What is the real meaning of long term?

[EasyRhino]

I use cash back in the generic sense of "comp points that you can redeem for money, or a reasonable facsimile of money". And comp points are earned by playthrough, not by losing.

Contrast with "gambler's insurance," "walking money," and "loss rebates," which all require actually losing (but if combined with high variance play, can be +EV!)

 

[ColorMeUp]

Simple answer.
The long term is what will happen over an extended period.
Everyone knows that a coin flip is 50-50. But the chances of getting exactly 5 heads in a sequence of ten is not 50%.Its much,much lower.But,in the long run,the longer you flip,the more towards a 50-50 split you should get.

Good way to put it. In mathematical terms, as the number of trials increases towards infinity your actual EV converges to your expected (mathematical) EV. This is also known as the Law of Large Numbers, and you can read about it here: http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/~stark/Java/Html/lln.htm

 

[Kasi]

Cash back on losses does not overcome the house edge, it only decreases it.

I don't know. I would think it would depend on the amount of cash back on losses. I mean, if one gets forgiven 10% of one's debt when one loses all his bankroll but gets to keep all his winnings when one wins, as I think sometimes happens to the high-rollers who drop $100K without blinking, I would think the EV would approach the amount of cash back. Like maybe +9% or so in this scenario.

For instance, BJSwitch used to be a +EV game because the house edge was less than the 0.001 one would get back as a comp although that's a little different since it's just based on total wagers.

As pointed out by EasyRhino I just noticed lol.

 

[EasyRhino]

I would think the EV would approach the amount of cash back. Like maybe +9% or so in this scenario.

In a coin-flip, if you bet ALL the money on one flip, and then immediately left afterwards, the value of 10% insurance would be 5% (you only collect half the time).

If you played extremely agressively, parlayed wins, and didn't leave until you had won three in a row, then I think the value of 10% insurance would be roughly 8.8%, because you would "collect" like 7 out of 8 times. (I probably bungled the exact math, but you get the idea). High variance play gets you more.

Real whales generally bet a lot of hands which are fairly small relative to their bankrolls. That's why they're whales. This means that insurance doesn't really become a moneymaker for them. (Same with getting a few grand in "free money" by walking in the door, which may only be equal to a few hands of play).

 

[supercoolmancool]

In a coin-flip, if you bet ALL the money on one flip, and then immediately left afterwards, the value of 10% insurance would be 5% (you only collect half the time).

If you played extremely agressively, parlayed wins, and didn't leave until you had won three in a row, then I think the value of 10% insurance would be roughly 8.8%, because you would "collect" like 7 out of 8 times. (I probably bungled the exact math, but you get the idea). High variance play gets you more.

Real whales generally bet a lot of hands which are fairly small relative to their bankrolls. That's why they're whales. This means that insurance doesn't really become a moneymaker for them. (Same with getting a few grand in "free money" by walking in the door, which may only be equal to a few hands of play).

Scotth is right about this. Even if they gave you back 99.99% of your losses you'd still be playing a losing game. What you want to find is cashback on total amount wagered.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Scotth is right about this. Even if they gave you back 99.99% of your losses you'd still be playing a losing game. What you want to find is cashback on total amount wagered.

Not at all. Whether or not you can make money with a loss rebate depends on how many stores are offering it.

Suppose every casino in a town was offering a 50% loss rebate on a 5% house edge roulette bet, up to $500 total rebate. I'd walk into every casino and bet $1000 on one even-money spin in every one. To simplify the math, let's say there are 40 casinos making this offer.

On average I will win 19 times and lose 21. So in terms of roulette play I will lose $2000. But those 21 stores where I lost have paid me $500 in rebates each, total $10500, so my expected win on this day of playing this wonderful promotion is $8500. My total action was $40000, so my advantage was 21.25%.

Homework question: what is my expected win and advantage if I were to break down my spins into two $500 spins per store? Or ten $100 spins per store?

 

[supercoolmancool]

Homework question: what is my expected win and advantage if I were to break down my spins into two $500 spins per store? Or ten $100 spins per store?

We'll you would wager $1000 per store so ($1000)(.05)=$50 loss +$25 rebate equals a $25 loss per store in the longrun. So with 40 stores you would lose about $1000 dollars per day.

Your one $1000 bet per casino strategy sounds like it works. It seems to be utalizing some sort of cutting edge sticky bonus technique concept. In that if you just wager your $1000 it works but if you wager 10 $100 bets it fails.

 

[ScottH]

Not at all. Whether or not you can make money with a loss rebate depends on how many stores are offering it.

It really doesn't matter how many stores offer it. If 40 stores offer the same promotion and it's +EV to play all 40, then it's +EV to play just one as well.

 

[ScottH]

We'll you would wager $1000 per store so ($1000)(.05)=$50 loss +$25 rebate equals a $25 loss per store in the longrun. So with 40 stores you would lose about $1000 dollars per day.

Your one $1000 bet per casino strategy sounds like it works. It seems to be utalizing some sort of cutting edge sticky bonus technique concept. In that if you just wager your $1000 it works but if you wager 10 $100 bets it fails.

If you play just one spin of 1000 dollars with a 50% loss rebate, it's just like you are risking 500 to win 1000 because you either lose and get 500 dollars back, or win 1000.

 

[supercoolmancool]

If you play just one spin of 1000 dollars with a 50% loss rebate, it's just like you are risking 500 to win 1000 because you either lose and get 500 dollars back, or win 1000.

I agree. But if you bet $1 one thousand times per casino then it would be a -EV game. Professional secrets revealed.

 

[EasyRhino]

If you play an infinite number of very small bets , your 50% loss rebate becomes, indeed, a 50% loss rebate. You turned 00 roulette from a 5% house edge to a 2.5% house edge. Congratulations, you're a loser.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I agree. But if you bet $1 one thousand times per casino then it would be a -EV game. Professional secrets revealed.

Wait don't accuse me of that! This is related to already-pubished bonus play theory.

But you've got it absolutely right- the trick is one of accounting, specifically, that the accounting of the different stores and/or promotions is not combined. So the store you are playing now is not considering whether you won or lost at the last store when they decide to rebate your loss. If they do, it doesn't work.

And as you increase the variance, you also increase your advantage. Let's say you were to play the same promotion, but just bet a straight number instead of a red/black bet. The typical result for your $40000 in action will be winning in one store ($36000) plus $19500 in rebates from the 39 stores where you lost. $14500 profit. But it's also very possible to lose in all 40 stores for a loss of $20000. So a player of this promo is going to have to consider his risk tolerance too.

 

[Sonny]

On average I will win 19 times and lose 21.

Shouldn't it be 20 losses and 18 wins? For the US rules there would be 36 numbers plus 0 and 00.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Shouldn't it be 20 losses and 18 wins? For the US rules there would be 36 numbers plus 0 and 00.

-Sonny-

Well yeah, but I just pulled out a 5% house edge to make the math quicker.

All right, let's say it's a slightly biased wheel!

 

[Kasi]

If you played extremely agressively, parlayed wins, and didn't leave until you had won three in a row, then I think the value of 10% insurance would be roughly 8.8%, because you would "collect" like 7 out of 8 times. (I probably bungled the exact math, but you get the idea). High variance play gets you more.

Exactly what I meant - set a high winning goal betting large proportions of your roll and your advantage approaches the rebate loss. But to take advantage of it you actually have to play to lose!

Apparently whales have more money than brains since, like we both agree, it would be very dangerous for the casino to offer whales 10% rebates on every trip loss. Fly in with $1MM every month for 11 months with a goal of winning $10MM or lose the $1MM and u'd probably have $9MMl

That's not gambling though - that's an investment

 

[Cardcounter]

Long term

If you are an advantage player playing with an edge the long term will gurantee that you will make money. Lets take the casino for instance on any given bet they usually have at least a 44% chance of losing but for any given day they have about 98%-99% chance of winning more than they lost and for any given year they have a 99.9999999999999% or particulally a 100% chance to win more than they lost because of the house advantage. If you truely have an advantage in the long term you will no ifs ands or buts if you don't you will lose.

 

[Kasi]

If you play an infinite number of very small bets , your 50% loss rebate becomes, indeed, a 50% loss rebate. You turned 00 roulette from a 5% house edge to a 2.5% house edge. Congratulations, you're a loser.

I don't know. I guess it depends when u collect the 50% loss rebate. But if u collect it every time u lose, it's a +EV. NO?

Like u win 18 times for $18, lose 20 times but only 50 cents each time for -$10.

So u win $8/38 wagered.

 

[Kasi]

If you are an advantage player playing with an edge the long term will gurantee that you will make money.

Well maybe with an infinite bankroll.

But, otherwise, I don't see any guarantees here.

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

What kind of techniques are there to gaining a +EV in video poker? I ask because I don't play...I have heard that you can play a close to 0 game if you do it right.

good luck

it is impossible to lower the house edge on video poker just by playing the game.. comps is the only way.. altho there used to be vp games that had a PLAYER advantage of up to 1%, but those are long gone, and now the best you will find is -.46%.. its just like blackjack, you cant lower the house edge by playing basic strategy; there is no magical basic strategy that gives you an edge, you must know something about the cards already dealt

 

[shadroch]

it is impossible to lower the house edge on video poker just by playing the game.. comps is the only way.. altho there used to be vp games that had a PLAYER advantage of up to 1%, but those are long gone, and now the best you will find is -.46%.. its just like blackjack, you cant lower the house edge by playing basic strategy; there is no magical basic strategy that gives you an edge, you must know something about the cards already dealt

Where do you get this from? No positive VP games left? Please!

Shut up,listen,and learn. You just might realize you have very little idea what you are posting about.