Comment by confidantlake | Hacker News Reader

Comment by confidantlake | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I would have to disagree that I am oversimplifying it. We are talking about a casino vs a player. Most players betting $5 at a time are not losing because of bankroll considerations. They are losing because the game they are playing is negative ev for each individual bet.

A casino would much rather play against a player with $1,000,000,000 than a player with $5. Sure the player with $5 is going to go broke nearly 100%. And the player with more money will never go broke betting $5 at a time, they will die from old age way before that happens.

The fact that a player with only $5 has almost a 100% chance of ruin is absolutely not why a casino is making money. A casino is always going to want a player with a lower risk of ruin than a higher one. When a player goes broke they can no longer make money from them.

Do people really think a casino would prefer someone going broke 100% of the time with $5 then a player going broke 0% of the time with $1,000,000,000? That they are making money because of players losing their bankrolls and unable to bet?

Aha, I see what you're saying. You're right, but I still think you're reading something into the top-level comment that isn't there.

The way I understand it, they're not saying "casinos make money because their counterpart is going broke" (and you're right that they don't.) They're saying "in the casino vs. player situation, the player will almost always run out of bankroll before the casino does, and therefore the casino does not risk ruin, even in highly volatile games."

I reread the parent and the article and see what you are saying. I agree that I misread the top level comment, and they were correct. (I only looked at the first roulette example where bankroll did not even exist). Thanks for pointing this out.

From my (limited) experience watching folks at the roulette table, I think there are two kinds of players.

There's the players making small bets, they win a bit, lose a bit, and at the end of the day they may go home with a bit more or a bit less money than they came with. The casino wins on average because of the 0.

Then there are the gamblers. They come to the table, make a few large bets, and within a few minutes they lost their monthly salary (or whatever was the limit on the ATM). They lost because the player will continue playing until they can't.

I'm pretty sure that you could make a completely fair roulette, and the house would still win big every day. I'm not sure why there aren't any fair roulettes, though.

Speculation: because it would draw attention to where the real profit comes from?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com