Thanks for that. There have also been a few stories about people exploiting weaknesses in the state lottery games. One was the subject of a recent movie starring Bryan Cranston. And I think a couple of people found weaknesses in television game shows that could be exploited.
State lotto can be ‘gamed’ in the sense that if the progressive jackpot is high enough a ticket can be a positive expectation bet. But buying up all combinations to guarantee a win is extremely hard.
An Australian syndicate targeted a lotto in the U.S, and they hired large numbers of runners to go to convenience stores and buy as many tickets as they were allowed all week long. Even so, they had only purchased about half of the possible combinations, so there was a 50/50 chance that they would lose all their money. But they got lucky and won it, and therefore only buying 50% of the tickets doubled their profit margin.
Buying up all of the combinations is sort of brute force gaming. I was thinking of less subtle examples.
As you know, but it should be mentioned, there’s a reasonable chance that someone else will match as well which would halve one’s take.
This is a subject that I like to discuss and there has been a lot of interesting drift. All of which underscores that some random person in a room with a couple of thousand dollars or less and no experience is 100% doomed.
Him! That’s who we should be asking!
Yeah, pretty much. I saw a lot of smart young people ruin their lives over poker. They’d read some books, win a little money playing low limit and get hooked. Then I’d hear about them a year later - dropped out of college to be a poker pro, now driving cab.
The worst thing that can hapoen to a new gambler is that they hit a winning streak early. It distorts the way they see gambling after that. It can be VERY hard to go work for minimum wage after you’ve been playing a game where you are betting 10X your hourly salary every hand. A young guy would build up a $10,000 bankroll on a heater, then lose it over the next couple of months. When you win or lose $1,000 pots, going to work for $15/hr is very hard for some people. So you see a pattern where they go to work just long enough to build up a small bankroll, then they’re back in the game. For a while.
The big problem for them is that they are always overbetting their bankrolls, because you can’t make much more than minimum wage if you don’t bet large. So even if they are winning players, they keep busting out of the games. It’s a miserable life. And many of them start drinking at the tables when they get frustrated or develop anger issues or other problems. I don’t recommend it.
What are the odds the OP will return?
If it were easy to make money at gambling, everyone would be doing it.
Ah, a smart one. The dumb ones start betting as soon as they have a “system”, and then don’t keep track.
Yeah, that movie was the example I was thinking of in my earlier post. They didn’t buy all the numbers - they just picked randomly, but if they picked enough numbers they had a very high chance of a profit (because the expected benefit from any one bet was positive).
I got into poker (limit hold 'em) in the mid-90s at the front end of the poker boom. I studied and practiced for months before I sat down at a table. I definitely made a profit. I know this because I kept a detailed spreadsheet with dates and locations and length of time played and game limits. I don’t believe I ever played above 6-12. I had no intention of going pro. My engineering career was a significantly better bet. I just wanted to see if I could beat the game as a challenge.
So yeah I made a profit. To the tune of something like $2.50 per hour. I got bored of the whole thing and stopped. Being a full time pro would be a miserable life and boring as hell.
There’s a story Isaac Asimov tells in his autobiography: When he was a young boy, he spent one afternoon gambling with some friends. He went home and confessed to his father.
“Did you win or lose?”, his father asked.
“I lost”, admitted Asimov.
“Thank God”, said his father.
And also they would win a bunch of smaller prizes besides the jackpot which swings things the other way a bit.
That sounds like my story, except I had just shut down my software business and I didn’t have an engineering career. So I did the poker/blackjack thing full time for about 3 years, then got tired of it and got an engineering job.
Amen about the life. Nothing quite like having some idiot run you down with a terrible play then blow smoke in your face while telling you how awesome he is.
Back then, the rule of thumb in the weak lower limit games was that a good player could earn maybe one big bet per hour, but more likely half a big bet. That’s assuming good games. I started out playing 3/6, 5/10, and 6/12, mostly limit poker. The games were ridiculously easy then, and I was making that big bet per hour. But when I moved up to 10/20, 15//30 then 20/40, there were a lot less fish, and my win rate dropped to maybe half a big bet per hour. I almost never played bigger than that. Most of my tine was probably playing 10/20.
Overall, in my best year I made about $60,000 as I recall. I still have the accounting book around somewhere. The year before was roughly half that. So I sure wasn’t getting rich. And in the last year I was getting bored and burned out, and my win rate dropped again. I stopped playing full time then, but played part time, moving to pot limit and no limit holdem and Omaha. Now I don’t play at all, and have no real desire to. The games are being ruined by outrageous table rakes, and there aren’t as many fish any more. Limit poker is almost completely dead because of that.
That’s what I said, except simpler.
OP can make easy money on the US presidential election if they are sure that either DT or JB will win, as where I am, Trump is paying 2.00, Biden 3.40.
I dunno. We takin’ bets?
Your example had the two bookies having different teams as favorites. That’s vanishingly rare. But you often have slight differences in the degree to which one team is favored. My example exaggerates how big a difference you’re likely to find.
Wait, am I understanding that right? As in, if I put $1 on Biden, and he wins, I take back my dollar and get two more, and if I put $1 on Trump, and wins, I take back my dollar and get $3.40 more? The bookies think that both of them have a significantly lower chance than 50% of winning? Who do they think will win, then?
I think Cudgel is (or hails from) the land of Australian-style odds.
Paying $2.00 means you get you dollar and another back (implied 50% probability) and $3.40 means you get your dollar and $2.40 back (29.4% probability). Collectively all outcomes add up to over 100% and that’s the margin for the bookmaker. If they are really paying $2.00 and $3.40.
So there must be other outcomes accounting for 20.6% at least. Most of which (I kid you not) is Michele Obama at 5.50 or 15.4%.
I’m blocked from most betting sites where betting on US elections is legal, but the odds in the link above are illustrative. The betting public is ascribing way more probability to oddball outcomes than we are on this message board.
The betting public thought Brexit was a long shot and so was Trump in 2016. FWIW.
The one guy I know who made a successful living from sports betting did so because the venture capital firm he helped found invests in a online sports betting companies.
Yeah, so M.Obama is 10.00, Newsom 10, Haley 18, and Harris 21. But the “big” money is with Tay Tay and others at 501. Which illustrates how conservative they are.