Discussion

Ozzie Osmond said:

Roulette - you lose slowly. The casino takes, on average, around 2% of each bet.

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.**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.

£150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation.

coyft said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Roulette - you lose slowly. The casino takes, on average, around 2% of each bet.

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.**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.

£150k a hand, 1.2% advantage to the house, so what are the odds of ending up £7m. Please share your calculation.

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!?)

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. If you tossed a coin 1200 times getting 621 heads and 579 tails would not be unexpected at all.

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.

One win and you have £5.25 Mill. + your stake

over_the_hill said:

Roulette pays 35-1 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.

over_the_hill said:

Roulette pays 35-1 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 said:

over_the_hill said:

Roulette pays 35-1 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.

In my local casino the biggest is about £300 on a single 35-1 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.

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.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.If you tossed a coin 1200 times getting 621 heads and 579 tails would not be unexpected at all.

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.

Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff