NewScientist :: What's luck got to do with it?

[jonraiker]

NewScientist posted an article earlier today on the math of gambling - an exposé on how various people (including MIT professor Edward Thorp) have used their knowledge of mathematics to understand, and beat, the odds. A notable quote from the piece:

"Go into any casino with normal blackjack rules and you can have a modest advantage without much effort."

Anyway, thought it would be of interest to some of you: http://bit.ly/XIYmO

Feel free to discuss.

 

[Justin.Morris]

Though this works. Don't most casino's have a table limit? (not sure, I don't frequent casino's) This would squish any chance of winning big.

j

 

[Steerpike]

Though this works. Don't most casino's have a table limit? (not sure, I don't frequent casino's) This would squish any chance of winning big.

j

Depends. A little winning here and there, moderate your success enough to walk away with a profit without drawing attention, and you're good. That's how good card cheats avoid getting caught.

 

[Justin.Morris]

Depends. A little winning here and there, moderate your success enough to walk away with a profit without drawing attention, and you're good. That's how good card cheats avoid getting caught.

But when you are implementing the strategy, a fairly short losing streak can get you to the table limit quick. (like his example given)

 

[Sinful07]

Insightful, cheers Jon.

 

[cm763]

An interesting read. Thanks for the link, Jon.

 

[descartes]

From the article

When Thorp stood at the roulette wheel in the summer of 1961 there was no need for nerves - he was armed with the first "wearable" computer, one that could predict the outcome of the spin. Once the ball was in play, Thorp fed the computer information about the speed and position of the ball and the wheel using a microswitch inside his shoe. "It would make a forecast about a probable result, and I'd bet on neighbouring numbers," he says.

Thorp's device would now be illegal in a casino, and in any case getting a computer to do the work wasn't exactly what I had in mind. However, there is a simple and sure-fire way to win at the roulette table - as long as you have deep pockets and a faith in probability theory.

A spin of the roulette wheel is just like the toss of a coin. Each spin is independent, with a 50:50 chance of the ball landing on black or red. Contrary to intuition, a black number is just as likely to appear after a run of 20 consecutive black numbers as the seemingly more likely red.

I call bull**** on this one. Edward thorp was known only for his work in developing blackjack strategy. There is no such thing as roulette strategy.

Besides, computers in the 1960s were unbelievably slow machines and there is no way anyone could have programmed one to calculate where the ball would land in the roulette wheel. I don't think a modern computer could do it because you would need precise velocity and angular momentum measurements at the moment the dealer releases the ball. The whole thing is too messy and complicated to predict.

One more thing, the probabilities are NOT 50:50. There are usually slots labeled 0 and 00 which are green in color. If the ball lands there, the casino takes every bet on red and black. Those two numbers are what make roulette profitable for casinos.

One final comment. This portion of the article was written by someone who is obviously mathematically illiterate. I'm disappointed at how this is in new scientist. You cant win in roulette in the long term. Check out the following link in wikipedia for a basic correct explanation of the odds and expectations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roulette

 

[Sinful07]

While the guy above me seems to know his stuff- may i just point out that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it can be editted by anyone. (that doesnt mean that this specific page is full of crap though, it does seem insightful.)

 

[cm763]

While the guy above me seems to know his stuff- may i just point out that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information as it can be editted by anyone. (that doesnt mean that this specific page is full of crap though, it does seem insightful.)

I was going to say the exact same thing, haha. I love it when people fiercely dispute a claim for being unscientific/unsubstantiated by truth/unreliable, then counter it with a Wiki article (one of the furthest things from reliable that there is).

Again, not saying there's anything factually wrong with the Wiki article. But the possibility for errors or misleading information is certainly there (due to the open nature of the editing of the articles). Hence why it's usually not allowed as a reference in most academic institutions.

Oh well, both the article and the Wiki article were a good read.

 

[descartes]

Sinful07 and cm763,

You are both correct. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. I gave that link as a starting point. You can view the links at the bottom of the wikipedia page (under the heading "Notes") and check them out.

Actually, the only way you can truly convince yourself that the numbers make sense is to do the math yourself. You need to know some probability theory but its not too hard. Refer the standard textbook by Athanasios Papoulis for all the math necessary to make short work of this stuff.

 

[football2136]

One game that wasn't included in this article wsa Craps. I just recently purchased a book that talks about a controlled dice throw. Basically if the correct technique is used you will have control over how the dice land. I have only just begun to read the book, but the idea of being able to have control over the dice will greatly improve the chances of winning at Craps. The book can be found here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Golden-Touch-Dice-Control-Revolution/Frank-Scoblete/e/9780912177151/?itm=3