A Gambler Who Beat Roulette • Hacker News Board

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#101

Post by IncRnd » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 10:22 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #64

IncRnd wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From "Who is buying Powerball and Mega Millions tickets?" [1] > The general belief is that poorer Americans buy lottery tickets more often than wealthier ones. But that's not quite true. > The survey showed the most frequent lottery players earn between $36,000 and $89,999. About 56% of that group bought tickets in the last year. Fewer of those making under $36,000 bought tickets, only 40%. About 53% who make above $…

Keep reading: >But other studies have shown that when lower income players do buy tickets, they spend far more money on lottery tickets than wealthier players. A study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies found that those in the bottom fifth of income spent the most on lottery tickets, and more than twice as much as the richest lottery players - $433 a year vs. $193 a year. Most everyone buys a Powerball tick…

Keep reading:

> The poorer lottery players also buy far more of the lower prize games, such as scratch-off instant games which account for the majority of lottery sales.

> The richer buyers are buying the multi-state jackpot games such as Powerball and Mega Millions. And the wealthier players are likely to be drawn in by the big jackpot prizes like those being offered right now by both Powerball and Mega Millions.

The lotteries are not exclusively taxing the poorest members of society, which is what you originally claimed.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#102

Post by reducesuffering » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

joshyeetbox wrote: post #89

reducesuffering wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> exception of maybe blackjack where the odds can theoretically be equal Better than equal. Most Blackjack is -0.6% EV playing basic strategy, but with counting, each true count is an extra ~0.5% of EV, leading to big betting on high count hands with EV of 1-3%. Of course, that's why casinos kick out counters. They're literally "too good" at the game, and they don't want that.

I thought casinsos started using multiple decks (like 6) and auto shuffled between games now so that counting was pretty much impossible?

Multiple decks, like 6, is what I mean by "most blackjack." Yes, the 6-deck shoe is shuffled after about 75% of those decks are played. There are certain casinos that have "continuous shuffling machines" that shuffle every hand. Those are impossible to count, but rare.

6 decks, as opposed to 1 or 2, does make counting less accurate. But ultimately everything I said previously applies. Those stats are based on the current common game of 3-2 Blackjack, H17, 6-deck shoe, no continuous shuffle, and double after split.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#103

Post by robomartin » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:07 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #21

MrMember wrote: post #10

>Tosa, Marjanovic and Pilisi returned to the Ritz at 10 that night, as promised. This time they were led to a private room where a squad from the London Metropolitan Police was waiting. An officer politely informed them they were under arrest on suspicion of “deception” and led them away to be interviewed at a nearby police station. Once the gamblers were out of earshot, Wootten urged the cops to check their shoes an…

That jumped out at me too. You could lose 500K in a casino and nobody would bat an eye but win 500K and suddenly the police is involved and the casino refuses to pay out. Personally I think if they can't prove that you are cheating that you should be allowed to continue to play as long as you feel like and the casino stays afloat. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. The police automatically sidin…

A casino can ask you to leave for any reason or no reason at all. Fifteen years ago or thereabouts I was asked to leave the roulette table (actually, all casinos owned by the same company). I won 12 times in a row. Not big money at all. Still, they didn’t like that.

What they said was “You are done for the night at our casinos. You are welcome to return tomorrow.”

They were very nice about it and I had no issue with it at all. It’s their house.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#104

Post by Nevermark » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:08 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #73

Nevermark wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t subjective. If I gamble once, and only once, with a lot of money at very high odds, I might get very lucky and win a fortune. But despite small odds of a massive pay out, the odds would have been very low, but not infinitesimal. Whereas, if I consistently win much more than I lose over many bets, across seversl visits, and a group of people can do this, the odds of that happening rapidly become virtually z…

Six standard deviations is 1 in 2 billion per Wikipedia here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul... . Ok that's pretty crazy, let's lower it a notch, throw out the sigmas, just talk about 1-in-hundreds-of-millions odds. The article doesn't actually list the odds of their winning streak, but I'd wager a casino is gonna be suspicious well before the "one in a hundred million" level of streak.…

If it’s coin flipping, then winning 10 coin flips is 1 out of 1000.

20 flips, 1 out of 1 million.

30 flips, 1 out of a billion.

40 flips, 1 out of a trillion.

With roulette, and overall gain (not a perfect score), say a ratio of 2 wins out of 3 bets, it takes more bets.

But in this case we are talking about many roulette games, with a recognized group of people, often playing in tandem. at multiple casinos.

The odds of their record of successes, as documented by the casinos, could be 1 out of billions or trillions easily. Maybe even more.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#105

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:14 PM UTC

MrMember wrote: post #10

>Tosa, Marjanovic and Pilisi returned to the Ritz at 10 that night, as promised. This time they were led to a private room where a squad from the London Metropolitan Police was waiting. An officer politely informed them they were under arrest on suspicion of “deception” and led them away to be interviewed at a nearby police station. Once the gamblers were out of earshot, Wootten urged the cops to check their shoes an…

> I haven't finished the whole article yet

Perhaps you should keep reading before posting:

Was there any legal way to stop Tosa and the others from collecting their winnings? he asked. No, the officer said. There was no other option. The Ritz would have to pay up

Let's face it, lots of people get arrested because of suspicious activity, and that totally sucks and has real consequences, but this situation is not especially different than any other, because of influence from the casino. If a person is suspected of robbing a store, they'd likely be detained as well.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#106

Post by majormajor » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:15 PM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #104

majormajor wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Six standard deviations is 1 in 2 billion per Wikipedia here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rul... . Ok that's pretty crazy, let's lower it a notch, throw out the sigmas, just talk about 1-in-hundreds-of-millions odds. The article doesn't actually list the odds of their winning streak, but I'd wager a casino is gonna be suspicious well before the "one in a hundred million" level of streak.…

If it’s coin flipping, then winning 10 coin flips is 1 out of 1000. 20 flips, 1 out of 1 million. 30 flips, 1 out of a billion. 40 flips, 1 out of a trillion. With roulette, and overall gain (not a perfect score), say a ratio of 2 wins out of 3 bets, it takes more bets. But in this case we are talking about many roulette games, with a recognized group of people, often playing in tandem. at multiple casinos. The odds…

There was a lot suggestive about this group, but that includes a lot of subjective factors.

It's the pure math side I think is fun, because I find examples of people getting tricked by confidence intervals into developing blindspots to the randomness, and substituting "proof" for "very unlikely" fascinating. Comes from working in a lot of companies with ... sloppy ... methodology for their AB tests.

If you go to a casino and win 20 straight coin flips [or the equivalent in roulette or craps] don't you think they'd be pretty damn sure you cheated somehow?

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#107

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:24 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #84

lancesells wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police should not be in the business of protecting the revenue streams of gambling installation operators. What about in something like betting on a boxing match and having the fighter throw the fight? Is that the casino's problem too? If you're ok with someone cheating then it all makes complete sense what you're saying. If you're not then someone has to investigate. Do you really want the casino being law enf…

It's the casino here that's cheating, and the casino that doesn't know its own business well enough to spot the flaws that are exposed. Winners have no obligation to explain how they won just as the casino isn't going to tell the losers to stop losing.

And in this case, without proof, the winners did get paid. The police and internal investigation did not result in any definitive proof, thus the seizure of funds was unjustified and soon released.

As far as protecting casino revenue, casinos have a complicated arrangement with governments but in most jurisdictions the reason they are legal is to pay hefty taxes on gaming revenue (also normal income tax, separately). Thus the police are, when investigating similar claims, protecting government revenue. The casino is just the conduit to generating that revenue.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#108

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:30 PM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #18

ryandrake wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Casinos are pretty pathetic. They claim to run an honest game, and if you lose, they are totally fine with keeping your money. But, if you consistently win, and it looks even slightly statistically improbable, the casino turns into a crybaby health insurance adjuster, going over the rules/law with a magnifying glass to find something, anything that lets them avoid payment. At worst, the ones run by less savory organi…

More concerning is that the police and judges will follow on the casino's requests.

Is it "concerning" that police "follow up" investigating store robberies? And judges who convict the theives? How about passing bad checks? Eat-and-runs? A lot of criminal activity is perpetrated against corporations, they should be allowed recourse.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#109

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:34 PM UTC

GCA10 wrote: post #54

ProjectArcturis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says they generally bet "neighbors" bets which cover 5 out of 37 numbers. It also says they had win streaks of as many as 13 in a row. The odds of that happening randomly are (5/37)^13, or 5 in 1 trillion. Casino security was certainly correct that this was not normal play. I don't know why they made so many small bets. They should have come in, made like 3 huge bets, and walked out.

I think the article actually says something slightly different -- which changes the math a lot. Yes, they placed these "neighbors" bets, but it sounds as if they had several of them in motion on each spin. If they're covering an average of three clusters per spin, our random odds become (15/37)^13, which is approximately 1:125,000. Still plenty of grounds for suspicion, but if the casino is open for action all year a…

Now calculate 13 in a row, and 10 in a row, and and 8 in a row, and a bunch more, by the same players in the same night.

Re: A Gambler Who Beat Roulette

#110

Post by listenallyall » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 11:42 PM UTC

Since this is Hacker News and we have a lot of programmers here:

Imagine you wrote a checkout function that, because of some obscure bug, doesn't actually charge the person's credit card. Now, someone notices. Next thing, this person orders a half-million dollars of merchandise from your store before you notice the error on your end. Are you obligated to send it all to him?