Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

easylang.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#111

Post by dalore »

This actually taught me that the losing strategies win more often then we thought.

I got positive 2 our 4 times for the single 13 choice.

And for the strategy to double your bet to cover your loss actually worked for me!

Day 1: $10870 Day 2: $12980 Day 3: $10630 Day 4: $8190 Day 5: $7560 Day 6: $9100 Day 7: $9090 Day 8: $10130 Day 9: $12080 Day 10: $12870 Day 11: $12910 Day 12: $14110 Day 13: $15450 Day 14: $15030 Day 15: $15500 Day 16: $14230 Day 17: $13700 Day 18: $11190 Day 19: $12250 Day 20: $14190 Day 21: $16070 Day 22: $12880 Day 23: $12820 Day 24: $11480 Day 25: $12470 Day 26: $14920 Day 27: $9940 Day 28: $10240 Day 29: $9020 Day 30: $10740 Day 31: $12600 Day 32: $14880 Day 33: $17220 Day 34: $15700 Day 35: $17920 Day 36: $18150 Day 37: $14080 Day 38: $16150 Day 39: $18140 Day 40: $19960 Day 41: $20000 -------------

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#112

Post by yomly »

arisAlexis wrote: post #105
noego wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hit the nail on the head. If you simply play the pass-line and free-odds on craps, the house edge is extremely small. And yet, most people lose far more than predicted by the odds. The problem is exactly as you stated - people don't have a defined exit-strategy, and their implicit exit-strategy is to keep playing till they lose everything. Which is guaranteed to happen 100% of the time even if the house-edge was…

Can you explain what you feel playing a game that will always make you lose money no matter the strategies and anything else? Very curious

Luck is lumpy.

Weirdly I seem to do quite well in the casino and often have evening where I leave the casino 2-3X ahead of where I started.

My luck at football betting is terrible, I'm even worse at horses.

When you're up it's quite the thrill. You weather the downs as a cost associated with the particular vice.

I enjoy "emotionally hedging" sports events - if I want X to win I bet on Y

Do you play any other things (sports or games)? Do you not ever go for low percentage / high risk actions if only for the pleasure of occasionally see them come good?

Think bicycle kick in football, haymaker in boxing, high stakes play in poker, 1-frame combos in Street Fighter, technically difficult riffs in a musical jam.

I feel your line of questioning locks money and all its uses to rationality. Money can be an instrument for pleasure and for many, risk-seeking is a pleasurable activity.

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#113

Post by arisAlexis »

yomly wrote: post #112
arisAlexis wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you feel playing a game that will always make you lose money no matter the strategies and anything else? Very curious

Luck is lumpy. Weirdly I seem to do quite well in the casino and often have evening where I leave the casino 2-3X ahead of where I started. My luck at football betting is terrible, I'm even worse at horses. When you're up it's quite the thrill. You weather the downs as a cost associated with the particular vice. I enjoy "emotionally hedging" sports events - if I want X to win I bet on Y Do you play any other things (…

Poker and sports betting have a huge difference. It is not 100% certain you will lose long term. Thus can be pleasurable to me. Certain loss simply can't be and that's why I am curious

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#114

Post by soVeryTired »

jaimex2 wrote: post #44

If you go to a casino play poker with other humans. Nothing else is worth your time.

Even poker in a casino probably isn't worth it unless your opponents are obviously drunk or bad players. After the rake and the dealer tip, there's a good chance your edge is zero or negative.

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#115

Post by raubtier »

One strategy not mentioned is to double on win, not on loss. That way you only play with money you've won. Then you set a rule when to stop gambling, for example after 8 wins. This strategy works if there's enough span between min- and max bet. It was a strategy that worked till the 60s when the casinos killed it by closing the min-max gap. I proved it by simulating a million times.

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#116

Post by refrigerator »

For people interested in applying Monte Carlo methods, here are some tools that make it easy:

- Causal: https://causal.app (I'm working on this, web app)

- Guesstimate: https://getguesstimate.com (no longer in development but very cool, web app)

- Palisade @RISK: https://palisade.com/risk (Excel plugin)

- GoldSim: https://goldsim.com (very technical, desktop app)

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#117

Post by sa-mao »

emarsden wrote: post #85
ImaCake wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of probability theory and risk management is filled with mathematicians who were gamblers or had patrons that were. Introducing monte carlo methods with gambling seems very appropiate considering the history of the topic!

Indeed! Here's a Python notebook illustrating both Monte Carlo and symbolic analysis of historical gambling problems (the Chevalier de Méré corresponding with Pascal, Pepys corresponding with Newton) https://risk-engineering.org/notebook/coins-dice.html

That's a nice course you got there. Thanks for sharing!

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#118

Post by yomly »

arisAlexis wrote: post #113
yomly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luck is lumpy. Weirdly I seem to do quite well in the casino and often have evening where I leave the casino 2-3X ahead of where I started. My luck at football betting is terrible, I'm even worse at horses. When you're up it's quite the thrill. You weather the downs as a cost associated with the particular vice. I enjoy "emotionally hedging" sports events - if I want X to win I bet on Y Do you play any other things (…

Poker and sports betting have a huge difference. It is not 100% certain you will lose long term. Thus can be pleasurable to me. Certain loss simply can't be and that's why I am curious

Fair enough, but gambling can be social and other times it can be a "cheap" thrill

Re: Monte Carlo methods – Why it's a bad idea to go to the casino

#120

Post by 55555 »

noego wrote: post #51
55555 wrote: post #11

It's more complicated (worse) than this. That the house has a small edge only tells a small part of the story. When people go to vegas for a weekend, they might have a number in their head they are willing to gamble. If they dont, then that number is their bank account balance. Then they start flipping coins, and often they keep doing this until they go bust. They rarely cash out when up but they always lose when the…

You hit the nail on the head. If you simply play the pass-line and free-odds on craps, the house edge is extremely small. And yet, most people lose far more than predicted by the odds. The problem is exactly as you stated - people don't have a defined exit-strategy, and their implicit exit-strategy is to keep playing till they lose everything. Which is guaranteed to happen 100% of the time even if the house-edge was…

There's even been a study where (IIRC) they gave people $20 for free, and they could bet on coin tosses. There was no house edge and the rules were set up so that with a basic understanding of probability and bet sizing they'd be able to cash out free money. IIRC 33% went bust.
Post reply on HN