+ Register

[Xander]

Gizmo,

You're just posturing and adding a little meaningless word salad.  Common sense, logic, and basic probability say you're living in a fantasy world and perhaps experiencing a bit of mania.

Sorry, but the facts are what they are.

[Gizmotron]

Common sense, logic, and basic probability say you're living in a fantasy world and perhaps experiencing a bit of mania.

Sorry, but the facts are what they are.

Yeah, "fantasy world." Basic probability will of course explain the high 20% return rate in the end of year earnings reports to the IRS. A casino's gambling activities, where an average 4% to 5 % house advantage should have been the common sense, logical, large numbered return rate. I'm sure that those casinos should hear from you that they are living in a fantasy world and should only declare 5% earnings on their books. Let's see if that will fly.


Who's still grand standing? I'm also sorry, but your soapbox is burning.

[Gizmotron]

I did read it. What you are suggesting as being a display of reality is only a fallacy. It's a good bit of sophistry too. It's the greatest lie since casinos ever opened their doors.


The casinos have drop boxes all over the table game areas that must balance against all chips removed and given to players during the days play. Some people that stay for days and take their chips up to their rooms also must be factored in. So a balance of taken in money and paid out money, confirmed by the cashier's desk, must result in a hard number of earnings. If a Blackjack player walks up to a Roulette table with a pocket full of $25 chips and starts playing that pile of chips then the simple balance at the table is thrown off. But the entire table game area is still in balance because only the table games have cash drop boxes and casino chips that need to be cashed in.


Your example of how much a casino takes in is theoretical mambo jumbo. There is a real count. If the average activity of the table game area results in a house edge of say 4% advantage to the house for example. Then over a years time the amount of money actually wagered should result in a 4% take as earnings from the activity of gambling in the table game area. You could say that out of a discovered number of bets placed, at an actual average value of each bet for the entire table playing area, a 4% return on those wagers was realized. That would be a hard and factual number. So where is the book keeping for that? If I were an IRS agent investigating or auditing these enterprises I would want to know the hard real numbers. If the casino was a publicly traded corporation then those real numbers would be published to see. Are you right? Do you know what the casino earns from the table gaming area of a casino?


I don't think it's just the house edge. I believe it is way more, do to human nature and greed. But, I will give you a chance to prove what I believe to be a ridiculous conclusion. I think that the single spin result rate for the Roulette table alone is exactly as expected by the probability numbers. But that the casino takes in far more from a gambler's session because of ignorance on the player's part.

[alrelax]

I did read it. What you are suggesting as being a display of reality is only a fallacy. It's a good bit of sophistry too. It's the greatest lie since casinos ever opened their doors.


The casinos have drop boxes all over the table game areas that must balance against all chips removed and given to players during the days play. Some people that stay for days and take their chips up to their rooms also must be factored in. So a balance of taken in money and paid out money, confirmed by the cashier's desk, must result in a hard number of earnings. If a Blackjack player walks up to a Roulette table with a pocket full of $25 chips and starts playing that pile of chips then the simple balance at the table is thrown off. But the entire table game area is still in balance because only the table games have cash drop boxes and casino chips that need to be cashed in.


Your example of how much a casino takes in is theoretical mambo jumbo. There is a real count. If the average activity of the table game area results in a house edge of say 4% advantage to the house for example. Then over a years time the amount of money actually wagered should result in a 4% take as earnings from the activity of gambling in the table game area. You could say that out of a discovered number of bets placed, at an actual average value of each bet for the entire table playing area, a 4% return on those wagers was realized. That would be a hard and factual number. So where is the book keeping for that? If I were an IRS agent investigating or auditing these enterprises I would want to know the hard real numbers. If the casino was a publicly traded corporation then those real numbers would be published to see. Are you right? Do you know what the casino earns from the table gaming area of a casino?


I don't think it's just the house edge. I believe it is way more, do to human nature and greed. But, I will give you a chance to prove what I believe to be a ridiculous conclusion. I think that the single spin result rate for the Roulette table alone is exactly as expected by the probability numbers. But that the casino takes in far more from a gambler's session because of ignorance on the player's part.

You inspired me to write the following this afternoon, and I tried my best from my experiences, knoweldge and talking with industry people to write something, rather than cutting and pasting from the UNLV or other published sources, etc., et al:

#1) What you said.

#2) Checks and Balances.  For casino and regulatory purposes.  However, IMO, magazines, websites and industry journals have offered the various statistical figures in the wrong context to the general public and writers/authors have latched onto them for whatever reason to enhanced their stories/points/topics for credibility and official 'back up' of sorts to their content, etc.

#3) Numerous people inflict their reasoning and purposes for interpretation of what the industry makes use of for other accounting and governing reasons.

#4) But at each casino in comparison to another, there can be vast differences of generated revenue from player's losses or player's wins. 

For example:  Casino '1' with players 'A-H' could lose $1.5 Million dollars on baccarat one month and lose for several continuing months as well.

While Casino '2' with players 'I-P' could win $6.5 Million dollars on baccarat for the same month and continuing such win from the players for several months as well. 

While both of the examples will reflect the 'hold' of the table games section of each casino, neither one will reflect the figures each realizes upon the other or the industry for sake of statistical wins or losses.  Unless it is within and through a research paper that addresses that subject only for the point of what a game makes or losses in a certain geographical area or a period of times, etc.  But once again, will have no effect on what a player is compelled to do or does.

#5) I give an unknown/uncertain amount of my win chips or buy-in chis to another player, which wins or loses those at the same table or another table, etc.  Numerous other scenarios similar to that will always restrict the casino figures from staying internal for accounting procedures regarding their chips inventory and the cash player drop, etc., rather than a detailed and accurate accounting of what each player does or does not do, as far as wins and losses.  Casinos do have a much handle on the high-rollers/or CTR'd type of players 'wins and losses' with pretty close accuracy concerning those players wins and losses as compared to non CTR'd type of players, but once again, those figures are not filters back into the industry and available to be input to the large masses of table game players in order to label each one as to what they will or can do, etc.

#6)  If what Xander and a few other members claim is 100% gospel and accurate with the reported numbers, that means I would always in the long run score the set and published, 'loss' or '-HA' amount no matter what.  Which will not happen in reality.  In fallacy and theory you can say it will, but pretty much it will not. 

#7) HA's and everything else associated with those are not totally accurate because there most certainly are much larger losses and wins in relationship to the statistical '-HAs' published and set accordingly to various industry sources, conclusions and experts, etc., etc. 

#8) Statistical results over millions or billions of testing results do not change, agreed.  However, wins and losses are a total different and separate picture.  So many writers, people, message board authors, etc., grab a number that a test result yields for whatever reason and then claim, that same percentage is what a player will realize over the proverbial long-run. 
For example.  Casino '3' might have one player for 5 days and that player brings $20 Million dollars and losses it all.   Likewise casino '4', might have the same player or even different players for a period of time and that/those players win $20 Million dollars from that casino in contrast as to the other one.  This events do happen and will never reflect within the industry 'HAs' for the game in question. 

Bottom line is, if 1 billion shoes were dealt and the results produce a certain amount of bankers and players and ties, which the percentage will still remain the same no matter what 100 billion casino players won or lost at baccarat.  If you believe that a casino player will be governed to a certain definitive extent because of what the test results have proven, that is not correct. 


#9) Now, the one casino's good fortune that they earned has nothing at all to do with the other casino's lost revenues or drop, they paid out.  Although both will and do, in complete accuracy report to their state casino regulatory reporting regulations, the 'HA' does not and will not change no matter what it is.  Possibly their 'hold' on the players 'drop' will change but once again, that has nothing to do with what a player might or might not win or lose or have a chance of winning, etc.  It is merely for accounting and regulatory purposes.  Like I said, too many authors and researchers grad figures attempting to base something off of and give themselves justification for their content, etc.

Even if all casinos win or lose to their players, the '-HA' will still be there, be published, not change and stand as being valid and negative no matter what the players might have accomplished or not at their tables. 

#10) Same as a bicycle journal talking about children learning how to ride a bike.  Whereupon 15 kids out of every 20, based upon research and study of millions of kids, will fall a certain amount of times and out of the remaining 5, 3 of them will fall a certain amount and the other 2, will fall another amount.  As well, out of the 15, 3 and 2 kids out of every 20, a total of yet another amount will be injured seriously requiring an emergency room visit and yet a certain amount of the kids will wind up with a cast on a broken arm or leg form the results of those falls. 

However, while that applies to the test group of kids with extreme accuracy, it does not mean that out of every single equivalent group of kids, that the same amount will produce the same results.  Sure, out of billions and billions and billion, 'XYZ' amount was injured in various ways.  However, the consistency and the regularity for those injured really had no rhyme or reason when grouped together. 

The same with gambling and players at the casinos.

#11) Smaller casinos generally do not offer baccarat and high limit games because of the exposure and the fluctuations they cause.  Meaning, possible and large wins.  If it was a guaranteed for the casino property to hold '-HA' without any risk whatsoever and definitively, every casino would venture into the true high limit realms and also offer baccarat, etc. 

And, while exposure and fluctuation can hurt a player enormously, it can also help a player enormously.  Granted, most all players, at least the highest and greatest amount of them, will always give back win money amounts as well as go negatively with their buy-in/bank rolls, because all they do is attempt bigger, larger, greater and harder wins and win amounts.  That is where the '-HA' start to set in and take effect on the players.  But that percentage from those '-HA' are still not a governing tool that can precisely be implemented universally by the casino, it is still up to the player to miscalculate, misjudge, misalign himself and everything else along those lines with the downfalls that exists within each game. 

However, there are those players on the other hand, that learned and realized the real opportunities and advantages that will fuel his winning over his losses with some kind of systematic protocol involving most things I have talked about and detailed out, other than sheer and lonesome bet-placement and continued wagering. 

In all actuality, the players wins and losses will be far greater than those industry statistics regarding the 'HAs' no matter what they are set at. 

I.E.:  He might win far in excess than numerous other players and actually cash out, hold and not re-surrender that money to any casino.  On the other hand—he very well might and give back far in excess of what other players are actually recorded as losing. 

#12)  Now, for sake of simplicity, say there are 8 players at a bac table consistently for one month at one casino property.  Each bac player buys in with $1,000.00 and each bac player cashes out $980.00 at the end of each and every session for the entire month, each and every single day.  The casino can say they had a +2% Hold/Win off their bac table, in other words a '-2% HA' to the player. 

However, another period might have that very same casino seeing those very same players' cash out $1,020.00 at the end of every single session as well within the same period of time.  Then, the casino would be recording a -2% Loss/Payout off their bac table they would generally just reduce from their drop, whatever that was.  Whereas, the players all realized a +2% win rate.  But no matter which way it goes with varying amounts of wins and losses by the players, the statistical results have to stay the very same for the game.  That cannot change.  What individual players actually do and realize, has no bearing (NO BEARING WHATSOEVER) on the statistical 'HAs' of the game. 

Which can easily be checked if you take a state regulatory authorities win/loss rate off the bac tables, divide the number of players, know what their real buy-in was, as well as what they actually finished with and then totaling it all out with additions and divisions.  Which really can never be done in reality.  However, you can obtain the win/hold figures for a casinos bac tables, as well as the drop and it will be greater than that of the statistical results of the game proven by certain tests that are taking as industry correct standards. 

To myself, all the published numbers mean, is that all the total amount of money dropped into the casinos tables and an approximate deduction of chip inventory that was tracked to cashing out against that drop in general, equals that amount of money realized by the casino collectively from its players.  It has nothing to do with individual players doing an above average management of their own protocols and events they experienced.  As far as the industry statistics resulting from people or groups of researchers figuring out what certain games produce, in the way of '-HAs', I don't dispute those figures, just don't see any real use for them at the bac table or any other table by an individual in gauging his play, strategy, or attempting to respond to an opportunity that might be presenting itself or to a situation that would harm him.  Events, opportunities, advantages that are positive or even negative, cannot be gauged and are not regulated by the statistical outcomes of the games to correlate to the percentages produced by tests and histories.

#13) The bottom line is, you will lose or win what you are smart enough to realize is happening—as it is happening.  How to hold and continue to play or what you are unintelligent enough to fall prey to and continue believing in whatever it is, that propels yourself to whatever it is you are thinking and believing you will get to. 

Likewise, the bottom line is a kid will fall and possibly become injured dependent upon his training and instruction along with his supervision which may allow him to avoid falling and injuries as compared to other kids that received the same, lesser or even a greater amount of instruction, training and supervision.  Most will just say it was good luck or bad luck that the kid had.  But in most of the cases that is not true.  It really was dependent upon the kid's application, understanding and continued activity he was able to control or not control his actions within his pursuit of learning how to ride the bicycle that made the ultimate determination as to what would happen or not happen with the kid.  Therefore, the research groups that wrote up and reported all the falling and injuries broken down to every group of 20 kids, might or might not apply to your kid, not that they are wrong or inaccurate by any means.

If a game has approximately a '-1.25%' '-HA', that does not mean I will lose 1.25% of the hands I play or sit at every so many shoes, say 100 shoes or 1,000 shoes, etc.  Likewise, it does not mean I will win a total of 98.75 hands either.  Change the 100 to 10,000 or even 100,000 or 500,000 which is probably the long run for most everyone.  Unless I wager the exact same amount for the exact same 'even chance' wagers for the amount of hands that the '-HA' percentage was pulled from.  If it was a large enough test section of shoes/hands and pretty much no one does that anyway in their gambling pursuits.  IMO and pretty much that of most any rational person that actually does understand what those figures are all about, how they came about and their purposes. 

Thank You, Glen.

P.S.: [Written 6/6/2018 Copyright Glen/Alrelax. Cut & Paste file # 14532AN-BS-2-XAN]

[Xander]

I'm always amused by the novices and amateurs that think they know more than the professionals, gaming experts and mathematicians. .

In the mean time a visit to the wizardoffodds.com will serve you well.

[Gizmotron]

Most gamblers lose as they walk in the door and open their wallets. They all have an amount that they are willing to lose. They can say it is the cost of entertainment or that they owe the casino for that fantastic looking chandelier. They can pay $50 to get $1 worth of comps. It's all a game to get them to sit down and stay. And it is totally the bankroll that takes them out. It's smaller than the variance, based on table layout minimums. As soon as they hit their limit they pull their parachutes and out the door they bounce, happy as a sucker for a happy ending in a chic-flick.

This is a very good way to escape this lunacy.

[owenslv]

Gentlemen;
Fascinating opinions, information and insights to consider from all of you. I find the information you all are sharing quite interesting.

Of course an informed player's results also create a set of individual statistics, which ultimately may well exceed expectations (and isn't that our goal ?)

Garry

[Albalaha]

I'm always amused by the novices and amateurs that think they know more than the professionals, gaming experts and mathematicians. .

In the mean time a visit to the wizardoffodds.com will serve you well.

Innovation can change the perceptions. People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived. The same house edge of earth (gravitational force) could not stop flying machines to go across oceans and even upto Mars now. Gravitational force still exists and people are easily flying with them from one place to other.

In gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.

P.S.: Please discuss on the topic than mudslinging and going off topic. If you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?

[Mike]

People used to laugh when the concept of airplane was first conceived.

I guess it was just a matter of time before the Wright brothers showed up in this thread.

This is a non sequitur

"People said nobody will ever make a machine that can fly, they were wrong. Therefore gambling systems work!"

If you know that only house can win, what the hell are you doing on a gambling forum?

Al,

Nobody is saying that only the house can win, especially not Xander, who has made a very good living from the casinos for over 30 years. But he hasn't done it by using progressions. or waiting for the right patterns in past results.

There are many reasons why someone might post on a gambling forum, one of which might be to criticise wrong ideas and explain why certain strategies can't work.

[Mike]

To myself, all the published numbers mean, is that all the total amount of money dropped into the casinos tables and an approximate deduction of chip inventory that was tracked to cashing out against that drop in general, equals that amount of money realized by the casino collectively from its players.  It has nothing to do with individual players doing an above average management of their own protocols and events they experienced.  As far as the industry statistics resulting from people or groups of researchers figuring out what certain games produce, in the way of '-HAs', I don't dispute those figures, just don't see any real use for them at the bac table or any other table by an individual in gauging his play, strategy, or attempting to respond to an opportunity that might be presenting itself or to a situation that would harm him.  Events, opportunities, advantages that are positive or even negative, cannot be gauged and are not regulated by the statistical outcomes of the games to correlate to the percentages produced by tests and histories.

Glen,

It's evident from your post that you don't really understand variance and what it means (look up "standard deviation"). Nobody is saying that an individual player's results will conform precisely to the predicted HA in a playing session, but you are right in that statistics only tell you something about the collective, not the individual. However, you appear to have it backwards; it's not that the HA is somehow derived from the stats; the HA is built into the game and the stats are just a reflection of it, so EVERY player has to contend with the house edge, even if they have a favourable edge themselves.

Of course an individual has control over his actions, but the issue is, does controlling yourself make any difference to the outcomes in an essentially random game? Sure you need self-control, but it's useless without an edge, and you can only find one if the game is not entirely random.

In gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed theIn gambling with proven house edge, a man called Thorpe came and changed the perception of only house can win, forever. Wake up guys.

Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).

[alrelax]

Gizmo,

In short, roulette players like other gambler's aren't content winning just $50 or $100.  If their initial investment is $100, then they're often times not going to quit until they've either won $1000 or until they've lost $100 or more.  There's usually no middle ground.  They keep cycling their bankroll until it's gone.   The players still lose at the house edge.  Understand?

"Since players rewager their bankroll more than one time, win / drop is greater than win / handle. Casinos typically can't get total handle for table games so they use drop instead. What the roulette numbers tell you is that on average, players played through their buyins three times." -Math Extremist



Really what you need to study in order to comprehend it better is "probability of ruin" and the random walk."  I doubt that you've ever studied either of them.

Like many people you're confused by the house edge verses the casino win at various games.   To help you understand the difference, read the following that describes the math in detail.


[/i]

Although you did cite you copied and pasted the article you published on this board from the UNLV website your citation was incomplete as well at this time my information is you did not have a letter of authorization and permission from the author and UNLV. I fielded  a phone call a couple of hours ago in regards to this and it will have to be deleted it until you obtain such permission. All future copy and paste or cited information from UNLV, such as you just did will have to be the correct and legal way that they disclaim on their website. I'm sorry it's not my decision you have to follow those rules.  Everyone does.  Thanks for understanding.  Alrelax.

[alrelax]

Glen,

It's evident from your post that you don't really understand variance and what it means (look up "standard deviation"). Nobody is saying that an individual player's results will conform precisely to the predicted HA in a playing session, but you are right in that statistics only tell you something about the collective, not the individual. However, you appear to have it backwards; it's not that the HA is somehow derived from the stats; the HA is built into the game and the stats are just a reflection of it, so EVERY player has to contend with the house edge, even if they have a favourable edge themselves.

Of course an individual has control over his actions, but the issue is, does controlling yourself make any difference to the outcomes in an essentially random game? Sure you need self-control, but it's useless without an edge, and you can only find one if the game is not entirely random.

Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).

I don't believe I said anything in that quote about Thorpe and you make it appear that I did and you've just lambasted me for misunderstanding the content you have outlined in that quote I believe that's from another member on the board? Please clarify thank you

[Mike]

Yes the second quote was from Albalaha (reply #38), and my following reply was addressed to him, sorry for the confusion.

[alrelax]

Gizmo,

In short, roulette players like other gambler's aren't content winning just $50 or $100.  If their initial investment is $100, then they're often times not going to quit until they've either won $1000 or until they've lost $100 or more.  There's usually no middle ground.  They keep cycling their bankroll until it's gone.   The players still lose at the house edge.  Understand?

"Since players rewager their bankroll more than one time, win / drop is greater than win / handle. Casinos typically can't get total handle for table games so they use drop instead. What the roulette numbers tell you is that on average, players played through their buyins three times." -Math Extremist



Really what you need to study in order to comprehend it better is "probability of ruin" and the random walk."  I doubt that you've ever studied either of them.

Like many people you're confused by the house edge verses the casino win at various games.   To help you understand the difference, read the following that describes the math in detail.

[Parts apparently copied and pasted from a UNLV report on the internet.  I was informed proper permission was not awarded to Xander to copy and paste this which is disclaimed very clearly on their website following this report and almost everything they publish as well. 

Please follow their requirements to copy and paste or use parts thereof, thank you, BetSelection Admin.]


[/i]

[Jimske]

Although you did cite you copied and pasted the article you published on this board from the UNLV website your citation was incomplete as well at this time my information is you did not have a letter of authorization and permission from the author and UNLV. I fielded  a phone call a couple of hours ago in regards to this and it will have to be deleted it until you obtain such permission. All future copy and paste or cited information from UNLV, such as you just did will have to be the correct and legal way that they disclaim on their website. I'm sorry it's not my decision you have to follow those rules.  Everyone does.  Thanks for understanding.  Alrelax.

Agreed.  But I'm just curious.  When you say you "fielded a phone call" what exactly does that mean?  UNLV phoned you up or what exactly?