This column was inspired by the following article: fivethirtyeight.com, although the author of that article shouldn’t be blamed for the direction it inspired me to take.
The fivetirtyeight.com website, one of my favorites, takes a mathematical and statistical approach to analyzing a number of different types of situations. The particular article cited above looked at the case of a child having a seizure 5 minutes before he was supposed to receive an unrelated vaccination from his doctor. The parents in this type of case typically do not see any correlation between the impending vaccination and the seizure. If, however, the child had the seizure 10 minutes later—immediately following the vaccination—many parents would erroneously conclude that the vaccination caused the seizure simply because the injection came first.
Think you’re immune from such false conclusions? Try these situations on for size:
a. For three days in a row you play one hour of $1 NSU video poker at the Gold Coast and each day you lose. On each of those days you immediately walk across the street and play one hour of $1 NSU video poker at the Palms and win. On the fourth day, you have time for only one hour of play at one of these casinos. Which one is the smarter play for you?
b. You and a friend both enter the weekly drawing at a local casino. You both have 3,000 tickets in the drum. Your friend gets chosen and you don’t. The following week, your friend has 2,400 tickets and you have 3,400 tickets. Even with this disparity, your friend is again called, and again you are not. Do you conclude that your friend is luckier than you or that these drawings are unfair?
c. In the game you’re playing, on a hand like 33456 of mixed suits, according to the strategy card you’ve purchased from me (thank you very much!) and the computer software you use for practice, the correct play is to hold the pair of 3s. Very frequently, however, you’ve noticed that when you hold the 3s, the first card dealt is either a 2 or a 7, either of which would have made the straight. Are you strongly tempted to use that evidence to go for the straight in the future rather than hold the pair?
In situation a, the decision as to which is the smarter play should be based on the expected benefits you will receive from the two casinos including how much free play you earn, what you expect the mailers to be, which casino has the better food comps, whether it is easier to breathe in one of the casinos, etc.
In situation b, two drawings is WAY too little evidence to conclude that either your friend is luckier than you (extremely unlikely) or that the drawing is unfair (possible, but not usually the case).
In situation c, the smart play is to stick with the strategy. Most players are not good at collecting data on hands and correctly remembering what happened. We will get a 2 or a 7 eight times out of 47, or about one time in six. Some of those who get the normal number of would-be completed straights have an incorrect memory because when they have drawn the card that would have completed the straight, it leaves an out-sized impression.
Compare those situations with the following:
d. You and a buddy are both single and looking for female companionship. For three Fridays in a row you go out bar-hopping. In each case, he hooks up with a lady and you go home alone. Do you conclude that he’s better at this “game” than you are?
In this case, the rational conclusion is that yes, he’s better than you at this. Whether it’s because of his looks, wealth, smooth-talking charm, or whatever, if you had to bet which one of you would be successful at this on the fourth Friday, the smart money would be on your buddy.
So how are these cases different? In the first three, I’m basically recommending that you ignore a small amount of evidence when you draw your conclusions and in the fourth case I’m suggesting that using such a small amount of evidence is the smart move.
The difference is that video poker is pretty much a solved game. Yes you have winning streaks and losing streaks, but the proper play is well known to thinking, educated players. The games, at least in Nevada, are fair.
In the game of “who-gets-the-girl,” it’s not a solved game at all. The way to figure out who’s good at it and who’s not is to go out and observe the results. We all know, or should know, that some guys are better at it than other guys. (It’s a debate for another day as to whether or not being good at this game is a good thing). Yes the game has some random elements to it and on the fourth week it’s definitely possible that you’ll succeed and your friend won’t, but that’s not the smart way to bet. There is no mechanism in place to ensure fairness in the game.
It’s likely that successful gamblers don’t have the same thought processes as “regular” people do. Professional gamblers certainly do not think like most recreational gamblers do. As a professional gambler, I think this is a good thing. It gives me an edge. Until recreational gamblers learn to refine the way they think, they will never catch up. (And it’s for them to decide whether or not they WANT to catch up).