coyft
3,402 posts
97 months

Ozzie Osmond said: Roulette  you lose slowly. The casino takes, on average, around 2% of each bet. Punto Banco  you should lose a little more slowly. The casino takes around 1.2%.Craps  depending how you bet the casino can be taking as much a 5%! Check the rules before playing! Blackjack  If you want to have fun gambling, learn to play Blackjack and only drop about 1%. Mr Ivey is either extraordinarily lucky, or isn't..... PS The punters aren't supposed to win. Or at least, they're only supposed to win enough to encourage other suckers into the game. You seem to be saying he must have cheated is extraordinarily lucky, in order to come to that conclusion you would have needed to have calculated the odds. £150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation.


ofcorsa
3,043 posts
129 months

With games of luck like these. Surely the skill is knowing when to leave. Seems like sour grapes from casinos to label him "Hit and Run"


retrobob
1,800 posts
75 months


SpeckledJim
7,919 posts
139 months

coyft said: Ozzie Osmond said: Roulette  you lose slowly. The casino takes, on average, around 2% of each bet. Punto Banco  you should lose a little more slowly. The casino takes around 1.2%.Craps  depending how you bet the casino can be taking as much a 5%! Check the rules before playing! Blackjack  If you want to have fun gambling, learn to play Blackjack and only drop about 1%. Mr Ivey is either extraordinarily lucky, or isn't..... PS The punters aren't supposed to win. Or at least, they're only supposed to win enough to encourage other suckers into the game. You seem to be saying he must have cheated is extraordinarily lucky, in order to come to that conclusion you would have needed to have calculated the odds. £150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation. Don't know about punto banco, but if you were playing roulette, putting £150k on a single number each spin, you'd only need to be right twice in 20 hands to walk away £8.1m up. In 20 spins you have about 60% chance of getting it right once. Getting it right twice would be about 60% multiplied by 60%  so about 36%. Of course, if you don't win at all, which has a c.40% chance, you leave £3m down. If you only win once, you walk out £2.55m up. (this is miles off, isn't it!?)


FadeTrade
532 posts
49 months

Ivey is a huge player in cash games in the Poker world and generally will bet anything that moves.

Advertisement


Ozzie Osmond
16,221 posts
132 months

coyft said: £150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation. It's not complicated. Stake £150k. A win will return the stake and add £150k (i.e. ususlly 1:1) £7m / £150k = 46 wins needed. The odds when you toss a coin and call heads or tails are 0.5 or 50%. The odds in Punto Banco are a bit less favourable at around 0.45 The chances of five wins are 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 = 0.0184, or about one chance in 50 but we need to win another 41 games as well!! The chances of 46 wins are for all practical purposes zero.


coyft
3,402 posts
97 months

Ozzie Osmond said: coyft said: £150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation. It's not complicated. Stake £150k. A win will return the stake and add £150k (i.e. ususlly 1:1) £7m / £150k = 46 wins needed. The odds when you toss a coin and call heads or tails are 0.5 or 50%. The odds in Punto Banco are a bit less favourable at around 0.45 The chances of five wins are 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 x 0.45 = 0.0184, or about one chance in 50 but we need to win another 41 games as well!! The chances of 46 wins are for all practical purposes zero. As I thought you are confused. The chance of winning 41 consecutive games are indeed practically zero. Have another think up, he played over two days. Let's say he played for 20 hours, 1 minute a hand = 1200 hands. Out of those he won 621 and lost 579. Are the chance of that practically zero?


Ozzie Osmond
16,221 posts
132 months

coyft said: As I thought you are confused. The chance of winning 41 consecutive games are indeed practically zero. Have another think up, he played over two days. Let's say he played for 20 hours, 1 minute a hand = 1200 hands. Out of those he won 621 and lost 579. Are the chance of that practically zero? Quite, but these things need to be kept simple for the internet. And yes, the chances of the outcome you suggested are practically zero, which is why the casino isn't going to pay.


Ozzie Osmond
16,221 posts
132 months

SpeckledJim said: if you were playing roulette, putting £150k on a single number each spin, you'd only need to be right twice in 20 hands to walk away £8.1m up. I think you have overlooked the effect of the "table limit". After the first win you have £300k in you hand but are still only allowed to gamble £150k on the next spin. Therefore it takes a very large number of wins to make £8m. 8,100,000 / 150,000 = 54 wins required! The "table limit" is one of the biggest protections available to a casino. Otherwise they can be readily cleaned out by the simple expedient of "doubling up" and running away when you win.


coyft
3,402 posts
97 months

Ozzie Osmond said: coyft said: As I thought you are confused. The chance of winning 41 consecutive games are indeed practically zero. Have another think up, he played over two days. Let's say he played for 20 hours, 1 minute a hand = 1200 hands. Out of those he won 621 and lost 579. Are the chance of that practically zero? Quite, but these things need to be kept simple for the internet. And yes, the chances of the outcome you suggested are practically zero, which is why the casino isn't going to pay. Just as well Camelot don't take your viewpoint. Sorry mate you can't have your £10m the odds were practically zero, you must have cheated somehow.


over_the_hill
2,018 posts
132 months

Ozzie Osmond said: coyft said: As I thought you are confused. The chance of winning 41 consecutive games are indeed practically zero. Have another think up, he played over two days. Let's say he played for 20 hours, 1 minute a hand = 1200 hands. Out of those he won 621 and lost 579. Are the chance of that practically zero? Quite, but these things need to be kept simple for the internet. And yes, the chances of the outcome you suggested are practically zero, which is why the casino isn't going to pay. No It's not. If you tossed a coin 1200 times getting 621 heads and 579 tails would not be unexpected at all.


over_the_hill
2,018 posts
132 months

Ozzie Osmond said: SpeckledJim said: if you were playing roulette, putting £150k on a single number each spin, you'd only need to be right twice in 20 hands to walk away £8.1m up. I think you have overlooked the effect of the "table limit". After the first win you have £300k in you hand but are still only allowed to gamble £150k on the next spin. Therefore it takes a very large number of wins to make £8m. 8,100,000 / 150,000 = 54 wins required! The "table limit" is one of the biggest protections available to a casino. Otherwise they can be readily cleaned out by the simple expedient of "doubling up" and running away when you win. Roulette pays 351 on a single number win so you get £150k x 35 plus your £150k stake back. One win and you have £5.25 Mill. + your stake


madala
4,933 posts
84 months

When you look at the maths....being able to punt up to 150k a hand at P.B. his win is not huge over two days.....many a time I have seen runs on either bank or player exceeding eight or ten....but no one is talking at present.


Ozzie Osmond
16,221 posts
132 months

over_the_hill said: Roulette pays 351 on a single number win so you get £150k x 35 plus your £150k stake back. One win and you have £5.25 Mill. + your stake That's right if you're on the single numbers as opposed to making a red/black bet. But the odds are of course massively worse at 1:36 as opposed to a red/black bet at about 50:50. Can't think of many Roulette tables with a £150k table limit though.


Ozzie Osmond
16,221 posts
132 months

over_the_hill said: Roulette pays 351 on a single number win so you get £150k x 35 plus your £150k stake back. One win and you have £5.25 Mill. + your stake That's right if you're on the single numbers as opposed to making a red/black bet. But the odds are of course massively worse at 1:36 as opposed to a red/black bet at about 50:50. Can't think of many Roulette tables with a £150k table limit though.


NoNeed
8,797 posts
86 months

Ozzie Osmond said: over_the_hill said: Roulette pays 351 on a single number win so you get £150k x 35 plus your £150k stake back. One win and you have £5.25 Mill. + your stake That's right if you're on the single numbers as opposed to making a red/black bet. But the odds are of course massively worse at 1:36 as opposed to a red/black bet at about 50:50. Can't think of many Roulette tables with a £150k table limit though. You can't think of many or any? I watched a program where some bloke wanted to gamble everything he owned and the stake came to about £150k iirc and even on a red or black gamble it took a long time to find a casino to take the bet and even then I think they only did it becasue it was a TV programme. In my local casino the biggest is about £300 on a single 351 number. ETA as a regular high roller things change as we seen with the mike ashley losing streak, he was betting £25k on number 23 all night and lost £5 million. I take it that even then £25k was the maximum.


NorthernBoy
6,213 posts
143 months

Ozzie Osmond said: Quite, but these things need to be kept simple for the internet. And yes, the chances of the outcome you suggested are practically zero, which is why the casino isn't going to pay.
The important figure is the chance of him winning that many, or more, and that is a long way from negligible.


NorthernBoy
6,213 posts
143 months

over_the_hill said: No It's not. If you tossed a coin 1200 times getting 621 heads and 579 tails would not be unexpected at all. The odds are even better than that suggests, as he could have that many hands up after 1199, 1198, 1197 etc. and still walk away with the same size prize. The probability of winning depends on starting stake, too. Go in with a huge pot, and you get a very long random walk before you expect to hit the eventual expected zero. Ozzie's first calculation effectively assumed a starting pot of 150, (and then ignored thousands of paths where you win a bit, give some back, then win again) which is unlikely to be true.


rogerthefish
1,031 posts
117 months

A little rumour that a certain knighted shop owner on this last weekend did the opposite to Wynns Las Vegas to the tune of $10 mil,not a happy man.


madala
4,933 posts
84 months

Robert Maxwell....he was a manic gambler.....rushing for table to table calling maximum bets....sweat dripping from his face....that was way back then in the "glory" days.
....but that's just a "by the by".....

