Hacker News Reader

Comment by criley2 | Hacker News Reader

"If you have $1000-$5000 (or more), you can fly out to Vegas for the weekend, have a really good time (gaming is only part of that), fly home, and you've got a significant chance that you'll either win or break even"

FYI Vegas is built on rubes like you.

There is a larger chance you will lose money than break even or win money.

If there was not, Vegas would not exist and its business model would have failed a long time ago.

Their business model works because the House wins.

For the House to win and be profitable, the average person has to lose on average.

If you're going to have fun, that's a great experience, but if you think there's a "significant chance" you're going to not lose, you're exactly why Vegas does as well as it does.

View on HN

I think the digler999 simply means significant differently than you do. A 40% chance, for example, could still be interpreted as significant. Numerous casino games when played optimally give you a better chance than that of winning or breaking even.

exactly. and vegas in particular has the best odds in the nation. It's more typical of indian/riverboat casinos to ratchet up their house edge. vegas you're more likely to see 99% payback machines (of course it varies). They'll do other things to make up for it though, like having fewer $5 blackjack tables and more $25 minimum tables.

vegas can afford to turn their hold percentage much lower because millions of people go there every year and there's competition. Versus a lone indian casino in california's central valley.

I think that the odds of walking out of a casino with equal to or more than you walked into it is less than 40%. My stats knowledge is failing me right now but if you start with $100 and feed slots at $12/m after an hour the average person should have less than $50 remaining based on the house cut in the article (7.129%).

It would be interesting to see what the likelihood of being up after an hour of regular play is by different common games.

Sure, at slots, but the parent alluded to other games where the odds aren't quite so bad.

In addition, games like poker aren't even played against the house; you're playing against the other players (and the house just takes a cut as a sort of "table fee"). If you're a skilled poker player, you can reduce the effects of luck (what cards you get vs. the cards others at your table get) and come out ahead more often than not.

And I'd agree that even a 30-40% chance of coming out ahead would be "significant"... people in the startup world still start new companies despite the conventional wisdom of a 10% success rate.

Having said that, sure, casino games are pure entertainment. Sure, you can win a little money, but you should never expect to, and you shouldn't play unless you're comfortable losing every cent you put into it.

Slot machines are the worst though.

The last time my wife and I were in Las Vegas, the only game we made money on was sports betting.

With correct play slots have some of the lowest house edges per dollar bet. Sports betting has a fairly high edge, 4.5% on normal bets and much higher on exotics. The difference is you make a few sports bets and walk away, while with slots you keep cycling money through until you lose it.

The problem indeed is the small cycle time. If you bet on a sports match with a 4.5% expected loss, then watch the game, you can limit your losses to about 4.5%/hour.

A slot machine with an expected per iteration loss of .1% and a modest 100 iterations/hour, would, over that same hour lose you (just) go over 9%.

If you fly to Vegas, put it all on black at roulette, then yes you have 47% chance of doubling your money. But that's a very short vacation with little entertainment value.

The more independent small bets you make, the lower the chance that you will come out ahead.

The problem with that analysis is that ignores the risk. A 40% chance of winning the lottery would be great, because in the 60% case you've only lost a few bucks on the ticket. However, a 40% chance of winning in a casino is not ideal, because in the 60% case you've lost a ton of money.

> For the House to win and be profitable, the average person has to lose on average.

and if people always lost, vegas would collapse because people would stop going.

You could make the argument that any other expensive hobby is also throwing away money:

* boating: buy a brand new boat for $65k, sell it 8 years later for $35k, plus $5k in total operating costs/insurance. You just "lost" 35k (not counting interest)

* rock climbing: buy $3k of gear and travel, $2k on lessons. Fall and break your arm for $6k, $11k "lost" for a couple years of entertainment.

* "travel", spend $6-10k on hotel, airfare, meals, in 2 weeks, all we have left to show for it is "memories". Great "investment".

(disclaimer: I'm not actually against the things I just mentioned. Only pointing out that they are "throwing away money" just like a weekend in vegas). Unless you're some hyper-disciplined monk who only uses money for humble necessities, you, too are throwing away money just like people do in a casino.

I think the difference in perspective here is that many people see gambling explicitly as a way to make money—not something they would do for fun, but something they would do because they need money, like a job.

These people are mostly wrong (save for the games of skill, e.g. poker, that are only played in casinos for traditional reasons.)

However, both your examples gave you "years" of entertainment while travel/vegas is very shortlived for a similar amount of money

Who are you to tell people how to spend on entertainment? Some people want to spend money on rock climbing, and others want to spend money on gambling. As long as neither leads to financial ruin, who are any of us to judge? I don't work hard so other people can tell me how I should and shouldn't have fun.

The state already tells you how to have 'fun'. What's the difference between being addicted to slot machines and being addicted to -your favorite drug- ? As long as it doesn't lead to financial ruin, it should be fine?

Well, yes, as long as your drug addiction doesn't hurt anyone else, I'm personally fine with that. I wish the state would stay out of it.

> There is a larger chance you will lose money than break even or win money.

The games are setup to take a percentage. It varies with the game. Slots are some of the worst, IIRC the house take is 10%. Pai Gow poker (depending on house commission and exact rules) is 1%-3%.

If you make bets commiserate with the size of your gambling budget then your expected loss over the long term for slots is 10%. Your expected loss for Pai Gow is 1%-3%.

If you make larger bets than you should given your bankroll or play bad strategies you can lose a lot more. If you get lucky and quit immediately after a big win you can come out ahead.

The house doesn't give a fig if the average person loses or wins; they just need people to play. They are well aware a significant number of people will walk away winners and that makes them happy: it's great marketing!

in las vegas, the hold percentage (on average - since each property can do whatever they like as long as its within regulatory limits) was ~8% in 2016 in vegas, and ~6% statewide in nevada [1]

[1] (pdf warning) http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/nv_slot_hold.pdf

Yes pai gow or 21 or (the best odds not including card-counting, IIRC), baccarat have better odds. But, if you go to a premier casino on the strip, you might not find a table you can afford. It's not uncommon for them to have a couple $5 tables and the rest $25 (per bet) and up. Mathematically it's a better choice, but a $25 buy-in costs $500 which you can lose in minutes if you're unlucky. Not a lot of people can stomach that (nor should they, as my original argument was for the entertainment value of gaming).

You misunderstand the word 'significant'. Your statements don't refute anything he has said and seem to miss the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com