[OT] Counting cards. What is it?

[Cedric]

In roulette if you bet on odd, even, black or red there are 18 spaces you would win on and 19 you would lose on.

That works out to 5.26% edge in favor of the house. If you crunch the numbers on a roulette wheel and compare the odds almost ever bet on a roulette table works out to the house having a 5.26% edge.

5.26% odds are bad odds.

By contrast if you bet the pass line in craps and place your full double odds (which most casinos offer) the house only has an advantage of 0.61%.

0.61% odds deficite is definitely worth gambling on...

Technically you are better off placing Don't Pass bets with full odds (0.46% odds in favor of the house), but a lot of people don't like that cause they feel like they are betting against the shooter, when actually you are just placing a bet with the house.

Cedric

 

[ichabod]

Sort of like how most people think they are above average drivers, or better than average in the sack.

I always wonder about this statement. I mean, it is entirely possible that most people are above average drivers. Say you take 10 people and rate their driving from 1 to 10. You get 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8. The average is 4.9. 7 out of 10 of the drivers are above average.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

I always wonder about this statement. I mean, it is entirely possible that most people are above average drivers. Say you take 10 people and rate their driving from 1 to 10. You get 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8. The average is 4.9. 7 out of 10 of the drivers are above average.

Well, yeah, if by this you mean "average" to mean the mean (sum divided by count). However, if you mean "average" to mean the median (half above, half below), in this case it'd be 5, in which case 3 would be below the median, 3 at the median, and 4 above the median.

Then there's the mode (most common), which again in this case is 5 (having three occurrences).

Okay, you chose your numbers well.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I always wonder about this statement. I mean, it is entirely possible that most people are above average drivers. Say you take 10 people and rate their driving from 1 to 10. You get 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8. The average is 4.9. 7 out of 10 of the drivers are above average.

Except for the fact that you've chosen numbers which specifically give the result you want, and furthermore numbers which aren't really representative of your sample space. The key lesson to be learned in statistics is that the bigger the sample you're dealing with, the less likely quirks like that are to occur, and the more likely you are to get some sort of neat distribution, which in the case of driving is likely to be some form of bell curve (because the quality "good driver" is made up of a number of lesser qualities).

Your list of numbers is similar to finding that, in a comprehensive survey of 2 of Sydney's residents, that half of Sydney's residents are drunk, and the other half are under the age of 8, and then concluding that underage drinking is an insignificant problem.

 

[ichabod]

Except for the fact that you've chosen numbers which specifically give the result you want, and furthermore numbers which aren't really representative of your sample space. The key lesson to be learned in statistics is that the bigger the sample you're dealing with, the less likely quirks like that are to occur, and the more likely you are to get some sort of neat distribution, which in the case of driving is likely to be some form of bell curve (because the quality "good driver" is made up of a number of lesser qualities).

Of course I chose numbers that gave me the result I wanted. It's what you do when you are giving an example. I never claimed they were representative of any real sample space, they were an example illustrating the point that it's entirely possible for the majority to be above average.

I don't know where you're getting this key lesson of statistics, because its not true. The are many common distributions you run across in applied statistics that are not a symetrical bell curve. A perfect example is income. Any time you get a random sample of people and look at their income, you will get a skewed distribution where most of the people are earning less than average.

A real key lesson of statistics is to be warry of prejudging your data. How do we know driver quality is symetrically distributed? Do you have any evidence to back up that statement? I could easily believe that most people are okay drivers, there is a sizable bunch of really bad drivers, and very few really good drivers. In that case, you would have a skewed distribution where most people are above average drivers.

Now I'm not sure if that's the case. But that's the point. To imply that most people thinking they are better than average drivers means that people have poor perception of their own abilities assumes the distribution of driver quality has certain characteristics. Namely. that it is either skewed right or symetric. However, without evidence showing the distribution has those characteristics, the given implication is a poor use of statistics.

 

[just__al]

I've always wanted to just go to a casino (in Vegas, I guess, since it's close) and just get all the cheapies. Cheap buffets, cheap rooms, cheap shows, and so on. To heck with gambling, I'd rather spend my money on other stuff!

Do the casinos notice people like me? Do they care if someone just tries to gouge 'em for what they offer (in hopes of eventually getting a new-found gambler)?

http://www.cheapovegas.com

ENJOY!!!

 

[just__al]

In roulette if you bet on odd, even, black or red there are 18 spaces you would win on and 19 you would lose on.

That works out to 5.26% edge in favor of the house. If you crunch the numbers on a roulette wheel and compare the odds almost ever bet on a roulette table works out to the house having a 5.26% edge.

5.26% odds are bad odds.

By contrast if you bet the pass line in craps and place your full double odds (which most casinos offer) the house only has an advantage of 0.61%.

0.61% odds deficite is definitely worth gambling on...

Technically you are better off placing Don't Pass bets with full odds (0.46% odds in favor of the house), but a lot of people don't like that cause they feel like they are betting against the shooter, when actually you are just placing a bet with the house.

Cedric

The thing about craps is you can make insane amounts of bets in a short period of time. You can, on a bad run, burn a lot, lot of money, much more than in blackjack and certainly roulettte. That's why the house edge in the came can be so low and still make money for the casino.

BUT DAMN is it sure fun. I am a serious card player even if my bankroll won't let me play at high enough levels to really reduce the pain of the rake and I still enjoy playing craps every once in a great while.

 

[Cedric]

I know what you mean just_al...

For craps I usually go to a $5.00 table and put down $5.00 on the pass line. Then when a point is established I take full odds and put $5.00 on the come line.

If that goes up, I lay full odds and put another $5.00 on the come line. Then put down full odds if that goes through.

Once I have the pass line and two come bets working with full odds, if the 6 and/or 8 are still not covered, then I place a bet on them.

So, in the end, I could have about $60.00 riding on the table. May not sound like much...but craps goes by FAST.

Funny thing is, the most I ever made on Craps was in the Horseshoe. I got started on a streak and held the dice for close to two hours. I made a fair chunk of money, about $1000.00 on that streak.

But at the same end of the table as me were two high rollers. They must have made $120,000.00 or more each off of that streak.

Finally I sevened out and each one of them through a $1000.00 chip in front of me and walked away after cashing up their chips to higher demoninations.

Probably never have a run like that one for the rest of my life...

Cedric

 

[DaveStebbins]

Now I'm not sure if that's the case. But that's the point. To imply that most people thinking they are better than average drivers means that people have poor perception of their own abilities assumes the distribution of driver quality has certain characteristics. Namely. that it is either skewed right or symetric. However, without evidence showing the distribution has those characteristics, the given implication is a poor use of statistics.

I apologize if my off-hand comment bothered you. I used that phrase because (in my experience) it is the most commonly seen and accepted example of how poorly the average person understands probability and risk. I've seen it used so often as a wry observation, that I didn't think others would see it as an assertion of unassailable fact.

Again, my apologies if I've offended.
-Dave

 

[ichabod]

I apologize if my off-hand comment bothered you. I used that phrase because (in my experience) it is the most commonly seen and accepted example of how poorly the average person understands probability and risk. I've seen it used so often as a wry observation, that I didn't think others would see it as an assertion of unassailable fact.

Oh, no, you didn't offend. It's just easy to misuse or misinterpret statistics, and I am perhaps a little overzealous in trying to educate people so that they don't mistakenly misuse statistics or get gulled by those who do it intentionally. Not that I think you did it intentionally, as you say it is a commonly used example, if not a good one.