I have extensive experience in stats and in gambling. Casinos operate on the "Law of Large Numbers": The more bets made, the more likely it is that casino will come out ahead. But we're talking about total bets by everyone in the casino, not individuals.<BR><BR>Here's how it works: If, as in blackjack, the casino has about a 2% edge, that means if you make twenty $5 bets in an hour for a total of $100 bet, the casino will end up with $2, and you'll end up with $98 -- every hour.<BR><BR>That, of course, doesn't work in the real world for individuals, except when you're talking about hundreds of gamblers making wagers every hour. Then, the Law of Large Numbers takes over, and the casino makes its average of 2% profit per hour. <BR><BR>Stan seems to think that card counters can tip the odds in their favor. Maybe. Card counting, as a theory, doesn't account for human error when counting or betting. And what he glosses over is that casinos have the resources to weather long losing streaks (yes, they have them), while most people -- even competent card counters -- do not have such resources.<BR><BR>Does anyone win? Sure. My wife has played blackjack twice in her life and won about $50 both times. Does that count?

If you can count cards in BJ your odds become significantly greater than 50/50. And in support of Stan, only the first card dealt in BJ is a 1 in 52(true random) - or 1 in 13 since BJ is suitless . From that point on, the advantage progresses in favor of the counter. And this is the only way to beat the casino outside of cheating in non-pari-mutual gaming. Though video poker can have the least painful odds (never in your favor) but you have to check the schedule on each machine because they vary significantly.

"Significantly greater" odds by counting at BJ? Not really. Again, you ignore the factor of human error, cited by Wizard. And even if you counted and bet perfectly, it would give you an edge of no more than about 1% -- which decreases with the number of decks used by the house.<BR><BR>So, even if you counted and bet perfectly, and wagered, say, $1000 an hour (fifty bets at an average of $20 each) your long-term take would be $10 an hour -- 1% of $1000. It's easier to go to work, my friend.

QUESTION HERE:<BR>there seems to be a lot of hostility on the part of some of the gamblers in this thread.<BR>Why so?<BR>No one here has said gambling should be outlawed.<BR>No one has said gambling isn't a valid form of entertainment.<BR><BR>A bunch of facts about gambling have been stated.<BR>Why does that anger you gamblers???

Gamblers are like smokers -- deep down they know they're fighting the odds, but they like doing it anyway. Too, they get defensive when someone hints that they're doing something "bad."<BR><BR>By the way, people who go to Vegas a couple of times a year and lose a few hundred dollars aren't really "gamblers." Rather, it's their form of entertainment -- the way some people buy tickets to the ballet. <BR><BR>And if I had a nickel for every one of those people who told me they "usually win," I'd have a lot of freakin nickels. Wanna bet it ain't true?

I do agree with counter that the advantage is 1%. I consider that significant. You must couple that with betting strategy - your advantage is highest when you've seen the most cards - up your bets but then you risk getting caught. It is certainly an art form but is the only way to play and beat the odds. Of course, it's not like anyone can just decide that they are going to learn to count and be successful at it.

I wonder if "gamblerToo" has any thoughts about your theory.<BR>She's been awfully quiet.

No,JJJJ , I have no thoughts on any of this-I know I won a lot of money that time,my husband plays blackjack and ususally does well, I fool around at the slot machines. I know we have done well other trips in other casinos than Las Vegas, but this seems to have turned into some other topic now.Sort of "gamblers who win vs gamblers(non-gamblers) who don't". Thanks for asking though.

to gambledonce<BR>you still don't seem to get what's being said above.<BR>no one claimed people don't win in vegas. people win all the time.<BR>what was stated was that no one wins over any long period of time.<BR>that is, the people who go to vegas or to a riverboat casino several times a year. those people will never come out ahead over a period of even a few years.<BR>pretty simple.<BR>

OK, hmm. You can slice and dice this any way you want, but the numbers are still the same. Wager $1000 an hour at 1% edge and you end up with an average profit of $10/hr. You can implement all the "strategy" you want, but it still won't change the numbers. And, yes, I understand that the odds change as more cards are dealt, but you're neatly skipping over the fact that sometimes the odds change for the house and against the bettor -- it's not as if your odds improve every time more cards are dealt.<BR><BR>Sorry, I remain unconvinced that car counting provides a significant edge. And again, you've ignored the factor of human error on the counter's part.

I dunno... seems like the anti-gamblers are the violent horde!

I was a casino security supervisor for 20 years, so if you're interested in an essay on winning & losing and card counting, read on. If not, skip it.<BR><BR>1. Winners and losers. Casino managers measure success in money, not in numbers of losers. So, if two people walk out winning $100 each, and a third person walks out losing $1000, that matters most. On average, I'd estimate that on any given day, about 48% of the people walk out ahead. That means 52% lose. Now, that's "significant."<BR><BR>2. Card counters. The hotel had an official policy to ban all suspected card counters, but those of us in the trenches thought it was funny. Here's why: Most counters are nearly as slick or efficient as they think they are. They make mistakes and usually end up getting wiped out by an inevitable bad streak. I used to joke to the hotel manager that we should put up a sign saying COUNTERS WELCOME! I don't gamble, but if I did, I would wager that 99.99% of counters end up burned out and back at their 9-5 jobs. Counting is a miserable, usually unsuccessful grind.

Watch out 'cop'.<BR>Shining the light of truth on the fact that you can't get rich gambling only seems to bring out the wrath of the naive and uninformed.<BR>But a sincere thank you for your input.<BR><BR>I'm not out to bash gamblers. I simply wish all gamblers had thorough knowledge of the odds pertinent to their games of choice, and a sound grasp of the big picture.<BR>If people gamble for entertainment, great.<BR>If they gamble to try to go home rich, they simply aren't very bright.

Ever see those John Stossel segments on TV called "The Fleecing of America"?<BR>That kind of sums it up for me.<BR><BR>I have no idea why, but I have a strong dislike for entities or people who take advantage of other people.<BR>The misuse of donated money to the 9/11 charities angers me.<BR>Stock brokers who 'churn' people's money to earn commissions for themselves, all the while knowing that they're actually hurting the investors who trust them bother me greatly.<BR>Politicians who take advantage of their status for personal gain (Dan Rostenkowski, for example) irk me.<BR>Life insurance salesmen who all but lie to older people to get them to make unwise 'investments' anger me.<BR>Timshare hucksters who fool people into thinking they're getting something for nothing bug me.<BR><BR>Casinos don't actually take advantage of people. Full disclosure is out there for people's perusal. And many people only use gambling as entertainment. But the casinos also make a large percentage of their profits from people who simply don't understand how they're being taken advantage of. Because the games are complex enough and the 'rule of large numbers' phenomenon is hard for many people to grasp.<BR>I simply believe, right or wrong, that many people are needlessly hurt by gambling. Some people can't safely be around alcohol. Some people wouldn't throw sums of money down the drain if they knew more about gambling odds.<BR>My arguments are not for the casual gambler. They're for the people who potentially hurt themselves and others by not knowing what's going on.<BR><BR>Dr Freud, would you also complain if I spent my free time going around to elementary schools telling kids about the dangers of crack cocaine? Is this information harming anyone? (I happen to be off work for a couple days and the bad weather leaves me few outdoor options at present).<BR>

WOW this has turned into a good little debate hasn't it?? <BR> Cop&gt; I, like you, thought it CRAZY going after counters. Like you said, 99.99% can't count good enough to effect your bottom line. So that should tell people like "counter" a little something about the advantage a skilled counter has over the house. If the house is worried about such a small % of people winning,,hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...<BR> Oh and BTW for those interested, so far this year I am ahead $96,500.00<BR>and with one more trip before the new year hope to break six figures for the first time...ohh ya baby!!!!!<BR> <BR>

Well, I would hardly compare selling cocaine on the streets to adults gambling for fun/or profit..which as much as you hate to admit it, plenty of people do win sometimes,big! So, I hope the weather improves and you can get out there and do some good, I can tell you are a warm and fuzzy person just itching to get out and straighten people out..

I think to compare buying cocaine with gambling is pretty good: <BR><BR>Figure the amount of money you spend on the drugs against how long you stay high. Then your high is gone & so is your money. <BR><BR>Take the same amount of money & you'd probably spend about the same amount of time at a table as you would being high. You're out of time & out of money. <BR><BR>Same thing. In both cases, you're money's gone & you have nothing to show for it, & you probably feel pretty bad to boot.<BR><BR>Unless of course with any LUCK you actually might come out ahead with the gambling. <BR>