Like I said before, the odds are simply a sweetener. I'd liken the favorable odds as a linear advantage and the concept of gambler's ruin as an accelerator. And you are right by the way. Casinos would INDEED still make money on even odds. You're also a little too close minded. Even with odds slightly stacked against them, the casino is still going to win in the long run. One need only write a small program to do random walks to see why. Gambler's ruin is the reason why EV is not the only consideration when gambling. This is also the reason why big players have a real shot at breaking the casino. When your bankroll is comparable to the casino's gambler's ruin becomes just as real for the casino as the big player. You seem a big fan of the law of very large numbers, yet are unable to see it's limitations. The law of very large numbers , i repeat, only applies in a long run. The long run is defined as an infinite time. Your lifetime is not even close to being infinite. The law of very large numbers is NEVER used to prove that statistics are accurate for X amount of time. It is in fact used as a tool to remind statisticians that all statistics are merely approximations, because no amount of statistics can reflect the true long run. Sure the casino cares about the odds. They bring in money. But the real money maker here is gambler's ruin. It's much like the way cinemas operate in US. Sure they care about the ticket sales. They care if you sneak in. But the real money maker is really the snacks they sell. Ticket sales simply add to the bottom line. But they are not the vital component. The casino will not make enough to cover it's costs via pure odds themselves. Just take a pen and do some calculations. On a lighter note, the law of very large numbers actually say the casino has little chance of breaking even with even odds. Do you see why? I understand the mental roadblock in accepting this concept. I really do. I've given up trying to explain this to my parents years ago. But let's try a simple experiment. I'll play this game with you. We flip coins for $1 a flip. I start with a bankroll of 2000. You start with a bankroll of 2. We stop when someone busts. We play this only once. You can easily see why I will win this game most of the time. But how about we throw dice, and I give you 1,2,3,4? I'll only win if 5 and 6 comes out. Odds are against me. But who has a higher probability of winning this game? As you can see, gambler's ruin is kind of a second derivative probability thing. We're not playing throwing dice anymore. We're playing a game of survivability. Individual wins don't matter. The collective ones do. |