[nitpick]The Megabucks bet is only $1; you have to bet $2 on the underlying slot game, however. Playing a Megabucks slot for $1 gets you standard pays and no shot at the big jackpot; playing for $2 gets you 2x pays and no shot at the big jackpot; playing for $3 gets you 2x pays and a shot at the big jackpot.[/nitpick]
You’re absolutely right about even money on blackjack - it’s a terrible bet. In fact, it’s exactly the same terrible bet as insurance. Yet I’ve had people describe even money to me as “the only wnning bet in Vegas.”
People’s capacity for self delusion - or their lack of math skill - is truly amazing.
Now, we’ve gone this far in the thread without anyone mentioning card counting. I feel obliged to point out that a card counter’s odds are better than 50-50 – assuming, of course, that the counter knows what he’s doing and is permitted to work.
Card counting isn’t a threat to casinos. It is incredibly difficult to master. Straight bet spreading over a few units and counting + and - is not effective. You must also master ‘indices’ of appropriate variations of basic strategy at certain counts, ie. when is it right to hit a 12/13 against a dealer’s 2 etc. Add to that extra decks in shoes and automatic shuffling machines and you have little chance. Most books I read on counting only promise you the house edge in your favour. That’s less than 1% on many house rules. Hardly worth the effort.
In reply to the OP, my guess is that this bet wouldn’t have been allowed but for the TV coverage and free publicity. It doesn’t make sense for a casino to risk this kind of volatility. Casinos win by grinding money out of players over time, not by gambling.
Not sure who the biggest winners and losers are, but there have been notorious gamblers such as a famous Australian airline operator who would frequently lose several million in the space of an afternoon without batting an eyelid. He was notorious for going to, say, a casino in London, losing a bit (relatively), not being allowed to raise the limit then flying on to the Bahamas or elsewhere where he could chase his money at higher limits.
To answer the original question, in the past some casino owners did advertise that they would take any bet. Steve Wynn, when he was at the Mirage, made a standing offer “I’ll take any bet,” to anyone. What Mr. Wynn would consider a “real” bet is debateable but I would guess that even in the early 90s Wynn would have accepted a single $10 million dollar payout bet. Generally, the bigger casinos could handle the larger bets, but at the same time those casinos are also corporations, so a major loss may draw stockholder wrath.
This question was answered before by Anthony Curtis’s Las Vegas Adviser…question of the day…QOTD
Sadly, to check the archives you might need to pay $5 for membership.
I have been to casinos exactly 4 times and never lost (that isn’t the point of the story, I know statistics as well as anyone). The 3rd time I went, I took 100 dollars to with and played for a couple of hours at the roulette table. I was down to 80 and determined to win. Just then, the people I was with came over and told me it was time to go. I broke out 80 $1 chips and slid them onto the 1st twelve square on the roulette table. The dealers eyes got big and she called the Pit Boss over who looked at me and the bet and then let it play. The wheel spun and it came up #6, a winner. I took my $200 and something dollars and left.
The only point to this story is that they do make it obvious that they can refuse bets. I have no idea why they got worked up over $80 other than the fact that it looks like a lot of money in $1 chips.
He rolled his eyes because there is a place on the roulette table for just such a bet. You did not need to put a bet down on each number individually.
I remember reading in a Scarne book that a woman in the 1950’s used the Martingale system to win the equivalent of over $500,000 (a lot of money back then, even for a casino) from a Caribbean casino over the course of a few days. The casino called in an expert who said that their problem wasn’t having too high of a table limit, but too low of a minimum. I don’t remember what the minimum was, but it was low enough for the woman to keep doubling her bet too many times for the casino’s well-being. The casino raised the minimum bet. The lady returned and over the course of a weekend lost everything back.
Shagnasty said the “first twelve square,” not “the first twelve squares” which would have indeed been obnoxious. However, it’s worth pointing out that the spot to bet on the first twelve numbers is actually a rectangle. 
FWIW, I had the same interpretation as gazpacho. At any rate, why would a casino even bat an eye at an $80 bet on 1st twelve (1-12)? I’m just trying to figure out what was so unusual about that play that would warrant a pit boss’s attention.
I put them down as one really tall stack and a shorter one. I guess it was just the physical volume that made them take a closer look. Maybe the Pit Bosses just want to look scary for show sometimes.
I’m surprised nobody, including the former pit boss, has pointed out the simple and direct answer to the OP – the maximum payout is printed on the little placard on every table (at least on the Las Vegas Strip).
No fuss, no muss. You can bet as much as you want, but they won’t pay out more than $1,000. So unless you want to throw your money away, you’ll be putting no more than 1000/35 on a single number.
At other games, there are table mins and maxes clearly printed on each placard as well.
Presumably, if you’re playing a game where you can split up to n times and can double after splitting, you can win up to 2n$1,000, so that would be the “max payout”.
The $80 bet in singles would have attracted attention because either 1. It is a lot of chips and they would want to check nothing was hidden behind it (common cheat method) or 2. they wanted to verify it as a bet and not as an attempt to cash in your chips.
Tables that offer max pay-offs and not pay-offs based on max bets are a rip off. Does the dealer even check if you are over the max pay-off and return excess chips that wouldn’t be paid? Huge scam, only ever seen that in Caribbean casinos, didn’t think Vegas authorities would permit it.
Dealer hitting soft 17 is a major plus for the house. Avoid at all costs.
Pit Boss? Sir, I was the organ grinder not the monkey, and believe me, most pit bosses are proof of the missing link.
[QUOTE=Potato Chip]
I’m surprised nobody, including the former pit boss, has pointed out the simple and direct answer to the OP – the maximum payout is printed on the little placard on every table (at least on the Las Vegas Strip).
Sorry, forgot to answer this bit. Yes tables have min/max signs on them with higher minimums allowing higher maximiums. Ratios are still almost always based on the 7 straight loss rule.
However, these are only designed for Mr Joe Average. High rollers will have the option of either a seperate room with much higher maximums known as a Salon Private (by invite only), or be ‘grandfathered’. This is an agreement with the management whereby they can set personal min/max limits on any table regardless of what is available to the general public.
That just proves the following:
- People can get lucky sometimes even with a flawed system.
- Even “experts” can talk hogwash; or
- Some books play fast and loose with the facts.
Suppose that you are playing a fair game; that is, you really can win 50% of the time, and the payout is evens. (Roulette with no zero would be such a game.) You begin with $127 in your pocket and play a $1 martingale.
If you lose 7 times in a row you lose $127.
If you do not lose 7 times in a row you win $1.
You will win $1 127 times out of 128.
You will lose $127 one time out of 128.
Conclusion: You have turned a fair even-money game into a fair 127-1 on game. You are not one whit better or worse off. Long term, the player with the deeper pockets will end up with all the other player’s money, since it will come down to a question of you doubling your bets until the system demands one that either you can’t make or the house can’t cover. That probably means you’re going to lose eventually.
If you walk into a casino and play the above fair game with the object of winning, say, $32, you will probably do so - you are 3-1 on to win that much. The rest of the time you lose the whole stack. The game gives you a 3-1 on chance of winning and is offering you a 3-1 payout. If you are looking to double your money - the system is gaining you $1 every time round the loop, so you must play 128 times to win $128. Lo and behold, the fact that you will lose only one time in 128 is looking rather less attractive now.
As stated, actual casino games aren’t fair. Not only is your limited bankroll waiting to bite you in the ass, but the house percentage is still there ticking away, and not in your favour. Some martingale players may get lucky. Most will lose.
(With due acknowledgements to How To Take A Chance, Darrell Huff, which I read about 34 years ago.)