Trade Inciarte or No?

Enscheff said:
A single person may not have unlimited money, but the public as a whole does. And the casino still wins. Any "strategy" can work over a small sample size, but overall, the player loses.

Again, it is precisely misunderstandings like the ones debated over the last 2 pages that allow casinos to make billions of dollars a year. The math is undeniably against the player, yet folks insist on spinning scenarios and ideas in their heads to justify why they "should" win.

Roulette is the most simple wager game imaginable, essentially one step in complexity above flipping a coin, yet the general public can't wrap their heads around how the odds actually work. Gambling is truly a tax on stupidity, and it pays guys like me. So thank you everyone haha!
Click to expand...

Right. The only way for one person to walk in guaranteed to win is if they have infinite money and the discipline to stop once they win the first time using the 'double-down' method. But yes, even a person (or as you said, the public) with infinite money will lose over time if they don't stop after the first win.
 
Enscheff said:
The only advantage the house has in blackjack is that the players all have to go first, and if they bust they lose immediately even if the dealer busts on his turn. Like everything else, the casino has essentially unlimited money backing them, so they can play until you lose. You can only play until you run out of cash.

You can absolutely "beat" the casino at blackjack by counting cards. If you count the number of 10s (including face cards) that come out between shuffles, the "count" can become such that there are 5-10 more or less 10s remaining than usual. At that point the dealer is either more likely to bust if there are more 10s remaining, or you are less likely to bust if there are fewer 10s remaining. At that point you can alter your strategy while the dealer can not, and you end up with a slight advantage (still less than 5% though). The idea is to bet $10 on every hand until there is a favorable count, at which point you bet $1000. Take advantage of enough favorable card counts by betting large and you will be guaranteed to come out ahead. Then they will throw you out of the casino.
Click to expand...

Heavy emphasis on your last sentence.

Word of caution...if you play blackjack for a while on the same table betting one unit, go immediately (or even in stair step fashion) to a much larger amount wagered, and repeat this pattern more than a couple of times, you will be kindly asked by the guys in suits to take your action elsewhere - regardless of your success rate at some places. Playing using the chips belonging to the passed out guy next to you is apparently acceptable, however.

On a related note, the Barbary Coast and its owners circa 2004 can kiss my entire ass.
 
Enscheff said:
A single person may not have unlimited money, but the public as a whole does. And the casino still wins. Any "strategy" can work over a small sample size, but overall, the player loses.

Again, it is precisely misunderstandings like the ones debated over the last 2 pages that allow casinos to make billions of dollars a year. The math is undeniably against the player, yet folks insist on spinning scenarios and ideas in their heads to justify why they "should" win.

Roulette is the most simple wager game imaginable, essentially one step in complexity above flipping a coin, yet the general public can't wrap their heads around how the odds actually work. Gambling is truly a tax on stupidity, and it pays guys like me. So thank you everyone haha!
Click to expand...

I don't think you've read anything correctly if this is the conclusion you've come up. I know exactly the odds of what I did and made the gamble. The casino will win because they put max bets... otherwise, the strategy that you keep mocking would bankrupt them.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think you've read anything correctly if this is the conclusion you've come up. I know exactly the odds of what I did and made the gamble. The casino will win because they put max bets... otherwise, the strategy that you keep mocking would bankrupt them.
Click to expand...

It really wouldn't though.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think you've read anything correctly if this is the conclusion you've come up. I know exactly the odds of what I did and made the gamble. The casino will win because they put max bets... otherwise, the strategy that you keep mocking would bankrupt them.
Click to expand...

Well...you're wrong. I can promise you, with 100% certainty, there is no "strategy" in the world that will allow you to take down the house playing roulette. That is a patently absurd suggestion for anyone to make, and doing so proves a complete and utter ignorance of the topic. Whatever you think you know, you don't. You're going to continue to argue casino gaming odds (of a game with the most simplistic 3% hold math model possible) with a guy who has worked on the data analysis side of the business for 15 years anyways.

Probably time to get this thread back on topic anyways though.
 
What the **** is happening in this thread?

**** I'll chime in on roulette. Remember that time Carpe said you always bet on Green? That was fun.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think you've read anything correctly if this is the conclusion you've come up. I know exactly the odds of what I did and made the gamble. The casino will win because they put max bets... otherwise, the strategy that you keep mocking would bankrupt them.
Click to expand...

It absolutely would not.
 
After all this talk, you still think casino's win because of max bets in place? Like, seriously?
 
smootness said:
It absolutely would not.
Click to expand...

Unless you think I would never quit playing after winning, I don't know how you figure. Unless you think the roll would never land on black. I would eventually win. This is a mathematical certainty.

If I played infinitely, I wouldn't... But I wouldn't do that.
 
Enscheff said:
Well...you're wrong. I can promise you, with 100% certainty, there is no "strategy" in the world that will allow you to take down the house playing roulette. That is a patently absurd suggestion for anyone to make, and doing so proves a complete and utter ignorance of the topic. Whatever you think you know, you don't. You're going to continue to argue casino gaming odds (of a game with the most simplistic 3% hold math model possible) with a guy who has worked on the data analysis side of the business for 15 years anyways.

Probably time to get this thread back on topic anyways though.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Again. I know the rules in place wouldn't allow it.

If I had an infiinite bankroll, and no maximum bets. I would eventually win.

If I then lost again, I'd keep rolling til I eventually won again.

These are unrealistic scenarios. But there is no way to avoid me eventually winning in this scenario.

In my real world example... I had a 97% chance of winning. I struck the 3%. The casino will lose on most people doing that strategy but will make it all back and more on me. I'm not oblivious to this.
 
sturg33 said:
Sigh. Again. I know the rules in place wouldn't allow it.

If I had an infiinite bankroll, and no maximum bets. I would eventually win.

If I then lost again, I'd keep rolling til I eventually won again.

These are unrealistic scenarios. But there is no way to avoid me eventually winning in this scenario.

In my real world example... I had a 97% chance of winning. I struck the 3%. The casino will lose on most people doing that strategy but will make it all back and more on me. I'm not oblivious to this.
Click to expand...

So in an unrealistic scenario, it's feasible the casino could lose, but in reality they definitely won't? And you still think they have to have the maximum bets in place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top