Win a SMALL fortune with counting cards-the math of blackjack & Co.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- NEW (Christmas 2019). Two ways to support Mathologer
Mathologer Patreon: / mathologer
Mathologer PayPal: paypal.me/mathologer
(see the Patreon page for details)
Curious about how it is possible to make money in a casino, for example, by counting cards in Blackjack? Then this new Mathologer video about the mathematics of casino games like roulette, blackjack, etc. is for you.
The video is based on talks by my friend and colleague Marty Ross who who knows a lot about beating the casinos at their own game. I do a bit of an interview with Marty at the end in this video but just in case you are interested in seeing him in some real Marty action, here is a link to a video of him giving a talk about sports gambling at the Melbourne Museum in 2012:
• The Joy of Sports gamb...
Also check out his bad mathematics blog
mathematicalcr...
and his writeup of the solution our free coupon puzzle in Math Horizons
www.qedcat.com/...
Anyway, thanks a lot to Marty for all his help with this video and to Danil (Dimitriev) for his continuing work on providing Russian subtitles for all Mathologer videos and Michael (Franklin) for his help with recording this video.
For those among you interested in more information about the mathematics of casino games here are some more references:
a) wizardofodds.com/
Great free site with reliable details on all forms of gambling, discussion of principles etc.
wizardofodds.c...
wizardofodds.c...
b) Theory of gambling and statistical logic by Richard Epstein
books.google.c...
c) Professional blackjack
All round best practical manual
www.bookdeposi...
d) Beat the Dealer by Edward Thorp
The original book.
www.edwardothor...
d) The Theory of Blackjack by Peter Griffin
Does a lot of the theory underlying and evaluating blackjack systems, linear regression and so forth.
www.bookdeposi...
e) Here’s a counting practice app:
itunes.apple.c...
Enjoy!
P.S.: My t-shirt today features a famous mathematical limerick: Integral zee squared dzee//from 1 to the cube root of 3//times the cosine//of three pi over 9//equals log of the cube root of e.
Back from an extended holiday. Still working on the ultimate Zeta function video, but to get things rolling again here is a video on the math of casino games. The video is based on talks by my friend and colleague Marty Ross who who knows a lot about beating the casinos at their own game. I do a bit of an interview with Marty at the end in this video but just in case you are interested in seeing him in some real Marty action check out the links in the description :)
Mathologer your shirt is so poetic :)
This is my favorite video of yours yet, keep it up!
ultimate zeta function video? man i love your videos you explain math better than many other youtubers
I am looking forward to the ultimate Zeta function video!
So, what's the price of the $10 coupon ?
How to leave a Casino with one million dollar:
Enter with two ;)
Or enter with a thousand, but be the house.
2 dollars /= 1 million
π : He meant enter with 2 [million].
Get it now?
owe one!
That's a 500 thousand to one profit ratio, that's pretty good.
If you lose $1, $2, $3, ..., then you gain $1/12.
Try it and let me know how you go with this gambling scheme :)
we all know and have no dubt that it is true only on infinte tries. btw isn't $1/12 your loss and not your win?
actshually, 1+2+4+... = -1 (assuming you're adding the power of 2)
1+2+3+4+... = -1/12 is the relation you're looking for i think.
both are infinite divergent positive sum, to what we assigned a negative value, so both work for the joke. i was just nitpicking the fact that he said 1+2+4+...= -1/12 which is not the usual value. He then even changed his comment
@Hstar5712 Yea, I noticed and fixed that.
There is one simple way to change any game with a negative expectation to a positive expectation. Just move to the other side of the table i.e. be the one who owns the casino. Unfortunately, I have not succeeded in putting this strategy into practice yet.
David Conrad buy shares in a casino company :)
Or just get a job.
Hi David, do you want me to coach you for free? I've been a successful counter for a few years now. Are you interested? I'll teach you everything you need to know to be successful to get results in the casino. I'm a mathematician myself.
That's not always true either. For instance, the casino has to pay their personnel a salary and keep the lights on and often provide free food. Casinos can lose money if the sucker money in doesn't meet the overhead. There are overhead costs to EVERYTHING. Take the stock market for instance. Maybe you'll do better to be long than be short, maybe you'll do better to be short, but either way, you have to pay the broker commission on the trades.
Someone makes a comment like this on virtually every video or article about advantage gambling. Even when, as in this case, it is clearly explained how to gain an edge as a player. You aren't clever or witty or anything, just unbelievably asinine, shallow and predictable, and lacking in imagination. There are lots of gamblers who have made money from casino gambling long-term, it isn't that uncommon. But doubtless you will continue making your fucking funny joke, and morons will continue to validate your misinformation.
just don't forget, as good as you may be with math, a real casino has the right to throw you out, and a virtual casino has the right to shut down and disappear with all your money
@TurboCMinusMinus I think he means if you loose a certain amount of money, the casino can choose to leave. Leaving u with no chance to win it back.
A virtual casino www.jackpotwheel.com kicked me out because I had a $40 coupon, I deposited $20 and tried to leave a few days later with $100 leaving a bankroll of $65 to keep playing later... They said I was a hazard to the casino and that they will refund the $20 in 21 days... LOL . I had to ask my bank to back charge the $20 (They took the $20 in a blink of an eye and refund it in 21 days ????).... This is why I just tested them... Bovada.lv is better they honor their losses... I will keep doing the same with all online casinos ($100-$150 from every online casino every few days is not bad. You get lucky usually the first few days (Until the casino robot learns your betting pattern, then it is time to go)... By the way, make sure you don't waste your time with www.jackpotwheel.com
WHY PEOPLE PLAY THESE GAMES???? The golden rule is always: "Casino wins, you shut up". It is not a fair game, it does not proobe you are brave or smart, and there is more fun ways to through to rubbish your (incredible amount of) money.
It is better to pay the university credit to some girl that trying to impress her spending money in a casino.
Yeah they do. Bastards. Card-counting literally isn't cheating.
And even though they have no right thy do have the ability to turn you into fertilizer or at the very least lump you up for your efforts.
The limerick on your shirt:
Integral z-squared dz
From zero to the cube root of 3
Times the cosine
Of three pi over nine
Is the log of the cube root of e
Nice , but its *from one to the cube root of 3 *
Also, casinos have “maximum bet limits,” on top of us not having “infinity money.”
And I like the phrase “infinity money,” and I’m going to start working it into my conversions.
Yes, everything is calculatable believe it or not...
They will usually gladly increase the maximums upon request.
Goal in blackjack is actually beating the dealer. Use basic strategy always! Card counting is recommended. Good video!
The zeroth theorem of gambling: "The house always wins"
Most casinos protect themselves against schemes like the Martingale by having minimum and maximum bets.
Thanks, Nillie. Yes, the maximum bet restriction protects the casino from vindictive billionaires, and the like. It doesn't change the fact that the Martingale has no effect on expectation.
That's probably true, but really unnecessary. The Martingale scheme never becomes positive with any number of bets available - the best case scenario for the gambler is that he has played "negative lottery" with potentially massive losses for very small gains and a negative net expectation.
I highly doubt that. The Martingale is a strategy that can not possibly bankrupt a casino due to negative win expectations and due to the gambler only winning a very small amount per successful gamble.
Minimum bets are probably to ensure the casino isn't wasting it's employee's time on customers that will hardly make them any money (as their income is proportional to the bet), whilst the maximum is most likely there to prevent having to pay out large sums of money to a billionaire that wants to make a huge gamble and gets lucky (though it may also help protect customers from themselves I guess).
Using martingale isn't needed in blackjack. It's about having enough bets to over come variance aka "bad luck" - It's like me saying you're going to win 52% of the time and lose 48%. You're still going to have a losing streak, but you will also have winning streaks. Overall you will tends towards the mean (you winning) due to the central limit theorem. If you want I can coach you for free in Blackjack, I have a private group I've just launched. Let me know if you're interested.
@@amritshinh6376 Wouldn't have to teach me. I win more than lose.
Gambling is a tax for people who don't know math.
kurtu5 More of a tax on people who know too little math. People who know NO math have no reason to believe they can beat the casino. People who know too little math can really be fooled into believing in "systems" like Martingale.
@@TadRichard But I gamble for the rush. A rush I get by spending money, not to make money. Even if I win I always put it back, because it's about staying alive and the duration of being able to stay at the table, not about walking away with money. I guess this is something only high rollers understand, and it has nothing to do with logic but more with emotions and dopamine.
@@asanka4131 and that's how one goes broke and homeless. Just for the feeling of it. Be careful bro
I know more people that wins lottery than people crashed by a meteorite.
👌👌
One of my friends used to be a professional gambler. He researched betting sites all over the world to find bets that had opposite values from two different sites and when he found those put half of his kitty on one and the half on the other. He made small income on this but after few years found out that certain sites started to refuse his bets. This complicated things so much that he stopped that and went to do something else.
sometimes they will refuse to pay you and there is little you can one the laws of where they are stationed and two its usually illegal in the US to gamble online.
For 2 yrs now I have applied these principles to option trading, along with the 'Kelly Formula", and "Gamblers Ruin Formula" using my trading platforms probability algorithm to provide the required inputs for those formulas - to adapt trading strategies to suit different market conditions. So far its worked very well, beyond my hopes and expectations.
How do you use both Kelly Formula and Gamblers Ruin Formula?
I don't understand casinos.
I mean, card counting is basically just paying attention. Why is paying attention against the rules?
"Hey, customer! Looks like you've had a bit too much to think!"
Really though, they can just reshuffle after each hand to make this pointless.
@Viktor Blomstergren sorry but I don't understand that answer. How does making their games cater to people who pay attention and then making paying attention illegal increase their competitiveness?
@@Nerobyrne Valid points always attract shitty replies...
Counting isn't illegal, and businesses have the right to not serve anyone they want
The reason they don't shuffle after every hand is it would take too long. Time spent shuffling cards is time not spent making money, and the vast majority of people who play are not counting cards. (Also, even if you ARE trying to card count, it's hard to do with all the distractions in a casino, and doing it incorrectly is worse than not doing it at all.)
Card counting itself is not illegal and isn't breaking any rules of the game, but casinos are private property, and they have the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason. They will definitely exercise that right if they catch you card counting.
@@Nerobyrne It's not illegal. You can't be arrested for card counting. But as casino's are private establishments, they can ask you to leave for any reason they want. If you refuse, you could then obviously be arrested for trespassing.
As for why they do it, because they'll make more money taking from idiots. Allowing people that can game the odds in their favor to play loses them money. Your question is the only thing that doesn't make sense. Casinos exist to take your money, not give it away. Why WOULDN'T they make card counting against their rules. The other point is to just make card counting impossible. The issue is that reduces the odds for the player, which means they'll be less likely to throw their money into your pocket. The best way for them to make money is then obviously to attract as many idiots as possible and deal with the card counters as they come.
"Beat the dealer" is a great book. But Black Jack is now 6 decks and the last 20% of the cards are not used. I have done some simulations which shows that the casino now wins (with a very little margin) if you use the system in the book.
Thanks. I didn't truelly understand what man on video mean.
But can somebody explain how it actually work? We don't really change probability of any card coming then use 6 decks (it is same time for all players shuffle in one deck, right?). And i don't see why 20% broke strategy.
Still works today. I'm a mathematician and have been counting for a number of years now. If you want I can coach you. If 20% is cut off you can still gain a positive expectation. Less cut off the better.
@@АлёшаИнкогнитов because each card now has an unequal chance of being drawn. You're right that adding more decks doesn't change the odds of drawing a specific card (it just goes from 1/52 to 6/312), but it does make it harder for the player to card count, as you have to keep track of 312 cards instead of 52. However, purposefully not using the bottom 20% of your 6-deck, introduces information that is utterly opaque to the player, as well as changing the odds of any given card in an unknown and unknowable way (for example all six of the king of clubs may be in that bottom 20% meaning it's draw odds are 0)
+Martin ... Pedersen Yes, Beat the Dealer was a very good and seminal book, it was the first to explore how math could be used to play blackjack and gain an advantage, but it was written back in the 1960s I think, or maybe even the late 1950s. Since then an entire cottage industry has been developed, a veritable science devoted entirely to the study of the mathematics of the game of Blackjack. Millions of dollars were spent on in-depth research done by mathematicians and computer scientists using sophisticated programs to analyze the game in exquisite detail.
The findings led to the creation of the so-called "basic strategy" for blackjack, as well as systems used to "count cards," keep track of the cards which have been played thus giving the player knowledge of those remaining, the relative composition of the "pack," and whether it is advantageous or not. It was found that high cards are good for the player and low cards less so, low cards tend to help the dealer who is compelled to make certain plays based on the house rules i.e. Dealer hits 16 and below and stands on all 17s and above. The player is of course free to make his own decisions and is not compelled to hit or stand, therefore he can stand on12 and win(something which the dealer cannot do) if the dealer busts. It is in this way that lower cards help the dealer, they help him/her make a hand when they are forced to hit. The player can elect to stand on 12 while the dealer is showing a 5 for instance. If the hole card is a 10 that means the dealer has 15 and he MUST hit according to the rules of the game. Again, low cards would help him/her make a hand, but high cards would make him bust thus losing the hand. This is why the Basic Strategy says for the player to stand on hard 12 vs. a dealer, 4, 5 , or 6, the odds of the dealer busting are pretty high, and they become even greater the more low cards are removed from the pack.
What card counting does is keep track of the relative amounts of high cards to low cards remaining to be played, it typically does this by assigning a number value to a card as it is played and thus COMES OUT of the pack. The pack refers to the cards which are and remain to be played, which is not always a deck, hence the designation.
I don't know why I'm writing all this, it's not actually for you but the person asking questions below you, I just thought I'd start my comment by responding to what you said about the book Beat the Dealer. Anyway, I should just say to anyone wanting to better understand card counting to go and watch a video on card counting, the systems developed are very different and more precise than the one presented in "Beat the Dealer," a strategy which even the author himself believed was cumbersome and not particularly practical for typical players, not to mention use in multiple deck games.
@@mydogskips2 I barely know about blackjack and cardcounting, but I thought that the hole point of counting cards is to know if you have more chances to get a blackjack, and when you do have more chances of getting it, you start betting more. And also it increases the chances of the croupier to have it, so safe betting is also a smart thing to do.
The basic strategy is the same if you are cardcounting or not.
I'm not much good at math and I have zero interest in gambling, but I watched the entire video! How fascinating!! (on another note, I met a girl once at a party who was a maths historian...I never even knew such an arcane field existed!
Arcane? Anyway I was also surprised there was such a thing. Most math majors take a course on the history of math. I always found it amazing how every culture indepenedtly discovered the same mathamatical principles. How it helped them understand the world and universe around them at nearly the same time.
About the "unfairness" of not "allowing" card counting: With every game of luck, the casino offers a bet. They bet against the player, and usually win in the long run. If they realize, that against a specific player their odds are worse than usual, they will stop offering bets to him.
The player sure has every right to watch the game to improve their odds, but the casino never abandoned their right to do the same. No one is obligated to offer or accept a bet, when the odds are against him. Not the player, but also not the casino.
The ultimate house edge for casinos has nothing to do with math, it’s psychology. All games have a negative EV with some expected positive fluctuations. When a gambler is ahead but $300, he ‘feels’ great and is willing to risk more and increase his bets because...”it’s the houses money”. That accelerates his looses and guarantees his ruin.
Thought experiment: if you had a contractual agreement with a casino they would accept your bets for a 24 hour period, no limits. And if you had free use of $10 million dollars. You have zero risk: at the end of the day if you lose the whole 10 mil, no problem, no payback. But you get to keep any profit above 10 mil.
Perfect setup right? Gambling with someone else’s money lol.
You then could enter into a low risk martingale game with an initial bet of $1,000. If you lose, the progression is 2k, 4K, 8k etc and you’d have to experience a lot of losses in a row before you lost the whole 10m.
So you can reasonably expect to play for a little while and bank $1k profit per hand/spin. Now, for most of us 1k is real, nice money. We’d be happy to walk out of any casino with 10k profit.
You know mathematically that you cannot play forever - at some point there will be 50 losses in a row and the 10m will be long gone. But that probably (haha) won’t happen with the first game you play that day. So it’s safe to play martingale for a little while under these condition (huge bankroll and house agreed rules to not cut you off).
So you are playing and banking $1k profit every 45 seconds or so. In the wink of an eye you have $10k profit, then $35k. You KNOW that it won’t continue forever. You KNOW that you should stop and go home a winner, 35k is serious money - that’s a new truck or a year of college for one of the kids. But it was only a few easy minutes and winning like this is FUN!
When to stop?
Most people push it too far. Most people won’t look down at their chip stack and say ‘damn, that’s $34,690’ and stop right there. They’ll say:
“Cool, I’ll quit a $35k”
“If I make it to $50k I’ll cash out”
“Damn, a win like that will generate a W2G and I need to pay taxes, so that’s really only 22k, I’ll play it up to 75k and pocket 50k after taxes”
“That only took 20 minutes, so in an hour I should be well over $100k”
And THAT is the house edge: That voice in your head is what guarantees a win for the casinos.
Exactly!
I want to cancel the 3*pi/9 so hard, it’s not even funny.
If it makes you feel better, the angle is being expressed in terms of pi/9
The first assumption to make is that we are dealing with a risk neutral individual. So we are referring to the value of the coupon to a risk neutral person (i.e. a rational person who is neither risk averse nor risk seeking). Following this assumption, we can equate the value of the coupon to the expected value of profit from using the coupon.
Therefore value of the coupon = (value of winnings*probability of winning + value of losing*probability of losing).
If we are playing roulette, the value of winnings is $10, the value of losing is $0, the probability of winning is 18/37 or 48.65% and the probability of losing is 19/37 or 51.35%. Therefore the coupon is worth $10*0.4865 + $0*0.5135 = $4.87.
Although each individual game will have an outcome that's either $0 or $10, $4.87 represents the average winnings from playing a $10 coupon over many, many times. This will always be the case that as the number of games played increases, the average winnings per game approaches the $4.87 number. The assumption of risk neutrality is important because the risk neutral person is indifferent to the risk inherent in one individual game, and will value the coupon based on its average expected value.
The risk adverse person will put more weight on the fact that in an individual game the outcome is less certain than the outcome of the average of many games and will therefore value the coupon lower to compensate for that greater uncertainty. The risk seeking person is willing to pay more than the average winnings for the possibility of getting the $10 outcome and will therefore value the coupon higher because he/she demands less compensation for taking the risk.
that's why I play poker, because it's against real people and the house makes its profit from the winner and not the loser
Phi6er true but aren't the odds better if you know what you're doing?
Being good at poker isn't about mathematical perfection; it's about the ability to deceive the other players. Along with some grounding in the odds, of course.
If you have those abilities, you *can* win at poker, even with the house 'skimming' its cut.
".. poker players grossly over estimate how much they can affect other players' actions."
Fact is, there are champions in the game, who can consistently beat the great majority of opponents. They are quite few in number, it's true. But one of their advantages is exactly the over-self-estimation tendency you point to, in a great number of their opponents.
I agree - poker is MUCH more luck than people think. But you can win. The best way is to find ONE guy at the table who plays horribly, and play against him much more. If it comes down to just you two in the pot, and you know what kinds of cards he plays and where he values those cards at, you can beat him most of the time. I took about 3 rebuys off a guy today in just under 20 minutes because I saw he was valueing a pair of aces as all in with his entire stack. So if I could beat that, I would either call his bets or bet him all in by the end.
Phi...
There is no such thing as a "perfect poker player"; otherwise he would win every time.
I've heard that this is a really good way to see the back room of a casino with some big dude named Giuseppe.
brb gonna bet my life savings on red.
Throw it on some 00s go for broke.
why not bet on black... law of averages says black has a better chance of coming up next
@@arcanerecovery2567 Hi, first, for an unbiased wheel the probability if red is 18/37 and the probability of black is 18/37. Second, if a wheel had 60 out of 100 red then it is not an unbiased wheel, it has a slight bias to red.
@@victorcroasdale4992 That isn't something one can deduce from the last 100 spins. This is why i didn't understand why he said red (given that we don't have any info as for whether it's bias or not). I'd love to hear if there's something i missed...
Also, he forgot to mention that the main reason for the Martingale's failure is the upper bet limit. I guess that he's not much of a gambler (good for him). The video was great though.
@@matane.5427 If we were tossing a coin, getting 60 reds in the last 100 throws is about 0.14 times as likely as getting 50 out of the last 100 spins. In the case of a roulette wheel the presence of 0 which is neither red nor black would make 60 reds out of 100 spins even less likely. If 60 reds out of 100 spins occurred I would be willing to bet that the wheel is biased toward red, which means I would bet on the next spin being red. I would have a slightly better than 50% chance of winning.
The Martingale depends on two things; 1) there is no wager limit (unlikely) and 2) the gambler has funds at least as great as the casino (only possible when trump has bankrupted the casino).
The advice to bet on red is based on the idea that if the wheel is truly random, it would be extremely rare for red to come up that many times (it's a binomial distribution and I believe someone already calculated below that we should see 60 or more red in 100 spins only 1.4% of the time; I hope they remembered that the expected frequency of red on a fair wheel is 18/37, not 0.5). Therefore, the conditional probability of the wheel being biased for red is high, and you should bet on red.
In reality this is probably wrong, and to some degree based on a very subtle fallacy. Modern roulette wheels are precision manufactured and carefully maintained. The relevant conditional probability consideration is, if it's a well maintained roulette wheel in a modern casino, any seeming relevant deviation from random is short term variance, and the actual expectation of betting on red or black is about - 3%, as explained.
The subtle fallacy is treating the observation of 100 accidentally observed past spins as if they were a prospective study. If you want to know if the wheel is biased, formulate that hypothesis and observe the next thousand or so spins (or however many you need to get to your acceptable p value). Simply accidentally seeing red "come up too often" and concluding bias is not quite valid. There is no justification for not performing the simple prospective study to more rigorously rule out random variation. Given our knowledge that roulette wheels are carefully designed, though, it probably makes more sense just to admit that it was probably coincidence, rather than waste our time.
A far worse fallacy would be thinking that black is "due", the so called gambler's fallacy, which is actually an application of the law of large numbers, to excessively small numbers. However, although this would be logically worse, the expectation would still be -3%, just like thinking red is favored.
I thought the same. There was a guy who had people in casinos studying the roulette tables and after many spins he found bias in some tables more than others and made a lot of money. Sorry but I don't remember his name. And today they are very well maintained.
But the question asked what should we put our money on, and using the information available would suggest that we are at worst getting standard odds backing red, with some possibility of it being an unfair table. The question compels us to make the bet, and maximise our potential return. Arguing that you would be better off not gambling is moot.
It's nice to see that there are a few intelligent people in here that are not sheep and are able to think for themselves instead of going along with the general consensus.
There was actually a group (in Las Vegae) years back that studied roulette tables and realized that they were not random. Based on speed and where the ball was released, they could predict-with some variance-where the ball would land. They made some big money before caught. They used some devices to help with calcs which is a no-no. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons
The wheel is not biased. It was tested at the factory and the frequencies of every played are analyzed to reveal exactly such a problem. That is, the probability of the wheel being biased is always far less than the possibility of 60 natural reds out of 100. The chance that the wheel *became* biased, in the 100 spins you played, given the age of the table and apx. 1000 spins a day, is super small.
I used to work as a dealer at a casino. We had a customer that hunted "biased" roulette wheels. He claimed he found a few and one a lot of money by betting the sections the ball was most likely to land in due to the fact the wheel was biased.
As you said roulette wheels are mechanical, so I think it may be possible to find an unbalanced/biased wheel perhaps.
There was a family that did this until they got caught.They would save all the numbers that would come up and enter it into a computer.They made a documentary about them but the casino kicked them out for it.
Also there are dealers that have enough control with the ball to hit sections.
Oh its very possible to find biased wheels, but highly difficult and getting harder each year. Newer wheels are built with this in mind and have systems in place to alert casinos when the wheel is off even by a little bit. But its fascinating that you can still find biased wheels even today.
That shirt is the best representation of 1/3=1/3 I've seen in my entire life. The choice of z and a cosine certainly made me think it had something to do with delays and discrete filter design, but I should've known better 😂
1:50 10-10/x approaches 10, so it should be slightly less than 10 (due to a combination of 1) casino games don't go to infinity and 2) the ratio of payout is usually slightly lower than 1/chance
The best option is to sell it to another punter for real money, preferably over $5. The best gambling odds are achieved by not gambling at all.
David Knight or playing poker
to stupid for a Name interestingly a short google search suggests the house Edge is around 5% so no, blackjack is the slowest way to lose your cash. Of course this assumes the player’s skill doesn’t appreciably affect the odds so a good player may argue differently perhaps.
David Knight it’s worth close to $10. If you bet it on red, say then you stand to walk away with $10 x 18/37 of the time. $4.86 on average.
But you bet it on a single number, then you stand to walk away with a useful $350 x 1/37 of the time. $9.46 on average.
Sean Kelleher, the proper response is to just say "Okay, I'll buy it from you for $5", and then make $4.46 yourself.
The best way to gambling is go against noob and when other experienced player join the table just walk away with your win, don't give a shit about your ego, respect or anything money is money.
As easy as I said it as hard as implement it, your "feeling" often beat your "logic"
About blackjack, I remember playing a modified version of it with a handyman in my primary school. These were the mods:
1) An ace equals 11
2) Jack equals 2, queen equals 3 and king equals 4
3) You can win by having 2 aces
4) There were no "starting cards", just after each turn we decided if we want to stop or take another card
5) Normally starting player was the one, who lost previous game
?????
The corollary of the second theorem is that as the safest way to win when E>0 is with many small bets, then from the other players perspective the greatest danger is with many small bets.
So if you are playing for the win, rather than the fun of the game, the best strategy is to blow all your riskable funds in one bet that potentially delivers the amount you are aiming for.
Example:
You have $10 but the bus fare home is $20 and there is no option to ride part way for the $10 you have.
You are willing to risk going broke in return for the chance of a ride home.
On a roulette wheel your best strategy is to put it all on a single bet that would double your money (black, red, odd, even, high, low are all equally good).
This is also an example of when it is sane to gamble even though the monetary E
I've tried Martingale betting in simulations and it's worked everytime. In actual practice, casinos have systems in place. (a) you need to stick to your system at all cost (b) casinos have table limits; lower and upper. A $5 minimum table has an upper limit of $299. If you consider your worst case scenario; $5 lost, $10 lost, $20 lost; $40 lost; $80 lost; $160 lost; you now can't do a $320 bet and you just lost $335 dollars.
I would love to see some analysis of this roulette wheel questions. The simple answer would be that probability of black coming up is still the same as red as it should be independent events. However we cannot dismiss the non zero probability that the wheel is biased, which indicated that probability of red is higher than probability of black (even if only by a very small amount). Thus red would be the better bet. What if we add the possibility of being allowed to not place a bet? Is the expectation of betting on red positive here? Maybe the a better question, what is the probability that betting on red has a positive expectation? Some statistical analysis would be required to answer that question.
I got hung up on this too. I'm completely new to this probability mathematics aspect of things, but let's just say, hypothetically speaking, you flip a coin 10 times. 6 times it comes up heads. Just because historically there's a 60% chance of heads coming up, that doesn't mean there's a greater chance of heads coming up on the next flip. each flip has its own 50/50 chance, right? I'm under the impression that each iteration is independent of past iterations and if you flip a coin enough times, it will eventually average out to 50/50 (assuming there's no weighted bias, or roulette bias in this case). Is there something that I'm missing?
@@danaguinaga183 4 months late, but your initial thoughts are correct in thinking that if each flip is independent of the previous flips, you would have a 50/50 chance of it being either heads or tails, but if you flipped a coin 1000 times and got 60% heads and 40% tails, you can reach a reasonable conclusion (without going into the math) that the coin is biased. Therefore you would bet on heads. Same idea with the wheel (with enough spins of the wheel going one way you can conclude with a certain probability that the wheel is biased).
"I'm not going to tell you the answer, but you're WRONG." Thanks...
What’s wrong？
I believe the coupon is worth 4.86$ . Basically let’s say you bet on red or black, then you have a 18/37 chance of winning 10$ and a 19/37 of not winning anything. In any case you give the coupon to the dealer. So 18/37*10= 4.86486...
Man, have I missed you. Happy for another lesson from you!
yea. He is good one
Thanks for a great video. And thanks to Marty for being in the video too.
I agree with puzzle answer-- you should bet red. The 60% history indicates a possible bias (wheel imperfection) favoring red. If there is no real bias, your bet is no worse than any other bet. But if there is a bias favoring red, that improves the odds of a bet on red over any other bet. However, not betting at all and walking away is the best strategy.
Ya biased roulette wheel? Sure!
Minor quibble: at 42 s, you says the wheel "is numbered from 0 to 37". You meant 0 to 36. There are 37 total slots..
Nice catch
Richard Otter i just came to the coments to see if someone has pointed this or not
Dont most casinos have a 0 spot AND and 00 spot on the wheel? so, 38 slots?
+Scorch428 Yes, I believe so, in America. But I think in Europe many roulette wheels do only have a single 0. I'm not sure about Asia.
And the house advantage for a wheel with both 0 and 00 is actually 2/38, there are 38 spaces, 18 black, 18 red, and two green, 0 and 00. So if you bet black or red you have a 18/38 chance to win and a 20/38 chance to lose. Therefore your chance of winning is 18/38 - 20/28 which is -2/38, or -5.26%.
@@mydogskips2
Uhm, that terminology ain't right, because the chance of winning isn't less than nothing. You'd mean the expected earnings, I gather.
Coupon allow you to gamble with 2 possible endings; 10$ or 0$. So depending on the odds, lets say roulette, its little above %50 for 0$ and little below %50 for 10$....
So its worth little under 5$...If you are gambler....If not then its 0.
You are quick (and right) :)
If you're playing a fair game then the expected value is 0, additional bets will not make you any more money.
Thanks! Wondering the 2. question's answer, why red?
Is it because
1-The table is fair (1/37 18/37 18/37) > It doesnt matter Red or Black
2-The table have flaw so red come up more frequently, so its wise to choose Red
So considering both, choosing red is more logical?
Yeah, I think that might be the point he's going for. The two options you outlined could be broadly described as "frequentist" and "Bayesian". Which approach you find more plausible will shape your answer to the question.
Ahmet's calculation is a bit off. If the game is 50/50 to win or lose and the winnings are equal to your bet on a win then if you bet $10 you end the game with $20, not $10. So if you place your $10 coupon on a single 50/50 bet then your expected total money in your pocket after the bet is 0.5 * $20 + 0.5 * $0 = $10. Thus if the game is slightly less than 50/50 probability to win the coupon is similarly worth slightly less than $10. In actual roulette, as mentioned in the video, you lose about $0.03 per $1.00 bet so betting $10 total leaves you with an average of $9.97 afterward, meaning a $10 coupon to bet on roulette is worth $9.97 on average in real money after you use the coupon.
So the coupon isn't worth a little less than $5, it's instead worth a little less than $10.
I can't help but feel like casinos shouldn't even host blackjack games.
So you're telling me that I can bet as much or as little as I want, based on the information you've given me through playing the game UNLESS I use that information to give myself an advantage?
Card counting is fair play. If casinos don't like it, then they should just accept the fact that black jack is a game that favors the player, rather than the dealer, and not host it.
Hi Dan. Many would agree with you. The casinos, and plenty of government regulators try to paint card counters as cheats. That is ridiculous, of course.
And apparently also people who can do math.
They're screwing them by not allowing them to play.
the thing is, gambling in a casino is a privilege, not a right. Sure, morally and legally, there is nothing wrong with using your memory and mathematical skills to give yourself an advantage. However, a casino is also a business and like any other business, they are interested in making money. So, if you cost them too much money ba playing too well, they will simply decide that they don't want to offer you their services any longer.
Well, it's a charmingly American approach that businesses can do what they damn well please.
If you have an idea on how to organise casinos in a way that they have to let everyone play, without sucking the fun out for everyone else by adding a million rules, speak up.
Wow! Thank you! Never knew that casino gambling has become a discipline in and of itself. The references are fascinating, too!
The ten dollar coupon is worth what you can exchange it for. For example, if your odds of winning $10 with the coupon on red are even, then you will win, on average, $5 for each coupon you "use." If you were given 100 such coupons, and used them betting on red, on half the bets you would get nothing, and on the other half you would get $10 x 50 = $500. If 100 coupons can be "exchanged" for $500, then the coupons are worth $5 each.
"When not dropping rocks, Galileo also dabbled in these ideas..." Hilarious!
8:30
I remember asking myself a similar question while waiting for the bus. I could either take a bus A that comes every 30 minutes or 2 buses B,C that come every 15 minutes. The way I saw it was that if I took the 2 buses with 15 minutes, then my chances of waiting 30 minutes were overall lower.my chances of arriving within a minute after it leaves is 1/30 for Bus A and for bus B and C it's (1/15)^2. dramatic difference but then I would also have less chance of waiting less than a minute. It kinda concentrates the possibilities inward and makes it harder to get extreme values.
Your T-shirt actually says 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 . Nice !
at 12:36 you're talking about the "gambler's creed" which goes like this:
"if something happened last year, last month, last week, and yesterday... BET ON IT!"
I was in college when the film _21_ came out. One of my roommates had some trouble separating fantasy from reality, and he became obsessed with card counting after watching the movie.
He told everyone, several times a day, that we should go to Vegas and make a bunch of money counting cards. He was convinced that we could recreate the fortunes of the characters in the movie, because as the movie kept saying, it's just basic math, and we were a bunch of engineering students who were all quite good at math.
I tried to show him the actual math. Several times in fact. But he was just too enamored with the idea of going to Vegas a poor college kid and coming back a millionaire.
The MIT Team that the movie is based on, did exist and were quite good. I butted heads with them a few times. The one thing the movie didn't harp on was, the bankroll they were using. These "kids" had an investment stake of $89,000 at the beginning.
What the films and books dont seem to convey is that it is a slow grind and you will have very up days and very minus days. Thus you need a large bankroll. It is a game for people with a lot of time on their hands, and a big bankroll
But you will absolutely make money on it if you are allowed to play. If you are the person who goes to table max every time you get appropriate + count, you will be out of there in an hour. You may perhaps stay under the radar by being quite conservative with your increased bets, but eventually they will bar you. I have been barred in as quick as 6 hours, and at one casino i lasted 3 years, having gone there over 300 times. There are websites where they put you picture and name, and all casinos can access that info
All in all, it better be a hobby, because there are easier ways to make money
Be skeptical about books like "Bringing Down the House" , And "Busting Vegas" . They didnt bring down any house, nor bust vegas. Fact is, the whole counting flap has made the casino business money. These books are largely fiction, labeled as nonfiction. The hero in Busting Vegas has even stated that the book is "80% fiction"
Bro it literally is simple maths. Al the complicated math like figuring out your bet spread can be done with computer software.
All you need to be able to do Is elementary school math (+/-1 and basic division)
The hardest part is finding the discipline and dedication to practice enough. They estimate an average guy can learn it in 400hours.,, when I heard that , I went and looked at my play time on cod and realised I was wasting my life,,, it took me 200hours, if you were studying engineering I would suggest you guys could have learnt it in similar time.
At the right game you can come to an expected value of $1000 an hour.
Also I’ve met CCs with way below average IQ, it’s a myth you need to be a scholar or super smart to learn it. It’s just repetition practice that’s required.
@@archimedesmaid3602 exactly the condition that casinos have. With a slight edge of less then 1 percent they make hundreds of millions. Cause they are open 24/7 and make tens of thousands of bets per hour.
I agree its better as a side hobby. Just like anyone who gambles better be doing it as entertainments. In both cases there are better alternatives. Heck with those skills be a dealer and get great tips.
I recently got to thinking about this whole thing about making money via Blackjack after winnign about $100 while not even knowing how to play (the dealer and friends helped me decide the best moves to make). I've since then researched it heavily in the past few days, and my conclusion is that the game is a waste of time, as are most other casino gambles. Better to get a real hustle going where nobody's going to have a problem with you making money, in my opinion. Still, I enjoyed this video. Thanks!
I think that the value of the coupon must be $10 times the odds of you winning. If the probability of winning is always less than 0.5 then the maximum value of the coupon is $5 or less
My maths teacher at school pointed out that the casino or betting shop has property, staff, cleaners, decorators, shareholders, lawyers, etc (and taxes). They all cost money. That money comes from the chumps doing the betting. So, if you want to make money from betting, you want to be running the business, not placing bets!
What do you guys think about poker? At a table where players play each other, the house makes a profit by taking a cut from each pot, but the odds of winning itself is not stacked in favour of the house (unlike every other casino game). This means if you are more talented than the other players, you can actually expect to come out ahead.
@Fester Blats
No, that's a bad example.
;-)
Possible but watch out for signalling, teams, etc. Think Caesar's scene in Rounders.
Good players always make you thing you are "more talented" than them.
Never answered the question about the "Free Bet". The expected value of a $100 free bet is $94.46 if played on Roulette correctly (assuming a European wheel with only a single 0). Put the free bet on Red, put $95 on Black, and $5 on 0. Minimum payout would be $175 ($75 profit) if the 0 hits (3% chance). More than likely (97% chance), you will receive either $200 ($100 profit) from the free bet or $190 (from the $95 bet on black). This is the best way to play a free bet coupon that I can think of.
I work in a casino and I can tell you this nobody knows when to to quit win or lose nobody knows when to quit.
Yup; the time to quit is before you start.
John...
You're talking rubbish; they always quit when they have no money left...
It's such a depressing job I've seen enough of it too... When you first meet them they play 10 or 20, have one more drink and they leave... And then one night theyre like just 10 more just 10 more and next thing you know they're thousands down and the reasonable happy guy you used to know is gone.
I once asked a roulette dealer if he ever saw anyone win consistently. Much to my amazement, he said "yes all the time".....but then went on to say that they give it all back. How true! Also, I remember talking to a guy who had lost his large house courtesy of a roulette addiction. He said casinos would go broke if players left when 50% up.
Doesn't look like it from your videos
Nowadays, reading a book is a small revolution. Reading creates smart people, and a smart person is always a
Most casinos in the US have two zeroes on the roulette wheel (0 and double 0), thereby doubling the house odds. So, roulette is generally less favorable than blackjack (if the house odds are truly 5%).
In Europe they only have 1 zero, but the rule is that when you play on red or black and green comes up you get to keep half your bet, so the odds are actually around -1.5%
In Some casino’s they even let you keep the full bet if you are playing the lowest denomination in chips, because they can’t halve it.
@@Keneo1 This is called the partage rule, but it only happens when you place an even-money outside bet (red & black, or odd & even, or high & low), so the house edge is still 2.7% in most cases.
@@Keneo1 So if the casinos can't split lowest denomination and if that grants an edge for the players, then abuse the heck out of that.
@@legendgames128 well the odds become 50/50, so no edge, and it only works with 1 chip of the lowest denomination so it doesn’t really scale
I abused it by buying the welcome packet that gives you a few drinks and appetizers and the amount in chips you pay for the welcome packet. But these are special chips you can never cash out, you have to loose them at the casino but if you win you get normal chips back, so I played the 50/50 ods until all the special chips were converted into normal ones and enjoyed the free alcoholic cocktails !
@@Keneo1 Ah, so the casino knew what they were doing... sort of.
I think you've validated an argument I made to a friend the other day!
Lets say all that matters to you is doubling your money in the next few hours. You've got 100 dollars and you need to spend 200 on a train ticket. Maybe you need a ticket out of town before the bomb that no one knows about goes off. So having half the money needed for a ticket is no better to you than having no money at all.
Then if you are playing roulette you are better off doing 1 single bet on red/black! Not lots of little bets because the expected value is negative unlike in the scenario described with the flow chart where lots of little bets forced the outcome more towards the expected outcome.
Thats right. I came to the same conclusion. But here is what happens. Customers of casinos believe that if they bet only one time and lose they wont be entertained. So they split their bets at more and that leads them to reduce their win percentage.
Joseph Jagger a distant ancestor of the Rolling Stone's lead was the 'Man who broke the bank in Monte Carlo' from the song in Lawrence of Arabia. He was a textile engineer from Bradford whose engineering knowledge allowed him to work the biased odds on certain roulette machines and make a fortune.
there is a problem, blackjack is played with 6 decks, cut at a casual point so that the cut part remains out of the game. therefore you will play with a random number of cards where it is also possible that all the aces remain out of the game and you will find yourself, for example, without the possibility of blackjack.
even in some casinos the shuffle is continuous every hand played so therefore it is not possible to count in any way, no way.
I know this is old but you're wrong. The avg value of the cards using a balanced count will weight zero. So ~50% of the time a count -1 or lower will be in the pen and the other 50% of the time itll be +1 or greater. In the short term the variance will be irratic but given enough time this will balance itself out. Yes deeper deals are better but long term a counter is betting based on propability, not what's garunteed to be dealt.
I wrote a long thing on what I consider tolerable and not in regards to pen but decided against, just a bit too public.
Edit: i'll add that csms and 6:5 are only low limit tables for the most part. Go look at a green chip table or the high limit room. Most green chip are shoe games and high limit rooms are always shoe.
this is what my dad told me to do on my first trip to the casino. 1 - determine how much you can lose. do not add a single $ to that. 2 - you are not there for a good time unless you intend to lose your money. casino's make their money on the 'safe' gambler that keeps betting the same small bet. you might be at the table for 2 hours, but the odds are that at the end of the two hours, you will have nothing. 3 - take your amount, divide it by 3, and then gamble just like he said. once you double your winnings, put the profit in your pocket and then revert back to the same gambling technique. once you crap out, you are done. you will have $0 in 2 or 3 hands, break even in 5 or 6, or a profit afterwards.
How to get thrown out of a casino 101.
I have a friend who says when she goes to a casino, she watches the roulette wheel 20 times. If they don't change the guy who rolls the marble, she gets a good feeling for him and the wheel (no physical system is perfect), and I guess there's a way to block off numbers(?) which is what she does. She never gets greedy though, but she never leaves without being a couple hundred bucks up.
I, however, developed a system that allowed me to make extra money back in college, and there are three steps.
1. Become proficient in sleight of hand with cards
2. Turn magic tricks into betting games
3. Encourage the jerk Resident Assistant who tended to get drunk on weekends to make bets.
Just won pizza money but for a college student, that was something. :)
When you said out of the last 100 spins black came up 60 times, I would say it doesn't matter, since the odds of getting black or red is still a little less than 50/50.
If the wheel is assumed to be fair, then it doesn't matter which colour you chose. However, if it is assumed not to be fair (which can happen in mechanical devices), then red is the best choice.
Duh
Pro Gambler here: one thing that has changed in the players favor over the last decades is there are MANY MANY MANY more casinos. so yes caesar’s palace in vegas has tightened their game, but smaller casinos pop up all the time. Also, many casinos are beginning to realize there are many more amateur mathematicians who think they can successfully perform the strategy than can actually perform the strategies. therefore if casinos have games that are beatable some number of wannabes will come loose their life savings. therefore having games that are beatable can actually result in more income for the casinos. the result is there are casinos with VERY beatable blackjack games.
Hi, Clynn. Very much an Amateur Gambler here. What you say rings very true with my experiences in Melbourne. In the early days the casino was too busy raking it in to worry about we counters. And, we definitely saw plenty of people counting badly, plus the occasional team of obvious professionals, who'd come in for a quick hit. Eventually things tightened, with stricter rules, deeper cuts and eventually automatic shuffling machines. So, I guess it's what you say: you can usually win money in the Wild West, until it ceases to be wild, at which point you need to find a new Wild West.
@@martinirossini agreed! something that has surprised me is seeing some well established casinos begin to offer more and more beatable games. My explanation comes from what i have seen. beatable games motivate people who think they know what they are doing to try. the amateur AP brings more money to the casino than is appropriate for their understanding. the amateur makes the attempt and eventually fails. therefore increasing casino profits. in the end the casino is left with a counter intuitive but very real motivation to produce games that are beatable but deceptively less beatable than they look at first glance.
@@clynnwilkinson8980 Thanks again, Clynn. I assume another aspect is that the casinos offer beatable games, but any knowledgable gambler who sticks around to beat the game will soon be banned. That seems the standard con with online sports gambling: there are excellent promotions, but taking advantage of those promotions in an intelligent manner soon gets you banned. So, you either have to play small, or just keep moving around.
@@martinirossini yes!
also the best opportunity changes so regularly i usually end up moving to the next game for my own increased profit anyway.
also yes there is always that dimension of advantage play that is about managing what you are capable of vs what you can get away with.
I'll never HAVE TO WORK AGAIN. I'll run to the bank, get a loan, and head to the casino!
Casinos are only going to start looking at you if you start wildly changing your bets. If someone never varies their bets more than 5x, the casino won't care. It's the people that vary their bets by 10x or more, and are winning, that will get the casino's attention. If you play every day and stop when you've made $100 because you're not being too greedy, you can make a lot of money over the course of a year.
I'd love to have an exam on probability so I could write in a proof: IF E
Interesting tidbit. It's possible to show a profit at blackjack without ever changing your bet. Given a double deck game with 50% penetration, H17, DAS, no surrender, played heads up with an initial investment of $15,000, you can flat bet $25 and wong out at a true count of -1 which will yield a profit of $12 to $13 per 100 hands with a risk of ruin of only 1%. This was calculated using zen count and some of the more basic deviations. The standard deviation is $29.03 per hand. I wouldn't actually recommend playing this, the expectation per hour is actually pretty low given how few hands per hour you'd actually play with all that wonging out.
Roulette Question: You shouldn't bet on anything, it's a losing bet. The probability of red is still below 50%. There is no way that any Bayes calculation would show differently, not after 100 spins, when on the other side you have to estimate probability that the wheel has a manufacturing error.
Martingale: I come from the other side, accepting sport bets. My fav type of customers are exactly MG customers. Had a case last year when the customer was up 60k euros in first 6 months of the season, but lost it all in next 6 weeks. I wasn't sweating it, they all lose in the end. :)
The coupon question: It depends what the rollover requirement is. Usually there is going to be 5 to 10x the bonus.
This guy is right.
Gregg...
And that's all you can say?
No.
At least on the roulette question. If, without investigation, you infer that the wheel is "rigged" it will be a great fallacy for you to bet on red because even though previous percentages have made it 60%, the probability for each individual spin never changed. You still have a little less than 50% chance. If the wheel is "rigged" , it would either a) be grooming you to bet red and lose, or b) paying out at a pre determined ratio like an electronic roulette wheel. If it were a mechanical error, I doubt we could conceivably take advantage from it very long before the casino corrects it, they are on top of that stuff so to speak. But to deduce that a wheel is hot for red is gambler logic and probably why they make millions on intelligent (and not so intelligent) people each year.
Depends on the method of experimentation for the roulette. If it's the first 100 spins you witness, the odds that this happen by pure luck is only 1%, there is 99% of the chances that the roulette is biased into red. I estimate that you'd have a expected win of 1.5% if you play on that table.
If you sit in front of the table all day, counting the spins.. and once during the day it reach 60 red in 100 spin.. then it's just a methodology error.
You have returned! Hooray!
Yes, busy 2nd semester here in Melbourne and some extended holidays have kept me away from any RUclips action. Anyway, good to be back :)
I have personally counted cards and while as a mathematician I will say that you have to understand the math but also are an experienced in casino gambling, I have seen too many brilliant mathematicians taken away from tables because they couldn’t keep their emotions and feeling over-suppressed
Remember while you may win playing Blackjack with your friends Casinos have special measures for this, I would recommend reading up on this
Just to clarify, I have won enough gambling from 24-30 to never work again :) but I am basically banned from every casino now, or a solid for safety
You are absolutely right and I actually talk about this at the end of the video. Also there are links to some very good books in the description :)
Hi Sma Das, Marty here. You sound as if you are more experienced than me. (Despite what Burkard said, I'm merely a keen amateur.) I agree with all you say.
Sma Das ..... I hear all casinos would make you leave the table if they catch you card counting but then it brings up the question of ... Why is it wrong to use your memory and maths/probability to win a game given that you are doing it in your head ? Can't you fight casinos then since they are asking people not to use their brain ?
John Smith Casinos don't want to lose money, they generally don't ask you directly but use Financial Risk Managers to manage this
I would recommend the movie 21 to see a visual representation of the casinos
Just note there are multiple really incorrect variables introduced and take them with a grain of salt
I once bet on the European Championship in soccer. I never liked soccer, but I wanted to hang out with some marginal friends who did, so I figured that betting would make me a bit interested. And they had this offer that if I bet, say $100, got to bet $200 as a new customer. Most unlikely to lose!
So I bet on 13 games. After having lost the 12 first(!), I watched the last one at home. My wife asked why I'm watching soccer, I've always told her how boring it is.
"- Because it is VERY entertaining, thankyouverymuch honey! Haven't you got something to do?"
"- Gaah, Greece won over Portugal! That has never happened before. Utter corruption!! Fraud!"
And I've never made a bet again.
Nice video! (Wopping actually). Could you make a video about poker?
That would be great indeed!
Not sure why I see this now, but EV is 35/37*10 if you have a 37-spot wheel. You just place a 10/37 bet on all spots to guarantee a 10/37 * 35 payout. The key is to recognize that the coupon is lost no matter what so you need to maximize the win multiplier to reduce the effect of the -1 to the win.
Long time no see! Thanks for the video.
Watch this one ruclips.net/video/zpzaUPGKusw/видео.html this is one of our team new project. What do you think about this one?
The martingale system works 100%. The only counter to it besides unlimited money is the fact that casinos limit the money you can put down.
the first thing i did in this video was pause and solve the integral
That's the right spirit :)
i just couldn't help myself xD
i just wonder what the redundancies are supposed to mean. after all, why have cos(3pi/9) when it's trivially cos(pi/3), and such. was it supposed to have very many 3s in it? if so, why not have 3^2 instead of 9?
It's a math limerick. Quoting Mathologer in other comment: "Integral zee squared dzee//from 1 to the cube root of 3//times the cosine//of three pi over 9//equals log of the cube root of e."
Ryan Roberson And it is trivial because cos(pi/3) = 1/2 and ln(cuberoot(e)) = 1/3
12:50 We are inferring, from the results of observation, that the roulette as a bias to red.
100 'draws' - is this the word? - is not enough to be sure. Randomness in a perfect roulette could be responsible.
I think the proper 'theoretical' response is that the roulette doesn't know what have come out earlier and every draw are equal.
So if you believe in a defect, bet red.
If you believe the roulette is fair, bet black: the only thing you know is that the red and black results will be equal after an infinite number of 'draws' and black as to start catching up at some point. (My personal tendency is this bet)
If you are a mathematician and know every 'draw' is always like the first draw because the roulette doesn't know the earlier results, bet whatever you want.
In real life I would bet red.
I dont get it. I’ve seen it in movies, but dont understand why the gambler (basically the customer) has to gamble blindly. They call it cheating, but I don’t see it that way. The casino knows the game, why should the player be expected to enter in blindly? The casino is free to take it or leave it, they ca; choose not to deal with a certain customer, but if they do let in a customer they should have no control on how he places his bets.
it's their casino and their rules, when you bet on the game you accept those rules
So I have thought of this thing, does this counter martingale betting scheme work to win you money reliably:
Let x = 1
Loop:
If x > 2 then break else
x = randBool? 1.5x : 0.5x
I always bet half of my money. I do this forever. E(x) = 1. But I always win more than a dollar. What is incorrect about this logic?
At every step I have a chance to win. The sum to infinity (or zero in this case) is less than one. Why would I not always gain money? In what way can I lose money?
In a thought experiment, I'm guessing some of the betters would get stuck in that loop infinitely. But I do not see how that loop can loop infinitely, despite I guess it has a non zero chance to do so?
Well. Believe it or not, I taught mathematics for many years. I went to a casino 18 times in a month and never lost. I won 15 times and broke even the other 3 times. Btw this was done without card counting or cheating.
And that’s all I have to say.
nice video! one thing you, Mathologer, could have mentioned though is, that in the same way betting small is favourable if you have a positive expected value, betting big is favourable when betting with negative a ev. So if you want to win 200$ on roulette, bet it all in one go, and dont try splitting the bets.
Hi Juk3, that's a good point. It's just the same doubling proof in the video, but seen from the point of view from the person with the worse odds.
The answer for 60 red out of 100 spins: I think you need to consider the probability that the wheel is biased and sum the products of (wheel expectation * probability the wheel has that expectation). For 100 trials there is a small chance the wheel is biased to red so the expectation of red is pushed a bit higher.
If you had 600 reds in 1000 spins, or 6000 in 10000, it is clear that the wheel is giving red about 60% of the time, with a very tiny chance that this was just luck.
With 60 red out of 100 spins, your p-value is only .027.
the probability is already small enough to lead you to favor red over black.
i wouldn't bet my HOUSE on the hyopthesis that the roulette is biased (2.7% out of all 100-long series of FAIR roullete rounds would end up giving that result naturally and without any bias) - but it's still a pretty good chance that something isn't balanced.
The same way, if you see 2 or 3 unrelated people running away from a building, you would do well to get the hell away from it too - because it is much more likely that SOMETHING bad is going on there (fire, terrorist, etc.) than the coincidence that all of them happen to be in a hurry to go somewhere at the same time, and happened to be in the same building shortly before...
You don't need to see hundreds of people running from it in different directions before you conclude that it's reasonable to assume that something's wrong.
I'm one who learned math by looking the odds up in the back of the book to make sure I was doing them right. It kills me when you leave puzzles that I "think" I answer or even worse I don't answer. Anyway, you can leave a few odds in the back of the book "easy to find." Depending on the game I played I for sure would not pay more than $5 for that $10 free coupon. For instance, in black jack, I could win and get a ten from the casino. However they take my $10 coupon, so it's really only a net of $10 minus whatever you paid for it. So if you pay face value of $10 you aren't actually winning anything, you are just getting your money back when you win and you are out $10 if you lose. So if you pay $5 for the coupon and lose you are out $5. If you pay $5 and win you are only up $5. If I used the coupon on any other game I would only pay about $4 for it.
The Blackjack portion of the Blackjack video begins at 12:50.
it's a maths and statistics video not a blackjack video
If the roulette wheel comes up 60 times out of 100, which color should I go for?
Well, it depends on whether I have reason to believe it is indeed entirely up to chance, or whether red is actually at an advantage somehow. If the chance of getting red is roughly 50% then getting 60 in 100 is very possible simply due to probabilities.
Jackalope Gaming that’s true but the real world isn’t perfect so it’s safer to assume there are imperfections in the wheel than it is to assume it’s mathematically perfect. And if it’s safest to assume there is a bias towards a color then it’s also better to assume the color that came up the most in a sufficiently large data set is in fact the color with the bias
why not apply this to the futures trading market.
People do, all the time. It's called "Arbitrage".
I JUST finished teaching my stats students this section in class. I wish i had seen this video before. I would have shown them this.
This video: EXISTS
State of California: WAIT, THAT'S ILLEGAL
You should run a modified Martingale where each time you lose you double the bet and then add one bet. This has the effect of winning one bet per hand. Hand 1: $5, lose. Hand 2 $5x2 + $5 = $15, lose, Hand 3: $15 x 2 + $5 = $35, win 35. However, it cost you $20 to get here so you're actually $15 dollars ahead after 3 hands which is $5 (one bet) x 3 or : you wind one bet per hand played. With the standard Martingale you would be back to zero again.
Problem is the same as with regular Martingale. There will come a negative streak that kills you and with your method it will come even faster. The casinos usually have a maximum betting amount to further stop the Martingale should those people exist that bet 512 Dollars after losing a couple of close to 50% chances.
Awesome! By the way, it's been 2 years, and I still haven't received my $10. :P
Here's a question for you:
1+2-3+4-5+6-7+8-9...
1+2=3, 3-3=0, 0+4=4, 4-5=-1, -1+6=5, 5-7=-2, 2+7=9, 9-8=1, 1+9=10, 10-10=0, 0+11=11, 11-12= -1, -1 -1+13=12... and so on.
Is there a pattern? Can you express the answer as one finite number, like 1+2+3+4...=-1/12?
Please do a video, I'm kind of curious!
What does this series look like in general? A sum of natural numbers, only we have minuses in front of all odd terms?
First of all, you made an error in your third line which makes the development of the partial sums look more weird than they really are.
You write 5-7=-2 and then continue with 2+7=9, accidentally switching the sign in front of the 2.
You also start this sum with +1 instead of -1 which one would expect from looking at the following numbers in the sum. This is not necessarily a mistake but let's use -1 instead to see what's happening with the partial sums then:
-1 + 2 = 1
1 - 3 = -2
-2 + 4 = 2
2 - 5 = -3
-3 + 6 = 3
3 - 7 = -4
-4 + 8 = 4
4 - 9 = -5
-5 + 10 = 5
5 - 11 = -6
-6 + 12 = 6
6 - 13 = -7
-7 + 14 = 7
... and so on
As you see, the absolute values of the partial sums keep getting bigger but the values' signs are oscillating. Which means, of course, that we're dealing with a divergent sum.
Starting with +1 instead of -1 as you did simply adds 2 to each partial sum (2, 0, 4, -1, 5, -2, etc). This modified sum is equally divergent and doesn't have a limit that could be assigned to it.
Hope that helps a bit.
What does Dh stand for on the black jack chart?
Double your wager if allowed to by casino rules. Otherwise, hit. 'Ds' means double or stand. 'Rh' means surrender (return half your wager) otherwise hit.
@@InvaderMixo In BJ, My opinion is, if the house is offering anything? Decline.
Such as equal money when holding a bj, taking insurance on a bj, vs.an A.
surrender when the dealer has an A up.
Is the house going to offer anything that is to my advantage?...
@@gmoops8986 Basic strategy is verified mathematically to have the best expected value. If you're counting, there are certain indexes where taking equal money and taking insurance has the highest expected value.
If you try to predict the next 10 spins (only red or black) and bet accordingly using the martingale system, the only way you would lose is if the next 10 spins are the exact opposite of what you 'predicted' . Talking about red or black still. So for example if you predict the following sequence:
Red
Black
Black
Black
Red
Black
Red
Red
Red
Black
And bet on those colors you will only lose if either 0 or the opposite comes up. Now what's the chance of you predicting 10 spins and they actually come up?
*Martingale comes up*
Normal people: 🤔 new concept
People who watch vsauce2: oh ya this is big brain time
Without looking for the answer, I would estimate the EV value of the coupon to be just under $5.00 Those coupons only allow the bearer to bet on even money payouts (with the except of a blackjack paying 3 to 2) frequency of a getting dealt a blackjack are roughly 1 in 21 hands coincidentally. It's better to use the coupon at a BJ table verses roulette or baccarat table for this very reason. Since the coupon will yield a winning payout roughly 50% of the time, when the houses edge is taken account, it will be slightly less then 50% Therefor why would you pay more than say $4.75 for a coupon that will only allow you to break even (EV= Equity value) Now bear in mind i didn't use math to figure this out....I only used logic and reasoning, so the exact value to the penny I'm not sure, but just under $5 is my guess.
What's with your t-shirt? I don't understand what's special :(
My t-shirt today features a fairly famous mathematical limerick: Integral zee squared dzee//from 1 to the cube root of 3//times the cosine//of three pi over 9//equals log of the cube root of e.
Thank you for explaining, I'm not English nor American and googling this wouldn't have been an easy job.
It is just an overly complicated way of writing 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3
It is an overly complicated equation that is really quite basic if broken down
Integral z-squared dz
from 1 to the cube root of 3
times the cosine
of three pi over 9
equals log of the cube root of 'e'.
---Betsy Devine and Joel E. Cohen
meh.
You’ll be lucky to find a 0.5% house edge on the LV strip. You might find it downtown. Most houses pay 6/5 rather than 3/2 for a blackjack these days, and that ramps up the house edge.
I only need a small loan of 1 million dollars.
And even if there are no bet limit, odds are not that bad that you'd lose it in a day
Blackjack may have a negative return rate, but in the US, roulette wheels have two green zeros, yielding the worst odds in the house of any game. That being said, roulette is mindless and hypnotic, so it's a way to pay to be entertained. And you get to suck down drinks and talk to the other people at the table.
I didn't know Capt. Picard was a mathematician.