[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-August-20, 11:43, said:

But if you change the odds to favor the player, fewer gamblers will go broke.

IMO most gamblers aren't going broke because of the odds, they are going broke because their behavior leads to it.

Stephen Tu, on 2013-August-20, 11:43, said:

If you in contrast rigged the games in favor of the player, the opposite would be true, after long sessions most people would be *ahead*, and most people would be quitting when they are ahead.

But most of the people who go to casinos don't play long sessions. They stop when they are out of money, which happens pretty fast. So all the paths that start with a loss and end with a win don't happen - they get cut off as losses. And gamblers also do other things to go broke, like substantially increasing their bets when ahead - so that it takes very few losses to hit bottom again. Sort of like the strategy to win by doubling your bet after every loss, but in reverse. Many seem almost hellbent on losing. These types of things are paying the casino handsomely, above and beyond the simple -EV they offer.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-August-20, 13:04, said:

IMO most gamblers aren't going broke because of the odds, they are going broke because their behavior leads to it.

And the main constituent of that behavior is playing casino games with negative expected value. If the odds are tilted in their favor, the results will change.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-August-20, 13:10, said:

And the main constituent of that behavior is playing casino games with negative expected value. If the odds are tilted in their favor, the results will change.

I just don't agree. Compulsive gamblers find a way to lose. 51% chance versus 49% isn't going to stop them.

OK, some smart bettors and mathematicians could take advantage of +EV player odds, and this is usually enough to stop the casinos offering them. But the rank and file gambler - no.

Basically what I am saying comes down to what was already mentioned - these players are using suboptimal strategies.

[Stephen Tu]

billw55, on 2013-August-20, 13:14, said:

Basically what I am saying comes down to what was already mentioned - these players are using suboptimal strategies.

No, that's not what your claim was. Your claim was that even if the games were +EV, people's psychology of when to leave when losing would make them lose anyway, which is just wrong. If the games were +EV, a ton more people would find themselves up after however long they like to play, people would leave when they doubled/tripled their money or whatever (of course people in general would just play until casino inevitably forced to shutdown). It's just that the games are rigged to be -EV, so you find a lot more people broke leaving than winners leaving.

People lose at gambling because the games are -EV, period. Many players play suboptimal strategies, that just makes their negative EV more negative. Most people leaving as losers, when they have lost all their money is a consequence of the games being -EV. You are claiming that the EV doesn't matter, it is their "stop loss" strategy that is making them lose, their tendency to quit while behind instead of while ahead. This just isn't true. The tendency to be behind is because in a rigged game, you are usually behind!

In the long run, when one starts and stops sessions has *no effect*. Gambling is essentially just "one long lifetime session", the timing of your breaks is very much irrelevant. The only things that really matter are:
- how -EV the game you are playing is
- # of bets per hour you are making
- size of those wagers
- how many hours you play given these same conditions

Over the long run, no matter what strategy you pursue as to when you stop a session, your losses will trend toward whatever your expected loss per hour is. Doesn't matter if you try to leave when ahead, or play until broke, or always play exactly half an hour or an hour. Doesn't matter!!!

Play some poker sometime, against equal opponents, *without rake*. A 0 EV game. The game will last forever! Just because you have a bunch of degen compulsive gamblers together, they don't spontaneously lose money, it'll just randomly circulate around the table. What busts people out at the casino is the -EV, the rake.

Quote

Compulsive gamblers find a way to lose. 51% chance versus 49% isn't going to stop them.

Sure it will. Compulsive gambler with a +EV edge often becomes *professional gambler*. People have made fortunes at poker or sports betting where +EV is possible. Now, some of these have been known to lose it back, but they don't lose it back in the field they are +EV in, they lose it in -EV wagers and activities. They have other vices, like some poker players who have been known to make millions at the poker table but a tendency to dump a lot of it to casinos playing craps or baccarat or other table games.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-August-19, 22:22, said:

That is true.

And the chances that your door is the wrong one is 2/3.

And you also know which of the other two doors is the wrong one.

So, if given the opportunity to switch, you should switch, since the chances that the switch is right is 2/3.

Yes, quite. But the author states that your chance of being right is still the 1/3 you had originally.

[billw55]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-August-20, 14:13, said:

No, that's not what your claim was.

LOL

Stephen Tu, on 2013-August-20, 14:13, said:

Play some poker sometime, against equal opponents, *without rake*. A 0 EV game. The game will last forever!

No, because people will quit when they lose a certain amount. Although after some number have done so, the rest might play for a very long time.

If the stakes are small enough compared to the loss the players can absorb and continue playing, then yes, I would agree.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-August-20, 14:50, said:

LOL


No, because people will quit when they lose a certain amount.

[citation needed]

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-August-20, 15:03, said:

[citation needed]

Hello? When they don't have any more cash on them? Or for many, when their chip stack is gone, whether they have more in pocket or not.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-August-19, 20:08, said:

Back to the article:

"Since you already knew that at least one of the other two doors held a booby prize, you have learned nothing. You still have the same one chance in three that you started with."

This is very obviously wrong, since there are only two doors left. Even if the author doesn't understand that switching changes your odds to 2/3, he ought to be able to see that you can't have a one in three chance if there are only two doors.

I think you should read the article again. In the article, Monty Hall doesn't offer the possibility of switching doors. He offers the options of keeping the original door, or taking some cash. The statement "You still have the same one chance in three that you started with" is in the context of keeping the original door, and it's correct.

[GreenMan]

billw55, on 2013-August-20, 15:06, said:

Hello? When they don't have any more cash on them? Or for many, when their chip stack is gone, whether they have more in pocket or not.

You're taking a situation where people almost always run out of money, and shouting that they will behave exactly the same in a different situation where they almost NEVER run out of money. I can't believe it needs spelling out.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-August-20, 15:37, said:

I think you should read the article again. In the article, Monty Hall doesn't offer the possibility of switching doors. He offers the options of keeping the original door, or taking some cash. The statement "You still have the same one chance in three that you started with" is in the context of keeping the original door, and it's correct.

Oh, OK. I guess I misread it.

[cherdano]

Wonderful article, but I agree with Adam that the assumptions ignore the difference between major and minor suits.

[gnasher]

There may be another minor mistake in the article:

"for my intended audience [bridge players], I stand by my claim that this problem is easy"

[ArtK78]

GreenMan, on 2013-August-20, 12:38, said:

I don't have the numbers handy, but I heard a while back that Don't Pass is the better bet by a small margin, though it's still -EV because the house keeps a small cut. In fact, unless you're a +EV player in some games as Stephen described, Don't Pass is the best bet in most casinos.

Well, sure. If pass is 49.47%, then don't pass is 50.53%. However, the cut taken by the house is more than 1.06%, so it winds up being worse than pass.

[GreenMan]

ArtK78, on 2013-August-20, 16:59, said:

Well, sure. If pass is 49.47%, then don't pass is 50.53%. However, the cut taken by the house is more than 1.06%, so it winds up being worse than pass.

That's not how I understand it. Don't Pass pushes on either 2 or 12, depending on the casino, so the house keeps its edge that way. The house's edge is thus a bit better on Pass than Don't Pass.

[mycroft]

I'm confused. I'm sure there is a place where you can be +EV and still lose - Yarborough's bet comes to mind. The loss is based on the fact that after you eat $1000 tonight, despite the fact that you're up $1100 over the last 7 months, you don't have any more money to bet (and yes, I know the odds aren't 1100-1) - because you've already spent at least 100 of that winnings. If not tonight, then twice in a week. Or four times in a month. These times happen.

Yes, nobody's going to actually set up games in the player's favour; but between suboptimal play and having a loss limit (and sometimes, a win limit), 100.05% games will make money. Just not as much as 97% games.

Yes, once it gets to 103%, given players aren't on the hook for 70% of their bankroll on every play, players aren't going to run out of money. But there has to be a point where it works (given that blackjack with perfect counting and +EV video poker (with perfect defence) exist(ed), so we have two proven examples).

[ArtK78]

If you count cards at blackjack, you have a 0.5% edge on the casino in a normal blackjack game. And, while a good card counter working for the casino may be able to work it out, unless you are betting enormous amounts the casino is unlikely to care.

I was only thrown out of one casino, and that was about 30 years ago. Dave Treadwell, who was very good at it, was only unwelcome in one or two Atlantic City casinos.

[ArtK78]

GreenMan, on 2013-August-20, 17:14, said:

That's not how I understand it. Don't Pass pushes on either 2 or 12, depending on the casino, so the house keeps its edge that way. The house's edge is thus a bit better on Pass than Don't Pass.

Yes - there is a push - according to what I read, it is on 12.

This reduces the odds of winning by 1/72, as you will push one time in 36.

[Free]

billw55, on 2013-August-20, 09:21, said:

I meant it as an opinion of human gambler behavior, not a game theory computation. Many gamblers tend to bet until they are broke, then go home.

There's a serious flaw in this logic because human behaviour hasn't got anything to do with it. You suppose an individual has to earn back his own money to make the casino lose, while in fact another player can easily win another individual's losses back (hurting the casino). In fact, when a whale bets relatively small amounts, he can play forever and slowly make a profit.

Example:
Suppose you have 8 people betting their last dollar on a coin flip and the casino pays out 2.01 times your wager if you win. Suppose half of these people bet heads, the other half bet tails. After one coin flip you have 4 guys broke, but 4 guys now have 2.01 dollars. 4 guys go home and the casino lost 4 cents in the process. If we continue this and 2 of the remaining guys bet all their money on heads, the 2 others bet tails, you'll have 2 more guys broke and 2 guys having 4.04 dollars. Casino is already 8 cents down. And so on.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2013-August-20, 18:25, said:

If you count cards at blackjack, you have a 0.5% edge on the casino in a normal blackjack game.

Not in a good casino any more. The dealers are trained to spot the pattern of a card counter - little chat, much concentration, string of small bets followed by a large one. Thy also have a rule in place that the deck can be changed at any time. So you count cards for a couple of hours while the game is EV- losing slowly. Then the game comes back to you and you go for the big bet but the house reacts by changing the deck and you are back to square one in an EV- game. This is the history of casinos - whenever someone finds a way to break the bank they change the rules. Has been ever since the first time it was done (a man worked out the bias points of roulette wheels and bet exclusively on those numbers - the casinos now change the wheels every day).

Since the MIT teams did their thing, all casinos in the world are pretty hot on catching card counters. If you do it professionally enough then you will earn yourself not only a ban in the casino you are working in but also in many of the major casinos all around the world. That is fundamentally why Andy Bloch switched to poker - it is just easier to make money there now and the casinos are happy about it because they still make their profit.