottom of the deck is more advantageous for the player than for the house.
holy crap you need to chill!
While that has been generally true, I think the amount of subsidy for the meals has decreased as the economy has sagged.
As for the games, the issue of subsidy is also relevant.
My wife loves slot machines. She can sit for hours playing the same machine and only recently has she grown somewhat less interested in doing so.
For some time we would make a weekly circuit visiting three Indian casinos in our area. They have "Senior Day" at each one. At one, for example, if you wager a total of $30, the casino would then provide $20 free for additional wagering.
Five dollars played a nickel at a time in a machine takes about thirty minutes. At this rate, playing $30 takes three hours. If the machine pays at 95%, then you can expect to have, on average, $28.50 returned from the $30 wagered. At this point, the casino gives you $20 to wager. After an additional two hours, you can expect to have $19 remaining of the $20 supplied by the casino.
Subtracting the $1.50 cost of earning the additional $20 and the $1 take while wagering the $20, one can expect to leave the casino after 5 hours having an additional $17.50 in one's pocket, or $35 for a couple.
My wife and I would typically hit three such casinos on our "casino day" and thus would have about $100 to show for the day. This would be the average benefit. The variability is quite high, so some trips would yield $30 or $40 dollars and some several hundred dollars.
When you add back in the subsidized meals, it was pretty cheap entertainment. The "trick" is that you must never spins the wheels unless the house is subsidizing the spin.
Sometimes these same casinos would even provide a "match play" coupon allowing a $10 bet on a blackjack table for only $5. Roughly half the time you win and half you lose. For every two times you use such a coupon, you tend to lose $5 once and win $10 once, for a net benefit per coupon of $2.50, or another $5 per couple.
A fourth casino in our area offered a special slot-machine "Buy In", providing $260 of play for $200 in cash. Having nothing better to do during the day, I took advantage of this every day for almost three months before so many people must have figured out the benefit that the casino cancelled the program.
I'll let you calculate what I took from the casino during that time.
Even that won't help. The MIT team was taking advantage of a legal way to play which caused the game to favor the player and not the house. Most casinos have now changed how they manage the cards so that the advantage is with the house. You can play to minimize your loss but there is no way to win long term while playing a game which favors the house.
A professional statistician I know tried to board an airplane with a bomb in her carry-on luggage with no intention of setting it off of course. She said as a way of explanation that the chance of two bombs being on the same flight is statistically infitesimal.
If you win consistently at a casino you definitely will get noticed. The house’s argument is that these are games of chance and if you eliminate chance you’re illegal. Of course, no player can totally eliminate chance. That the state is in cahoots with the casinos is no surprise, given their dependence on gambling revenue.
Casinos make it up in volume. Just like my computer computer company told me when we were selling machines below production costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.