Three basic mistakes people make at casinos, according to a math expert

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
34,789
Tokens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/the-scientific-way-to-win-in-vegas/


Wonkblog
Three basic mistakes people make at casinos, according to a math expert



<iframe style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden;" id="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_2__hidden__" title="" height="0" marginHeight="0" src="javascript<strong></strong>:"<html><body style='background:transparent'></body></html>"" frameBorder="0" width="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_2__hidden__" marginWidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>





The inside track on Washington politics.

Be the first to know about new stories from PowerPost. Sign up to follow, and we’ll e-mail you free updates as they’re published.








<section id="main-content" class="col-xl-9 col-lg-8 col-md-8 col-sm-12 col-xs-12 col-xs-offset-0 col-sm-offset-0 col-md-offset-0 col-lg-offset-0 layout">



By Ana Swanson Wonkblog
July 13 at 7:40 AM Follow @anaswanson
<article itemprop="articleBody">

iStock
Many people think of gambling as a frivolous entertainment at best, or a corrupting sin at worst. But throughout history, there have been mathematicians and scientists who have seen the games you’d confront in a Las Vegas casino a very different way — as a playground for ideas where they can test out different notions of how the world works.
That’s the premise of a new book, “The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling.” In the book, mathematician Adam Kucharski traces the long, tangled relationship of betting and science, from the origins of probability theory over a dice game to the kind of sophisticated counting techniques that have won MIT graduates millions in Vegas.
In an interview, Kucharski said he has always been obsessed with the puzzles of casino games. But when he was a PhD student, he started getting recruited by betting hedge funds, which were earning big profits for their investors by putting wagers on such events as the outcomes of soccer games.
That piqued his interest and triggered a deep dive into the interconnected history of science, math and gambling. He found that Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Alan Turing and many other key scientists studied gambling, and these studies gave rise to many of the scientific ideas we use today, including modern statistics, game theory and chaos theory.
I spoke with Kucharski about his book and the fascinating and important things humans have learned from spinning roulette wheels and racing horses. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You have so many stories in the book of these amazing successes, where mathematicians and statisticians triumph over casinos and games. What was one of the most lucrative strategies in history you found?
One of the stories I really liked was about students at MIT, who started thinking about lotteries as part of a math project in 2005. Generally, you’d expect to lose money in lotteries, because that’s how they work. But as they expanded their analysis, they found a lottery that had been introduced fairly recently in Massachusetts called Cash WinFall that had this specific property. If the jackpot reached a certain limit and nobody won it, the prizes would roll down, meaning they would go to people who matched fewer numbers.

<iframe style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden;" id="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_4__hidden__" title="" height="0" marginHeight="0" src="javascript<strong></strong>:'<script type="text/javascript">document.domain = "washingtonpost.com";var adContent = window.parent["google-ad-content-9es3ysovfgl1"];window.parent["google-ad-content-9es3ysovfgl1"] = null;document.write(adContent);document.close();</script>'" frameBorder="0" width="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_4__hidden__" marginWidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
In these weeks where you had this roll-down feature being triggered, it could be quite profitable. The MIT students realized that if you bought enough tickets in the right combinations of numbers, you could pretty much guarantee a profit.
Firstly, it’s a great story because it starts with this innocuous college project and then grows into something where they incorporate a company to do this systematically. A number of syndicates also were getting involved as well, because essentially this had become the most lucrative lottery in the United States. But then there was one week when the MIT group actually bought up enough tickets to trigger the roll-down. They realized that if they bought enough tickets to raise the jackpot to $2 million, they could force the lottery to roll down immediately, while the other syndicates were waiting for it to occur two or three weeks later.
It’s amazing how many of these strategies, from blackjack, and roulette as well, started essentially with math and physics students who were looking for loopholes and chipping away at existing systems and trying to find gaps in them. Growing up, we’re taught that lotteries can’t be beaten and roulette’s a game of chance. But when people find ways of proving that wrong, it can be quite lucrative.
I can definitely see this book inspiring some math and physics students to try to crack more of these games. But for the average person, is this really a way to get rich quick? First you need to get a PhD in math or statistics.
It’s incredibly difficult to get rich quick. Even these very successful strategies require a lot of hard work and focus as well as really innovative ideas.
But one of the things that came out of these stories for me is the benefit that you can get from thinking about the world in this way. Even if you’re not a gambler, even if you don’t go to casinos, you’re going to have to face risk and uncertain situations and make decisions when you don’t have the full information available. Gambling is almost a summary of those problems as they’ve been faced by scientists in the past. By looking at these stories, we can learn a lot about how to make decisions and how to distinguish between luck and skill, which in many cases we don’t always get right.



What has science learned from gambling?
My day job is in public health, looking at disease outbreaks. Many of the methods we use originated with games and gambling. All the concepts around probability, how we measure the chance of an event, were only developed in the 16th century with people studying dice games. The concepts of statistical theory and testing a hypothesis were also inspired by dice games and roulette just over 100 years ago.
Games also gave rise to some more modern computational techniques. In the late 1940s, a mathematician was looking at a form of solitaire and wanting to know how the cards might fall. He wasn’t a big fan of pen-and-paper calculations, so he decided to lay it out and see what happened. He realized that if you have these complicated probability questions, you can simulate lots of random outcomes, and then you get a sense of what patterns you might see. Today, we call that the Monte Carlo method, and we use it to simulate the outcome of things like epidemics.
Simple games, because they’re nice situations to look at mathematically, have turned out to be quite important to wider areas of science.
Most of the successful betting strategies you talk about in your book were actually developed by academics and scientists, not by professional gamblers. And often, those scientists didn’t really go on to reap the winnings from their ideas. Why is that?
One of the main reasons is because of dogma and existing beliefs. For a long time, scientific approaches were not believed to be useful in casino games, and often, it took an outsider to come up with new ideas. A good example is blackjack. Edward Thorp, who pioneered the card-counting strategies people use to play blackjack today, was laughed at the first time he went in a casino because he was playing with tactics that just seemed so absurd to people at the time.
It is surprising how many of these people didn’t go on to be professional gamblers. I think that’s because, for them, that wasn’t the end game. Gambling was a way of testing out these skills and concepts that are incredibly important in their day jobs. If you’re a mathematician or you work in any industry that involves quantitative analysis or the ability to take data and convert it into a prediction about an event, betting is a really good way of refining those skills.



What have you learned about the mistakes that people often make when trying to predict the outcome of games? For example, in the section in the book on horse racing, you mention that people often gamble too much on underdogs. Are there other common errors?
There’s a number of biases we fall into. One is the “favorite-long-shot bias.” In horse racing, if you look at the horses that are in the back of the pack, they have higher odds than their performance suggests they should. In other words, people overestimate the chance of long shots winning. That feature also pops up in other sports, and even in how we predict weather or severe political events. People tend to focus on things that are surprising and overestimate the chances of unlikely events.
Another is known as the Monte Carlo fallacy. This originated in roulette, where when the same color comes up multiple times, people tend to start piling money on the other color. They think that if black has come up a lot, then red must be due. Of course, it isn’t, because the result is still completely random, but there’s this psychological bias dragging us one way.
A third psychological quirk which pops up a lot in games is what’s known as gambler’s ruin. This is the tendency where if people win at a game, they increase the amount of money they’re risking. But often when people lose, they don’t decrease the amount that they’re risking. Mathematically, this will always lead you to bankruptcy. This is why bankroll management is incredibly important, because you need to resist this temptation and adjust the amount you’re risking depending on where you are in the game.
Your book talks about this fascinating intersection between the financial industry and gambling. How is the line between the two being blurred?
There’s a few ways that the distinction between betting and investment seems to be changing. One is the emergence of betting syndicates that are acting more like hedge funds. Historically, many betting syndicates have been very private, made up of a few individuals with their own bankroll or a few investors. But now some of these syndicates are targeting external investors and openly recruiting PhD students and other mathematically minded people.

<iframe style="border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom; display: none; visibility: hidden;" id="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_9__hidden__" title="" height="0" marginHeight="0" src="javascript<strong></strong>:'<script type="text/javascript">document.domain = "washingtonpost.com";var adContent = window.parent["google-ad-content-gq72y6a05rsz"];window.parent["google-ad-content-gq72y6a05rsz"] = null;document.write(adContent);document.close();</script>'" frameBorder="0" width="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/701/wpni.business/blog/wonkblog_9__hidden__" marginWidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
There are a few things that overlap between the industries: One is whether you class something as betting or an investment. Spread betting, for instance, where you bet on the amount of change in a particular stock, is classed as gambling in the U.K. But in Australia, it’s deemed an investment and you pay capital gains on any money you make. And in the U.S., it’s gambling and entirely banned. The ability to make consistent profits on what seems like gambling is challenging the idea of what we define as a financial asset.





In addition, the flexibility of people moving between finance and betting suggest there is a lot of potential for the ideas to flow between the two. Many of the people who pioneered these blackjack or roulette strategies subsequently made a great deal of money in finance. For them, finance wasn’t a completely different industry; it was just another game where they could find a scientific strategy to win.
</article>

</section>
 

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
7,168
Tokens
There is only one basic mistake, really.

Dont play! The odds are mathematically against you
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
24,536
Tokens
Being what most of you call a pit boss, the most common mistake ppl make is not being able to leave. Ppl arent satisfied with how much they are up or are chasing losses. Either way, our bankroll is bigger
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
Being what most of you call a pit boss, the most common mistake ppl make is not being able to leave. Ppl arent satisfied with how much they are up or are chasing losses. Either way, our bankroll is bigger

unless it's life changing, never seems to be enough for people. I have certainly made that mistake more than once.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
8,798
Tokens
Being what most of you call a pit boss, the most common mistake ppl make is not being able to leave. Ppl arent satisfied with how much they are up or are chasing losses. Either way, our bankroll is bigger

I totally agree with this....and it's something I've learned over time (after losing, of course). Last time I was at a casino, wife and I bought in for $100 at BJ table. I got up $100 within 15-20 minutes. She was up over $100. I looked at her and said, "I'm done!" She said, "What? We came here to gamble!" I said, "I'm done. I just doubled my money." She kept playing....lost the entire $100+ and another $75 (within 15 minutes!). Hopefully I can be that disciplined in the future.
 

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
12,822
Tokens
Yeah you have to know when to leave. Many times i go to Winstar with $200 to play BJ and leave when i have $500ish. Knowing when to leave is huge.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
44,777
Tokens
Yeah you have to know when to leave. Many times i go to Winstar with $200 to play BJ and leave when i have $500ish. Knowing when to leave is huge.

If you are playing a -EV game, and you want to make money, the time to leave is a soon as you walk in the door.

If you realize you are playing -EV games, and you are there for cheap entertainment, then fine.

But, casino games have no memory, so to say that the time to leave is when you are up $100/$200 - well then you should never come back. Because if you
come back, then why did you leave in the first place? Or, why not take a 5 min break and walk back to the table instead of taking a two week break
and walking back to the table? It's all psychological - but has no basis in mathematics and probability.
 

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
12,822
Tokens
^

Its all entertainment to me. Ive left with $250+ last 3 times. I did drop a dime once. But then I learned to leave cc at home and only take $200. I've probably been to Winstar 10 times and probably up a few hindered overall or so.

Once i took $200 and lost. Then I Borrowed a $10 chip from my homeboy and ran that up to $300 and left. I love BJ. Like I said all entertainment to me.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
I don't see how people keep playing casino games over an extended period of time. It is very rudimentary, no strategy, fixed odds.

That is a racket that is going to be tough to sustain as entertainment options continue to expand. Why there are so many restaurants, shows and other non-gambling related activities to do at casino resorts.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
15,087
Tokens
Unless you don't give a shit and are just there to have a good time and two or three dollars
one way or the other is just part of the night. Then, set a win goal and loss limited. You
buy in for $1000...win goal is maybe $400 (walk) or loss limit maybe $500 (walk). Always
live to play another day....unless you don't give a shit.
 

MLB Junkie
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
1,411
Tokens
dont play at casino's....unless you are a poker grinder...even then, bad beats suck.

I've been on both sides of the table....it never works out for the player (long term)
 

New member
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
10,462
Tokens
I don't see how people keep playing casino games over an extended period of time. It is very rudimentary, no strategy, fixed odds.

That is a racket that is going to be tough to sustain as entertainment options continue to expand. Why there are so many restaurants, shows and other non-gambling related activities to do at casino resorts.

you would be right if the entertainment options expanded faster. I tell my Wife all the time, people go to the casinos around here because they are STARVING for entertainment.
 

Rx. Senior
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
5,490
Tokens
Good interview, bad headline; but I'll still focus on

<section id="main-content" class="col-xl-9 col-lg-8 col-md-8 col-sm-12 col-xs-12 col-xs-offset-0 col-sm-offset-0 col-md-offset-0 col-lg-offset-0 layout"><article itemprop="articleBody"> There’s a number of biases we fall into. One is the “favorite-long-shot bias.” In horse racing, if you look at the horses that are in the back of the pack, they have higher odds than their performance suggests they should. In other words, people overestimate the chance of long shots winning. That feature also pops up in other sports, and even in how we predict weather or severe political events. People tend to focus on things that are surprising and overestimate the chances of unlikely events.
Another is known as the Monte Carlo fallacy. This originated in roulette, where when the same color comes up multiple times, people tend to start piling money on the other color. They think that if black has come up a lot, then red must be due. Of course, it isn’t, because the result is still completely random, but there’s this psychological bias dragging us one way.
A third psychological quirk which pops up a lot in games is what’s known as gambler’s ruin. This is the tendency where if people win at a game, they increase the amount of money they’re risking. But often when people lose, they don’t decrease the amount that they’re risking. Mathematically, this will always lead you to bankruptcy. This is why bankroll management is incredibly important, because you need to resist this temptation and adjust the amount you’re risking depending on where you are in the game.
</article></section>

On number 1: People love to bet a little to win a lot, but people also like a sure thing and often overestimate their chances, think 'Martingale system' or 'Chase system.' On a huge spread, the no-vig money line is going to be a lot closer to the +900 dog then it is to the -1500 favorite. So you don't have to beat the market price by much to find a profitable bet
Number 2: Never understood this one, if black has come up 17 times in a row, bet black until it loses. You can only lose once. If you bet red until you win, you can lose until you've lost everything
Number 3: There is a correct formula to follow that determines bet size based on edge. Going over that will cause ruin. But that is very rarely the problem compared to overestimating your edge.
 

Rx. Senior
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
5,490
Tokens
For the most part yes... But for astute gamblers, there are +EV situations out there: blackjack, (some) video poker, poker, ...

Lots of progressive slots, points/comps/cash back, and of course sports. The vast majority of casino games are not going to be beaten. But when you consider how many possible different possible bets you can make in just one casino, there will be lots of possibilities to earn money, even if it's a very small percent of the total number of games. And when you find a profitable play, you keep going back to again and again
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
Good interview, bad headline; but I'll still focus on



On number 1: People love to bet a little to win a lot, but people also like a sure thing and often overestimate their chances, think 'Martingale system' or 'Chase system.' On a huge spread, the no-vig money line is going to be a lot closer to the +900 dog then it is to the -1500 favorite. So you don't have to beat the market price by much to find a profitable bet
Number 2: Never understood this one, if black has come up 17 times in a row, bet black until it loses. You can only lose once. If you bet red until you win, you can lose until you've lost everything
Number 3: There is a correct formula to follow that determines bet size based on edge. Going over that will cause ruin. But that is very rarely the problem compared to overestimating your edge.

agree 100% on #2, had a friend that Loved to bet against the run. Always told him to stop, and he said, well it has to change ... Right, but wouldn't you rather ride the wave
 

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
3,415
Tokens
There is only one basic mistake, really.

Dont play! The odds are mathematically against you

did you even read the article? This is false. True most of the time but rare cases where the odds can swing in your favor.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,276
Messages
13,450,165
Members
99,404
Latest member
byen17188
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com