Comments on: Ironic Onion http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:07:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Chad in Vegas http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-144024 Chad in Vegas Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:44:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-144024 TSP: Right on the money (pun intended). Payouts are 17:1 on the greens. QD: It wasn't me, I swear! I just do slots, not blackjack. But you're absolutely right about the mafia running Vegas; they knew how to treat customers. But I'm probably less likely to be whacked by my employer though. :-P I could go on, but in the interests of brevity and discretion, I'll leave you with these: - The only game where you can consistently take away the house advantage is video poker (with the right pay table and strategy). - "Smithers, gambling is the perfect industry! Your customers come in, give you all their money and then leave!" -C. Montgomery Burns TSP: Right on the money (pun intended). Payouts are 17:1 on the greens.
QD: It wasn’t me, I swear! I just do slots, not blackjack. But you’re absolutely right about the mafia running Vegas; they knew how to treat customers. But I’m probably less likely to be whacked by my employer though. :-P
I could go on, but in the interests of brevity and discretion, I’ll leave you with these:
- The only game where you can consistently take away the house advantage is video poker (with the right pay table and strategy).
- “Smithers, gambling is the perfect industry! Your customers come in, give you all their money and then leave!” -C. Montgomery Burns

]]> By: Quiet Desperation http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143884 Quiet Desperation Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:07:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143884 <i>As a statistician for a large Vegas-strip casino</i> Really? Whose idea was the 6:5 blackjack payout on single deck? Or reducing the two pair/three of a kind payout on video poker from 2:1/3:1 to 1:1/2:1. Those are just pure, supervillian evil. :-P Kick out the soulless hotel corporations and put the mob back in charge in Vegas. Organized crime actually screwed the customers less. As a statistician for a large Vegas-strip casino

Really? Whose idea was the 6:5 blackjack payout on single deck? Or reducing the two pair/three of a kind payout on video poker from 2:1/3:1 to 1:1/2:1. Those are just pure, supervillian evil. :-P

Kick out the soulless hotel corporations and put the mob back in charge in Vegas. Organized crime actually screwed the customers less.

]]> By: The Science Pundit http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143830 The Science Pundit Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:21:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143830 Thanks Chad! So 7.8% must mean that the net payout (after subtracting the original bet) for landing on green is between $16 and $17 per $1 bet. And since the odds of landing on 0 or 00 are 18:1, that's more money for the house. It's truly a sucker's game. Let me add (since I haven't seen it mentioned in the comments yet) that it's not the two green slots <i>per se</i> that shift the odds away from a fair game and tilt them towards the house, it's the disparity between the odds of winning and the payout for winning. The casino could achieve pretty much the same same advantage by eliminating the 0 and 00 but only paying out $1.95 for winning bets. Of course this gets a little messier and more importantly, the gamblers would all <i>intuitively feel</i> that they were getting ripped off. By "concealing" the house advantage in the two green numbers, people tend to <i>feel</i> that it's a fair game and so they continue to bet. Thanks Chad! So 7.8% must mean that the net payout (after subtracting the original bet) for landing on green is between $16 and $17 per $1 bet. And since the odds of landing on 0 or 00 are 18:1, that’s more money for the house. It’s truly a sucker’s game.

Let me add (since I haven’t seen it mentioned in the comments yet) that it’s not the two green slots per se that shift the odds away from a fair game and tilt them towards the house, it’s the disparity between the odds of winning and the payout for winning. The casino could achieve pretty much the same same advantage by eliminating the 0 and 00 but only paying out $1.95 for winning bets. Of course this gets a little messier and more importantly, the gamblers would all intuitively feel that they were getting ripped off. By “concealing” the house advantage in the two green numbers, people tend to feel that it’s a fair game and so they continue to bet.

]]> By: MH http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143805 MH Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:55:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143805 And the obvious thing for me to do would be to read the comments to see if anyone beat me to my point, which they have. But why start now? And the obvious thing for me to do would be to read the comments to see if anyone beat me to my point, which they have. But why start now?

]]> By: MH http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143804 MH Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:45:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143804 The obvious way out of the conundrum is that no one <i>prays</i> for the house to win. All prayers were for either red or black. Duh! The obvious way out of the conundrum is that no one prays for the house to win. All prayers were for either red or black. Duh!

]]> By: Tom Hill http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143797 Tom Hill Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:27:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143797 True event My wife: "I want to play roulette, how do I do it?" Me: "The easiest way is to pick red or black, and bet on one." (Wife picks black, bets on it) Ball comes up on green 00 Me: "Oh, yeah. There's also these green spaces..." The dance continues. True event

My wife: “I want to play roulette, how do I do it?”

Me: “The easiest way is to pick red or black, and bet on one.”

(Wife picks black, bets on it)

Ball comes up on green 00

Me: “Oh, yeah. There’s also these green spaces…”

The dance continues.

]]> By: quasidog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/comment-page-1/#comment-143788 quasidog Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:30:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/28/ironic-onion/#comment-143788 @ kkozoriz Says : "I always tell people, that when they play lotto, they might as well play the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7……. I almost always get a response along the lines of: “that is the most unlikely sequence of all”." Ha. I actually did that at the pub one day with some mates. I don't gamble usually and after coercing me to play 'Keeno', which is sort of like bingo, I chose exactly that sequence on the card, in 7 games. There are 40+ numbers on the card. Everyone else was picking their 'lucky' numbers and other spaced out sequences, and one mate laughed at me in the same way as you mentioned. He thought I was an idiot. After a few hours, and a few beers, we all rolled up to check in our cards. I walked away with more wins than two others and tied in winnings with one. In other words, I basically won the most most out of them all, except for one that tied with me. Got a few snarky comments and felt very satisfied that the point had been proven. It is just random chance. It doesn't matter what number you pick and there is absolutely no method involved. Just pick anything. It's all got the same chance. But I still don't gamble. By not gambling in fact, I know I usually have more money at the end of the day than most gamblers. Odds are a bitch, but most gamblers don't see it. @ kkozoriz Says : “I always tell people, that when they play lotto, they might as well play the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7……. I almost always get a response along the lines of: “that is the most unlikely sequence of all”.”

Ha. I actually did that at the pub one day with some mates. I don’t gamble usually and after coercing me to play ‘Keeno’, which is sort of like bingo, I chose exactly that sequence on the card, in 7 games. There are 40+ numbers on the card. Everyone else was picking their ‘lucky’ numbers and other spaced out sequences, and one mate laughed at me in the same way as you mentioned. He thought I was an idiot.

After a few hours, and a few beers, we all rolled up to check in our cards. I walked away with more wins than two others and tied in winnings with one. In other words, I basically won the most most out of them all, except for one that tied with me.

Got a few snarky comments and felt very satisfied that the point had been proven. It is just random chance. It doesn’t matter what number you pick and there is absolutely no method involved. Just pick anything. It’s all got the same chance.

But I still don’t gamble. By not gambling in fact, I know I usually have more money at the end of the day than most gamblers. Odds are a bitch, but most gamblers don’t see it.

]]>