I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

If I had Bill Gates or Oprah-level money, Money, in a heartbeat if there was a mathmatical advantage. $100K to someone who has all the money in the world is similar to a $10 wager for me -- a drop in the bucket.

I have no idea as to what Dancer's bankroll is. I am however confident that he calculated the risk of ruin and that running up to $10M of coin in to win this car was within his comfort zone. He stated this in the article. His software has a RoR calculator so I suspect it's in there as he too finds it a useful tool.

Your question once again misses the mark when you wonder how many more promotions like this he can afford to lose at. Unless you first concede that he's at a mathematical advantage, there is nothing anyone here can say to answer your question. The basic premise is that he wouldn't play this promotion to begin with unless he had a very high degree of confidence that he would be a net winner. This once again isn't guaranteed but mathematically assumed over a significant number of trials. I would say this....there's no doubt in my mind that if a casino offered a similar promotion tomorrow, Dancer would be part of it.

As to the question of the theoretical bet, I believe it was there for illustration purposes. Nonetheless, the premise is still the same. To analyze the game, whether it's for a $1 or $100K, you have to understand the math. The point is that 14:1 payout on a 13:1 true odds bet is an overlay. The question of bet size is a function of the RoR which is predicated on bankroll. The fact still stands that this is a positive expectation bet. Whether or not you, I or whoever can afford to make it is an entirely different story.

Dan

Dan, I know all about mathematical advantages. I also know about cold streaks. the math theory works only when the cards or the RNG cooperates.

We've all been in ruts when nothing "clicks."

I realize youre now going to throw out the ROR and playing at limits appropriate for your bankroll, but it still wont change my mind. Call me stubborn if you wish.

While I agree that "the math" helps me to hold certain cards, Im too aware of both HOT streaks and COLD streaks to put that much faith in it.

I leave that "faith" and belief, and yes "trust" in the math to you guys.

Me? Im just curious. In fact, call me "curious yellow" for curious about it and too yellow to try it. LOL

good luck to you!! I hope you hit lots of royals.

I have to admit that it took me three tries to pass statistics so I'm not the guy to be preaching about variance, standard deviation, etc. However, what you phrase as "cold streaks" are nothing more than deviations from the inherent outcome.

At the end of the day, I'm curious as to just what it is that you believe in? I guess everyone has their own reason to play but frankly if I didn't know that I had the statistical advantage, I would never play. I live in Tampa and there's a Hard Rock about 20 minutes away. Other than an experiement we did over four days about two years ago to see if we'd get on their radar and what if anything this would yield, I've never stepped foot back in there. Why? It's not a good gamble. Same thing with a cruise ship. We're leaving today for five nights. The closest you'll get me to the casino is the bar. If you don't think you can beat the game, why would you play it?

You say you know about mathematical advantages and yet you talk about some voodoo magic cold streaks. I personally don't believe you can have a foot in both camps. The RNG cooperates when you give it enough trials to fall within the statistical norm. Once again, it doesn't mean that you'll win today. Same analogy as a card counter in BJ. At any given time, the counter can have the advantage...in some case quite a large advantage....but that doesn't mean that he'll win today. However, BJ counters just like vp advantage players are not in the game just for today so they understand the swings.

RoR is just another means to measure if you're playing within the constraints of your bankroll and aversion to risk.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I really wish that I could own a casino and deal to guys like you and Singer all day long. Forget about the stakes but if someone offers you 14:1 return on a 13:1 true odds game and you don't see the advantage in this, I want you for a customer.

Dan

This is nothing but pure nonsense. Sorry money, you constantly go back to making these ridiculous claims and never pay any attention when the facts are pointed out to you.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, there are no times the RNG is cooperating or not cooperating. It is not a person, it is a thing. It is always doing exactly what RNGs do. Cold streaks and hot streaks are BOTH part of the math. One isn't different than the other. They are both parts of the whole.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I had quad aces 4 times in about 6 hours and lost over a grand. How did this happen ... I was playing OEJs and quad aces are only worth 75 credits. I simply didn't get many good hands for the game I was playing on that particular day. The RNG was doing what it always does. That's where statistics comes into play. Over time all the good runs and bad runs start to average out.

This is what people have been trying to get across to you with analogies that are simple and easy to understand. What do you do ... you make some inane remark that you'd never make that bet. How about trying to understand the analogy?

Forest Gump was on yesterday and I still love that one line ... "stupid is as stupid does".

If my memory serves me correctly, "I am Curious Yellow" was the title of a popular Porn movie many years ago.

Is it possible that MoneyLA, in some Freudian way, is coyly suggesting forum readers should not swallow the stuff he spews in so many of his messages?

Not to nit-pick, several posters have said the true odds are 13-1,in fact they are 12-1. Okay, here's the scenario, one time shot only. With those odds, what % of your total net worth would you be willing to bet on this (assume you have a job or other life sustaining income)? As for me, if my net worth was 1K, I'd bet it all, if my net worth was 500K, I'd go for 10%.

The math always works in the long run. Just look at the size of some of the casinos in Vegas.

Most of us go to the casino in hopes that the math is not working in the short run.

0%. Too much of a long shot for me. I'm a coin flip kind of guy. A +EV is not enough for me.

Ok, Mr. Coin Flip.

One honest coin flip for your entire net worth at 100 to 1? 20 to 1? Would you do it for 10 to 1?

The less you have the more likely you would flip that coin.

That guy bet it all on red at the Plaza.