For amateurs, the reasonable way to go to casinos is by deciding how much money you're willing to lose ahead of time, and thinking of that amount as a fee for entertainment.
thats exactly what my dad taught me the first time i went to a casino. he said you have to set a number your comfortable with loosing- some people thats 100 bucks, others its a thousand, and your just there to have a good time.
But how are people comfortably entertained by knowing they gonna lose anyway?! I just can't do that! I hate losing and I can't be entertained knowing I am gonna lose. That being said, I am still curious about going to a casino just out of curiosity for the atmosphere and for the sake of the experience (one time in life), but I definitely wouldn't be finding it entertaining knowing I will loose even just 100 bucks 😄 I would probably be anxious all that time and not finding any joy in playing anything. That would change IF I had someone else's money to play with. The whole thing feels like a nicer way of being robbed, like a thief asking for your permission to rob you 🤦♂
@@HyperionFive i think its because everyone has to have that tiny feeling in the back of their mind "what if I do win" that's what's enough to get them to a casino and gamble
I like how this guy‘s fully transparent about casinos just always being a losing game. The entire framing already starts with „you lose less“, never even implying you could (= should) try to win.
that's because the only way to win long term against the casino is to play a game at an advantageous state (to the player) This is only possible in blackjack if counting cards, or in progressive slots if the Jackpot is high enough. All other games this is impossible UNLESS there is some kind of defect like a biased roulette wheel or other mechanical error
@@kiyokiyoko Not true, there's countless people out there claiming to have a system and trying to get people on board. Whether they want to sell a book, views on a video, etc.
Another fun fact is that casinos like to put out tons of slot machines so that if they hit a jackpot, lets say, every hour, then having 60 machines makes it sound like they are winning every minute to people hearing the jackpot sounds. This helps the psychology to get players to want to play them as they hear the jackpots more often even though they may only be happening 6 times in a whole day on a machine
Also, the layout of Slot Machines are Strategic. Machines near thruways and places where lines form can be set at the lower end of the dial. So tired and bored line holders will sit down and throw quarters away (or dollars).
Yes, I have only played ones and it is not just the jackpots. You habe a constant feeling you are winning. You put in 10 Cents per game, will lose 4 games and win 1 for 20 Cents, so you lost 30 Cents, but the maschine will use sound and lights in a way that you will forget your 4 losses and remember that 1 win.
Scientists always get accused of talking over or patronising people. I don't know why, but people get incredibly insecure about how little they know, even when they're actively seeking knowledge and asking questions about something they don't know. In that context, being able to explain stuff in a way that doesn't prick that insecurity, puts people at ease and they still end up learning the information accurately is valuable. Because the alternative is they get hostile, mentally block you out and end up just as ignorant as before, having learned nothing.
@@ramshacklealex7772 no that's literally a law you can look it up. Math and physics degree holder here. Personally, I don't think he's holding back, they were pretty simple questions. He's answered them properly and concisely. Also, I don't see anyone accusing scientists of talking over them. Real professionals know how to explain things in simple terms, if someone is sounding confusing check their education. I see a lot of uncredible sources on youtube try to use big words when they don't know anything. In an academic or professional setting, that would be cringe and no one would ever do that. I instead see people more so saying they KNOW MORE THAN THE SCIENTISTS 🤦♂I think that's way more common than people saying they talk over them. I think it's just the way he talks that makes you feel like he's struggling to explain it simply, you can feel confident that he didn't hold back telling you anything. It's just his mannerisms.
I worked at a casino as a bartender, the casino I worked at had the hot machines at the bar. It was great for me but it made me realize casinos do what they need to to benefit the house. A guy wins 200 at the bar, he buys the bar a round of shots, the house makes back 60 and I make 30
That's the biggest thing I feel like people don't fully appreciate about casinos. Vegas built a global brand and dozens of multi-billion dollar hotels and casinos off of a 2-3% edge. They lure you in with promises of riches and keep you at the table as long as possible because even if you break even, they win. Even if you win, everyone around you lost. But only enough where they think it's bad luck and/or worth the fun. If you're trying to actually make money, you need to know your math and ignore everything else around you.
ironically, because of those kind of reasons, if they managed incredibly well all the things outside of the money games part, casino could still come out positive without having an edge in games. games would not be here to make money, but just to bring people in and incite them to spend money outside of the games. that's close to the business plan of some video games. gacha games, they make you pay to randomly roll for rewards with odds stacked in your favor, if that wasn't enough, they even make you more likely to win big if you lose repeatedly. thing is, regardless of winning or losing, you're not winning back money. and all they are ever spending on you is simply their initial development costs.
That's pretty much the reason I stopped going to casinos and venture cautiously anywhere - everything has been psychologically designed. Pure oxygen pumped in, free drinks, and tailored experiences like you mention, there's plenty more under the woodwork, I'm sure.
I love how he basically goes 'you make the most money in poker when you play against people that are really bad. Also, sidenote: my friend created a software to track really bad poker players online so he can make a lot of money'.
With poker, you still can't beat the house, but you can beat the other players. The table as a whole will lose money, but some players at that table might come out WAY ahead.
too many errors: * house edge of baccarat is 1%, not 0.5% * best odds in the casino for dumb player is technically craps, because the odds bet has no house edge and the pass/don't pass bets stay on the table for multiple rolls (at 1.4% HA) * the number for blackjack edge at the beginning are weird; not as much as 3% (unless it's 6:5 bj), but below 1% * house edge for casino games calculation is deterministic, not Monte Carlo/RNG. * Martingale is not reason for bet limit, but simple risk reduction. * Volatility of slots wasn't answered * Casino games aren't rigged, he should have challenged that * he got the odds of 8 reds in a row wrong (18/38^8, not 1/2^8)
I'm just an average poker player, but his point about playing bad poker players is spot on. One time I was in Vegas at an open table (hold 'em), and these 3 guys entered the game...they seemed like they knew the game and probably played a weekly game, but I started noticing a rhythm in their betting and all three played the same type of game. I folded a bunch of hands and watched. They tended to bluff early, but with small bets. If they had a good hand, they would open strong. So I started to only play really strong hands (occasionally showing my cards to prove this), and folding if they ever raised, making them think that I never bluffed. I could see them talking to each other pointing this out. So I let them steal a few blinds that I would normally play. Within ten hands I could literally predict when they had a strong hand. I made around $500 off of the three of them. The point: Any good player would have crushed me but you don't have to be the best, just be better than the others.
Ha ha... yeah I know, it's kind of a dumb post by me if you look at it that way, but I'm still surprised at how many people can't read the table and take advantage of the weaker players. Honestly I wasn't even the best player at the table, so I avoided hands with the better players and capitalised of those guys. @@carlosbaquerizo1589
"the best poker strategy is to be good at poker" This is basically the best answer he could give, since it would take maybe hundreds of hours to actually describe something close to optimal strategy. The set of possible gamestates is just so much larger than any table game, alnost infinitely so for any given stack depth
🤷🏻♂️ if you don't go crazy and stick to video poker or something, you can have a pretty good time on $20 over an hour or so. You can easily blow $20 doing something else.
You could do what my mother in law did, and stick fifty cents in a low-fry slot machine on the Vegas trip. She didn't gamble anything else the rest of the trip, but she only paid half a dollar for the right to truthfully say, "I gambled in Vegas." 😆
I’m glad he mentioned craps. That is the best game in the casino because if you play basic strategy, you have odds that are almost as good as blackjack, and so you can play a long time without losing too much money, get free drinks, and the craps table is more fun and exciting than blackjack. You’ll still lose, but you’ll have more fun doing it than blackjack. Also nobody yells at you for “doing it wrong” which does happen at blackjack tables.
The best thing about craps is that you're playing to win with the rest of the table. It's one of the few social games where you're not trying to beat the other players and you can celebrate wins together.
Yes. I disagree with the video about baccarat. While it does have a good payout per hand, baccarat is a very fast playing game, even faster than blackjack. That means you can lose your money faster. Roulette and craps have odds that aren't quite as good, but are close (especially for craps, if you bet most of your money on the odds). But roulette and craps are very slow games so you can play for a long time before you inevitably lose. The other thing about roulette and craps is that because of the wide variety of bets available, you can adjust your play style for the kind of gambling you enjoy. Baccarat has only player and banker, which are almost the same, and the tie, which is a sucker bet. There is not really very much variety. I do not think baccarat is a very good game 🙃
@@fluffysheapbacc is the easiest casino game by far. Lol. Its 2 bets. You say you can lose money quickly but it also goes the other way as well. It can be gained just as fast.
I’ve worked at many casinos, and for a very long time. Something like to mention to players who say something like, “It’s landed on Red 8 times in a row! The odds of that are crazy!” And I’m seeing people in the comments saying (correcting) the math he mentioned in this video. HOWEVER, something to consider is those crazy odds are ONLY the odds if you were to make the bet BEFOREHAND. For example, “I bet it’ll be Red 8 times in a row.” THEN, the odds would be crazy difficult. Playing in REAL TIME, and betting red each time…the odds will always be slightly LESS than 50%. Each and every outcome is totally independent of the last.
Yeah people tend to forget it isn't a cumulative chance the chance of you getting a color is always 50% Same as 0, the chance of getting it is the same as getting any other single number. It only isn't affected by color so you're forced to bet individually
This is what makes slot machines particularly dirty. In the real world probability is always the same every time, but in software probability DOES follow mathematical statistic formulas because it frankly is a simulated mathematical statistic formula for pseudo randomness. So that slot machine IS keeping track of how many wins/losses and will reward it's payout according to that. Likewise in online gambling you're dealing with the same problems, the computer can and will streak you into a number of wins and losses.
@@benjaminaltube8731 well it’s fair to correct your comment as well: the chances of getting a red/black in roulette is not 50%. It is less, because there are (typically) two green options on the wheel as well.
I've had fun at a casino before. The trick is to think of it as spending money, the same as you would at a cinema or something. If you walk away with a win, thats a bonus. Otherwise, you're paying for the thrill of the risk.
6:55 It’s not really to stop the martingale betting strategy (though it does) because they know eventually the player will go on a losing streak and they will get their entire bankroll. It is more to cut down on variance. If someone goes in and bets a million on one outside bet in roulette, then the law of big numbers hasn’t really come into play because it is only one bet. The player has a pretty good chance at winning and then walking away with a million. By having limits it forces them to play more rounds to win a substantial amount of money and thus the law of big numbers kicks in.
Yeah I really don't know why he said that, martingale is completely flawed. Like you say variance is a big factor. Another consideration would be if someone found a way to cheat, they would have more chance to catch then before they walked away with a huge profit.
The martingale strategy is a good reason for the betting limit. Without these limits Elon Musk could pretty easily bankrupt pretty much any casino before the law of big numbers would save them.
@@lynco3296 The only reason for betting limits is to decrease variance. Casinos need to control the variance because they are in the business of making steady but certain profits, so they don't want to let Elon Musk walk in and put 100 million on 00. Martingale or any other betting strategy is not going to change the probability of the huge bet making the casino lose a year's worth of profit
@@lynco3296 You're right about the conclusion but wrong about the reason. It's a mathematical fact that a billionaire will have a better chance of outlasting the casino by taking the biggest possible bet over and over than by making any low bets (like he would in Martingale). Yes, Elon Musk could bankrupt the casino if there were no table limits, but Martingale has nothing to do with it. Musk would just bet on red against the casino's entire bankroll over and over until he won. He wouldn't start with any small bets (like Martingale would suggest) because that's just helping the casino build their bankroll for no gain.
Umm. . . You do know the chat BJ Apprenticeship uses was designed in 1956 and that this guy was using that same chart in the 90s as part of the mit blackjack team before Colin even knew what blackjack was, right?
As a former casino employee (specifically in the gaming department) I only have 1 math correction and 1 linguistic correction for all of this. 1) 0:40 Lee states that a regular player loses $1.5-$3 per $100 in blackjack (1.5-3% hold for the house.) However that's too optimistic of the regular player's base skill level. We almost always had a hold of around 20% on our Blackjack tables because players are regularly quite bad at the game. (Our house had 3:2 blackjack and no continuous shuffle machine.) 2) 7:48 Lee says "The follow on bets are even odds." In a casino, "even odds" would be used to describe a 1:1 payout. What Lee is intending to say is they are "true odds" bets. These are bets where the payout is identical to the chance to lose the bet. What he describes is correct, it was just the wrong phrase.
I got one more: At 10:44 he says the odds of eight reds in a row is 1 in 256, but the chances of red are only 18/38, not 1/2, so the odds are actually closer to 1 in 394
@@thedemon1818 yeah, I was going to ignore that though since he was doing mental math and powers of 2 are a lot easier lol. But you are technically correct. The best kind of correct. 😅
@@Marvininini How did you get ≈0.000172? I got ≈0.00253 which is about a 1 in 394 chance. You didn't even use mental math and you're way off, so don't insult his mental math. Unless you're trolling of course lol.
@@casper14301 oh I missed what ever you were replying to. I tried to figure out what number the guy must have done and the best I can figure it 0.000175 is hitting red 12 consecutive times on a single 0 wheel. 🤔
To expand of one of his answers: casinos in Las Vegas are allowed to kick you out for any reason. They do not need to justify their decision. So they can kick out card counters because card counters win money, and for no other reason at all.
I mean, isn't that the trespassing law he mentioned? The moment you as the owner arbitrarily consider someone a trespasser, you're legally allowed to throw them out since it's he's on your property? However you are formulating the justification afterward, if there was an actual court over this, wouldn't it lead back to that exact law?
@@midknightcrisis8612 Not necessarily. In order to trespass someone, there are certain steps you have to go through such as formally and unequivocally informing them that they are no longer welcome on the property. You cannot trespass someone without letting them know and then arrest them later. Also, you cannot trespass someone or deny services to someone if the reason is discriminatory such as their religion, ethnicity, etc.
unless you are cheating they may just tell you you are welcome to play any other game there but not blackjack. your play is too strong for us they can even say. you are there for entertainment not to run a financial enterprise. they are there to run a financial enterprise , not you.
As a kid, I felt so smart for thinking of a way how to win at roulette by betting on a color and doubling my bet every time I’d lose, until I’d eventually win. So cool to now discover there’s a name for that, haha. Never put it in practise though.
Yeah cause it can get you bankrupt 😅 Even if it’s unlikely to let’s say lose a 100 rounds in a row, it’s still possible and will happen to you eventually if you play over the long run. Even if you start with 50 cents and then double that every time you lose, you will be bankrupt very early already if you are not a multi billionaire being able to back up the extremely high doubling that comes at some point.
@@Lukethetiger correct. And if you show me the billionaire who will bet the rest of his fortune on a single spin at roulette after losing 99 times in a row, I'll show you a fool.
@@Lukethetiger The idea with that strategy is to keep doubling till you win, and then never ever play the game again. That’s where most people falter, they keep playing after doubling up and then essentially the Casino is now playing with the Martingale system
If you're wondering how to figure out what bank value becomes +EV on a progressive slot machine, you need to know your odds of winning on that machine.. You can then calculate "the amount per play * number of plays needed to reach those odds" and figure out the amount. Usually you'd want the value to be quite a bit higher than that cost, as odds aren't a gaurantee.
@@roamingthereal4060 not always true. Some machines have a “this machine must hit bonus by x amount of spins and will actually have a counter. If it’s near the max then it will be very +EV. Good luck finding one that’s open though lol
I have heard some video poker setups have positive payout rates, the explanation I saw was that because the bets were capped at 25 cents or so the actual theoretical payout on a machine with 107% return (double bonus 7/10 iirc) if you play perfectly is only about $8 an hour, so the casino would still be fine since you have other expenses in those cases.
No other expenses when the beers are for free :-) I can see how this little loss can be accaptable, or even smart, if it makes players more confident to try bigger games tho. One game of roulettes and the casino has more than it's money back.
I was surprise he did not mention video poker as a game where you can be favored. As you mentioned 7/10 double bonus has a positive expected value of 100.17% (not 107%). So you are favored by 0.17%. That game is available in LV in the $1 denomination. But you are correct you can probably make $8 to $10 an hour playing this particular game in the long run. Not a fortune make by any means.
My brother worked in a casino where he was taught how to count cards to catch counters. He had to memorize a cheat sheet (strategy outline) and would keep the count on an entire floor’s tables. He even admitted counting wasn’t illegal and the best he could do was ask someone to leave (can’t force them out)
It isn't illegal, but they can absolutely force anyone out. They just can't take any of the money you have already won. Any business can trespass any person for any reason.
I always use the time strategy, enter casino, play a certain predetermined amount if you win at ANY TIME, stop, walk out, works for me a lot, it takes a lot longer for me to get to the casino than I end up playing but leaving $5 up is fine by me
If you find this stuff fun check out gambling with an edge. Just ended this week but they have 12 years of people talking about their advantage play exploits.
I saw 12 red in a row at a table in reno. Some bet tons on red and made their rent... others almost took the luck personally and were betting on black just to go against whatever happened. At the height of it the past roll board was 90% red for like 20 some odd rolls....just insane and people were screaming. I was playing safe at the black jack table.
insider tip - always go with the run. you don't have better odds, but by the time you lose 20 spins in a row the only thing you're thinking of is how much you could have won. and yeah the christmas tree turns a solid colour sometimes. ive seen 22 hands lost in a row on baccarat - once in 10 years
took the easy way out - odds of 8 reds in a row is not 256-1 it's actually quite a bit worse since it's (18/38)^8 which works out to about 395-1 (changed more to "worse" as that didn't really make sense in context - odds are worse now - not better!)
While you are right that the odds of 8 reds in a row is 1/395, neither that nor 1/256 answer the question that SHOULD have been asked. The question should have been, "What are the odds of losing on 8 black bets in a row?" That becomes (20/38)^8, or 1/170 - more than DOUBLE the odds of specifically 8 reds.
That point about a true gambler is someone who loves winning more than they hate losing really rings with me. A lot of my friends are gambling addicts where when I'm out on my money at the casino I don't go back to the ATM.
Great video! Small point, but the chances of rolling red in roulette is 18/38 on a standard double zero roulette table, so getting eight reds in a row is about a 0.25% chance. 1/256 is about 0.39%
@@ThisHandleFeatureIsStupid He simplified by assuming getting red was 50-50 when it is in fact 18/38. It is much harder to calculate 18/38. That accounts for the final difference.
For what it's worth, the expected value of using the Martingale system is that you'll lose all your money even without limits. Your wins are so small and your losses are so tremendously large that you'll eventually hit a streak of losses that costs you everything. Plus by the end you're betting a billion dollars on one spin to win back the $10 or whatever you bet on the first bet, so it would never make practical sense anyway.
Yeah, I suspect the tables having a fairly narrow range between their minimum and maximum limits is more of a logistical consideration, like not needing to stock the table with a wide range of denominations of chips.
i love playing the penny and nickel slots - one time in the Bahamas I won the jackpot on the nickel slot machine (this was back when you put actual coins into the machine). It was around $75, and all these nickels started pouring out and were falling out of the tray onto the floor. I was really drunk, and was crawling on the floor to get my nickels, like under people's legs at the machines next to me, etc! My sister who was there with me took one look, and was like, "I have no idea who this crazy drunk girl is" and walked away!!! It was awesome - I felt like I won a million dollars.
Odds of 8 consecutive reds is 1 in (19/9)⁸ (1 in 395 approx.), not 1 in 2⁸ (1 in 256). Also Martingale in a negative-EV game always loses eventually, even when there are no table limits.
Theoretically, you can only lose using a Martingale strategy with no table limits is if you run out of money. If you have infinite money to bet, you will eventually win. There is no infinite series of losses in an infinite series of spins, at least as far as my understanding of statistics goes
It's a wonderful feeling to know that you could do something entirely different in your life whenever you feel like doing that and still being in a comfortable spot financially :)
I literally CANOT even beggin to imagine, the lvl of complexity in the calculations, this men´s brain can tackle with absolute ease...i had aplied mathematics as a subject in my university carrer, and my teacher tolds us he was not allowed to play blackjack in the casino we have in the city, i remember asking him "can you count cards?" and he said no but that he just did it out of literal instinct. BRUH.
When I was getting into poker I read a book that broke down the odds of the various games. Roulette and Craps were terrible. Somewhere around 55% to the house if I recall correctly. As he said, Blackjack is a little better if you know what your doing but only tip in your favor if you can count cards. Still though...after reading that book, I basically never wanted to play any casino games again. Before that I used to enjoy the odd sit down at a blackjack table, not thinking I would win mind you. I always knew the odds were against me, but it was the degree. After that, I literally found it super boring to play. Basically it killed whatever idea I had in my head about it being "just entertainment." Like if I were to throw money into a fire and try to call that "entertainment". Poker on the other hand, is amazing. Even there though, the house gets it's cut for hosting the game and you've gotta factor in the rake to see if it's worth it. Some casino's are a complete ripoff on the rake and that can cripple your returns to the point of not being worth it.
Roulette and craps aren't nearly that bad. The only game in the casino that pays around 50% is Keno. And the state run lottery (but at least that funds schools or parks or whatever your state does with the money). Roulette and craps pay better than 90% (the exact amount depending on the exact bet and rules of the game) so long as you avoid the handful of really bad sucker bets.
Craps is one of the best games. It's not a winning game but if you just play don't pass/don't come the house edge is just 1.36%. You can lower it even further by laying odds on your bet making it potentially, incredibly small. Though your risk goes up because you have to put more money on the table to lower it and it will still never completely remove the house edge. Roulette is really bad though especially double zero roulette. Even some slot machines are better. The house edge for double zero roulette is 5.26%. About 10x the house edge of blackjack if you play perfect basic strategy.
@@devdog7409 I guess that's the point for me though. As I said, if it's not a game that is a winning game then all attraction to it is lost for me. I mean I get the "fun night out" part of it if people are into to that, but to me it just feels like a waste of my time.
@@doublestrokeroll I respect that. I just wanted to clear up any confusion on the odds. I only play blackjack and poker myself. Haven’t played poker a lot admittedly because I’m still rather new and it’s a lot harder than blackjack, but I am looking to play it a lot more in the future.
I'd be so interested to see this guy analyze some online gambling stuff. I used to play roulette online. when I played for free, my system worked extremely well, but as soon as i started playing for money (tiny bits) i noticed the behavior of the random generator change and my system was defeated.
Also, another way casinos really mess you up if they think you're counting is capping the amount you are allowed to bet . If you are a pro and keeping a legit count then when the count is up you want to increase your bet size as statistically the odds are in your favor for that period of time. If your bet is capped it freezes your action then there is no way to make a profit large enough to even make counting worth it. Really , though if you start winning too much at certain periods during the decks, they'll just back you off anyway so it doesn't matter. And they are not nice about it at all. It's super lame.
Lol you don't "want" to increase your bet, you HAVE to. That's the whole point of counting. You can't really make money if you don't increase your bet. Also, as someone who has worked in many casinos and has also been backed off many times, they're almost always nice about it. Exception being when the player is a doosh.
@crushedscouter9522 If you've worked in casinos then you know that they are able to cap action . What do you mean " have to", you can bet the minimum as much as you want. What 🤣. Also, go watch any professional on RU-vid get backed off and you'll see that some of them are super rude about it.
@@Jacob32905 lmao are you slow?? What do you not understand about "if you don't increase your bet, you can't make money"?? You edited your comment in an attempt to not look so dumb and made yourself look even dumber🤣🤣🤣🤣capping the bet doesn't "mess you up" it completely stops you. You saw three RU-vid videos where people posted someone being mean so they can get clicks? Congrats I've seen hundreds of back offs and almost none of them are negative interaction. You're embarrassing yourself, kid.
@@Jacob32905 His point is that you're losing money when the count is down, so if you can't increase your bet when it's up then you can't recoup those losses. It's not just that you can't make a profit large enough to be worth counting, it's that if you min bet the whole time you're playing with the house edge and can't make any long-run profit at all.
As a mathematician who has studied the martingale, I am triggered by god explanation. The martingale does not win. Even if you have trillion $ it still loses. It’s a losing algorithm.
the best thing to do ultimately is to determine what you're willing to spend... and then pull out the calculator app of your phone and keep accurate track of it AT ALL TIMES, especially since slot machines I've seen combine your initial placement of money with the winnings, making it harder to keep track of how much you've actually spent on them.
Along with the progressive slot chasing (he called it bank) these are known as advantage play slots. There are many more than just progressives but you have to real know what you're doing to beat them. And since in one casino the odds of that game could be set at 95% and in another 85% it might be an advantage at your local casino and then at another its no longer EV+.
I'm sure twitter caught this, but at 10:35 he's incorrect. He's assuming that the odds of hitting red are 1/2, but there are two green spots on an American roulette wheel, so the odds of hitting red are actually 18/38 (18 reds, 18 black, 2 green). So the odds of hitting 8 reds in a row are (18/38)^8 or about 0.25% (one in 400).
Using Monte Carlo to figure out the house edge on a game shouldn't be the first approach. In most games you should be able to calculate the true probability of various outcomes and compare that to the odds being paid for those outcomes to compute the house edge exactly. The easiest example is roulette. You get paid 35-to-1 if you hit a number, but the actual probability is 38-to-1 (on a wheel with 0 and 00). So if you bet $1 on every spin, you expect to have $36 after 1/38th of the spins and $0 the other 37/38th of the spins. (36 x (1/38)) + (0 x (37/38)) = 0.9474 --> 94.74 cents is the expected value of your $1 bet 1 - 0.9474 = 0.0526 --> the house edge is 5.26%
House odds are calculated analytically. That is, it's not a monte carlo simulation (this is done, typically, when the sample space is so large that a numerical solution is needed and an analytical can't be done). For instance, what is the house advantage if a player bets $5 on red in roulette (there are three choices on a roulette wheel: red, green, and black)? A simulation isn't needed. It's an equation. That is, +5(18/38) - (-5)(20/38) = -.263. So, the house advantage is .263/5 = 5.26%.
This guy was in the MIT card counting team so I presume he knows what he was talking about. For something as simple as roulette, then yes, it's a simple calculation and you don't need the MC simulation. However, something that's a bit more complex e.g. the player odds or the house odds of a game of blackjack, following subtly different rule etc, it's unlikely that a simple analytical closed formula could derive the odds accurately.
It doesn’t matter how subtle the rules or what university you attended. The reason is that even if one uses a sampling method of approximation for the house edge, the law of large numbers must be used to find the convergence probability - and which must equal the analytical value. (This is basic probability theory. I suggest a simple exercise of finding the house edge in blackjack for one deck. Then, you’ll see you only have to multiply to find the house edge for six decks, which is the number of decks that most casinos use. Or: no simulation needed.)
@@posthocprior Monte Carlo is a much more efficient way to build a basic strategy table than calculating expected return for each individual scenario. Which I assume is the game to which he was referring at the beginning, because he specifically comes back around and mentions blackjack later. You have to simulate the game to get "real-life" conditions, because the inputs for your model are not exhaustively known. You would have to know not only the exact number of cards in the deck, but every single value to get a truly "optimal" equation to inform your decision (which is information you obviously don't have at the actual table). Or you can make a best guess. Boom, Monte Carlo.
I remember having a long discussion with someone about the law of large numbers, and dice rolling. A lot of people don't realize that there's a difference between the expected value, the probability of landing on a value, and the number of times you need to roll a dice before you actually get a specific value. There's a 1 in 6 chance that you get a 6 on a six sided dice. That of course doesn't mean you get a six every sixth time you roll. Nor does the dice god owe you a six if you didn't get a six after six rolls. But, that doesn't mean you can't calculate how many dice rolls you might need to roll until you will get at least one 6 occurring. Even then that number will never be 100% chance, since every dice roll is in and of itself unique. But law of large numbers will make the probability of an infinite streak of not rolling a 6 be very small.
2:46 - I used to own a roulette wheel like this. It somehow got damaged, and it would always lean towards all the numbers around the 00. If you guessed any number on that side of the roulette, or 00 itself, you would tend to win pretty reliably. Because of where it was leaning, it make black and red worse, but my sis and I could reliably win by guessing 00, and eventually it'd hit.
@@NeZCheese yes. You can bet on any number. The thing with the 0 and 00 is that when it hits, it's a loser for every other number and every flavor the grouped bets (like "1st/2nd/3rd 12", "red/black", "even/odd", the full column bets and the half board bets). It wipes out every possible bet except for four: straight 0, straight 00, "0/00", "0/00/1/2/3" And it's the presence of the 0 and 00 that makes even money bets like red or black a losing proposition. It's like betting even money on a coin flip when there's a non-zero possibility of the coin landing on it's edge.
Taking a class on statistical process control and the statistics class cured me of any interest in games of chance with a probability under unity. When expanded into large sample sizes, the bell curve of distribution becomes very narrow and eventually narrow enough that no points are in the overall gains side of the middle of the distribution. In the stock market, overall, the odds are in the investor's favor. Unlike very well planned games of chance, the odds on stocks vary widely to where winning is like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. I leaned to buy companies which are undervalued as they are likely to correct up, where overvalued stocks are more likely to correct down. I highly use the Price/Earnings ratio. A low price for each dollar earned per share increases your chance of getting a larger dividend yield. When the P/E starts to rise, this is a warning, either the price is rising and the earnings are not rising also, or the earnings are falling and the price didn't. A high P/E is a warning to sell or place stop loss orders to lock in your gains. A temporary condition that causes the price to fall, but earnings fall much less results in a low P/E. This is golden buying opportunities. As the event passes and earnings return, the low cost can result in outstanding yield on cost, as cost was at a discount. Example, during the pandemic, the price of crude oil crashed. The price of oil transportation cashed. Bought a bunch of oil pipeline stocks at about 80% off the tradional price. Earnings fell, but not near as far as the price, so the P/E dropped to about 2. 3 years later, the price is up more than 4 times what I paid for it. Paid under 6 per share. Forward dividends of $2 per share is more than 33% yield on cost. Love the odds much better in the market. About doubled my holdings value twice in 3 years. I thank my statistics class for showing me the odds in well made games of chance, and the odds of doing well in the market.
The best game if you know what you're doing is poker, though Blackjack can be good. The trouble is that many casinos have changed the rules at their blackjack tables to mitigate the edge skilled players are attempting to create. The best way to win in a casino is to not play against the house. That said, rakes have gotten a bit out of control in many poker rooms.
can confirm kid i went to school with only plays poker because its what he knows and is good at. as he says im a pro poker player (he has two wsop bracelets and has one close to 1 mil in ten years playing a few tournaments a year. as he says why would i be dumb enough to play anything else.
In a standard game of American roulette, there are 18 red numbers, 18 black numbers, and one green number (0 or 00, depending on the specific table). Assuming the wheel is fair and unbiased, each spin is an independent event, and the probability of landing on red (or black) on any given spin is approximately 18/38, or about 47.37%. To find the probability of hitting 8 reds in a row, you raise the probability of hitting red (47.37%) to the power of the number of spins. In this case, it would be (47.37%)^8. So, the probability of hitting 8 reds in a row is approximately 0.4717% or about 1 in 212. If there are two green numbers (0 and 00) on a roulette wheel, the total number of pockets on the wheel is 38. The distribution of red, black, and green numbers would be 18 red, 18 black, and 2 green. The probability of landing on red (or black) on any single spin would be 18/38, or approximately 47.37%. To find the probability of hitting 8 reds in a row with two green numbers, you would calculate (47.37%)^8. So, the probability of hitting 8 reds in a row with two green numbers is approximately 0.3411% or about 1 in 293.
The basic strategy odds can change based on the cards played. An example is hitting or staying on a 16 vs dealers 10 can depend on the count. I’m just starting to realize this and counting for deviations of basic strategy might help the odds.
Casinos are an entertainment industry. The cost of the entertainment is not paid at the door, it is paid in the advantage that the house holds in every game. He put it best when he talked about roulette. Red vs black isn't a 50/50 probability, because the wheel has green 0/00 tiles. They make their money by giving the players slightly worse odds. They've actually begun testing having a third green tile, a 000 tile, to further the house edge. You just need to consider casinos like a concert ticket that you don't pay for up front. If you'd drop $400 on concert tickets, then would you spend $400 for an evening of fun at a casino? If you lose all $400, then you still got your money's worth.
This really fun for a maths nerd like me. And i dont gamble but still it’s interesting to know. This one is the best. Neuroscience and the optical illusion was equally fun
