1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is considered too excessive betting/gambling?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bassmansam, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 16,016

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    There are only three possibilities if someone is gambling and winning from the house over a long period of time:

    1) They're cheating.
    2) They have supernatural powers.
    3) The house is failing at the most basic point of running gambling.

    It shouldn't be a matter of "may trigger further investigation". It should be a matter of "further investigation is urgently required immediately".
     
  2. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    It would be more of a scale and the longer the "streak" went on the further in depth the investigation would go on. However the main point is that if nothing was found to be wrong, then the person winning would not be barred.

    A: you they won't get their money back if it is legitimate. You proliferate the negative image of casinos as swindlers barring people for winning.

    B: if they are cheating, you won't discover the cheat if you throw them out. Then, depending on scale, cant prosecute and recover.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    This just makes no sense - yes if a player has an edge over the house you won't get the money back and you'll lose further funds by letting them carry on playing, ditto to bookies and winning player - this is why casinos and bookies ban winning players - it isn't a negative image, it is reality - they're in the business of taking money off people, they don't want winning players*

    Are you seriously suggesting that a successful card counter won't be barred, the casino will carry on letting them win? Or a successful handicapper or even just someone line shopping won't get their account blocked at a bookies or have to use runners in physical shops? Because that doesn't seem to be reality



    *that isn't to say they don't want net losing players to win occasionally over the course of a session of play
     
  4. DONOHUE07

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2013

    Posts: 2,192

    Location: Manchester

    I like a flutter on pretty much everything I can bet on, but I'll never bet more than I want to loose, so in my case, just a few quid at a time
     
  5. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    Having an edge over the house is always classed as cheating.

    A professional card counter would be spotted and barred as it is classed as cheating. Also, with the implementation of shuffling machines almost nationwide, there are very few opportunities for actual counting. This would also be detected very early on in the scheme of thing and dealt with. I.e. Refuse to use a hand shoe, cutting the deck very shallow etc.

    As for line / handicapping in bookies, i don't know the process, but is probably classed as cheating which is why they would bar people for it. But once again, there would need to be sufficient "evidence" to prove it. And by just barring someone because of their win for a long period is very poor business.
     
  6. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    no it isn't, it doesn't break any rules or affect the integrity of the game, it just requires someone to think a bit more while playing, you're free to place your bets as you like, there aren't any rules in blackjack that preclude you from using your brain to play - it is farcical to suggest any such rules would be possible.

    if you're going to claim it is cheating then prove it

    again, you're completely wrong, how is it in anyway 'cheating'?

    and still wrong again - a bookie doesn't need evidence of anything to ban or limit a player, see all the people who partake in matched betting on this forum for example, bookies will ban accounts for any number of reasons, mere suspicion that someone might be looking for an advantage is enough


    fundamentally though you're not only wrong on the rules you seem to have a poor understanding of probability - wining for a long period requires a positive expectation yet you believe that having an edge is cheating...
     
  7. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    I understand probability well enough thanks.

    And yes, I understand that without and advantage and for and indefinite amount of time, nobody will ever win. equally, nearly everybody won't win the lottery. Once again tho, if you can assign infinite time and draws to the problem, you certainly will win.....eventually.

    ok, if you class "advantage play" different to cheating fine. And if you are classing advantage players as "winners" fine. But they are still engineering an edge. they would not be barred for being a "winner" and being up over time, they would be barred for being an advantage player. Also, they would probably not be barred they would probably just not be offered a hand dealt shoe.
     
  8. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    card counting is not cheating

    handicapping in sports betting is not cheating

    that is not me classing those things as not cheating it is simple fact, you made a claim previously that card counting is in fact cheating yet you've since failed to substantiate that claim

    winning in gambling, in the long run, generally requires an edge of some sort - if you understand probability then this is obvious. The tiny chance of an exception to this is having an outlier event (Big casino jackpot or big accumulator bet) that eclipses your entire lifetime of gambling losses. Aside from that exception bookies and casinos don't like winners, they like people who take -ev bets and these people are not net winning players.

    thus we get back to my original point:


    your objection to this is essentially that of a net lifetime losing player who takes -ev bets and is a 'winner' for a single session i.e. not actually winner
     
  9. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    My objection is to your wording, that winners get banned.

    This is not the case. it's very vague and designed to make casinos look like scammers. Card counting is cheating. The issue with prosecuting is there is no such thing as the thought police... which is why a case has never been bought (without machines or hardware) as part you can't prove the reason someone made the decision they did. They can however detect plays and moves which would suggest counting, and act appropriately (shuffling machine/deep deck cuts etc).

    I'm guessing you've had bets turned away before for being "too good" or "too lucky"? This is because there is not really an argument to that statement. where as "you can't play as You cheat" leaves plenty of avenues for you to challenge.

    When you talk about outlier events you mention jackpots and cumulators, there is also just normal strings of positive outcomes.

    If your statement read

    Advantage players/cheaters get banned.

    Or

    Winners will be watched.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  10. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    they do - at virtually any bookie or casino winners will get banned

    hence I've clarified it - I'm talking about people who are up/net positive/'winning' overall through gambling at any particular game

    you're talking about otherwise losing players who maybe win over a short session

    as for making casinos look like scammers - that is their whole business model, they're quite open about it, they're there to take your money

    bookies are perhaps a bit sneakier as they'll ban people far quicker

    again - you're making a silly statement you can't back up - card counting isn't cheating, how do you make a rule against someone using their brain to make better decisions that they're allowed, under the rules of the game, to make

    I've asked you twice now to back up your statement yet you've again failed to do so and then you post this:

    exactly - so how is it cheating? What rules of the game does it breach - you've got no argument! You keep stating it is cheating and yet you're unable to expand on how it breaks the rules of the game?

    not in general no - If you play a casino game with a negative expectation then you'll lose in the long run, to be an overall net winning player from a 'normal string of positive outcomes' is an outlier

    lets take a look at this - we can simulate flat betting on roulette (lets say on odd numbers - though it doesn't really matter) in a few lines of Matlab

    n = 150; %number of spins
    m = 6; %number of players

    spin_results = randi([0,36],[n ,m]);
    profit_per_spin = 10 * mod(spin_results,2) - 5;
    cumulative_profit = cumsum(profit_per_spin);

    so suppose we have half a dozen players... habitual (but rather disciplined) gamblers, they play a single session one Friday evening for 150 spins, betting £5 a spin on odd/even or red/black

    [​IMG]

    three of them are up (for that one session) - these are your "winners", three of them are down...

    are they really "winners" at this game? **** no!

    lets say these disciplined habitual gamblers limit themselves to playing once a month, and they have to miss a couple of these sessions each year (Summer, Christmas perhaps) - so 10 sessions of 150 spins across one year - how do they do:

    [​IMG]

    Well that is unfortunate... they're all losers

    ah but I'm being unfair, I'm only looking at 6 gamblers, if I look at more gamblers I should find some 'winners'

    here are 1000 habitual gamblers playing 100 sessions (apologies for the naff graphics but this just a quick script to demonstrate the point)

    [​IMG]

    a small number (of the 1000) are winners still after a couple of dozen sessions and after 100 sessions we've got 1 player who is a net winner! A pretty clear outlier!

    Is he really a winner? Well maybe if he stops when he's ahead but - we can look at even more gamblers and even more sessions - 200 sessions, 10,000 gamblers:

    [​IMG]

    of our 10,000 gamblers no one is a winner over those 200 sessions

    now for our strict, 10 sessions a year, flat betting £5 guys that would take 20 years (expectation for flat betting £5 is to be down approx £4k over 200 sessions of 150 spins which is what we see in the simulation), for people with an addiction or who simply like to play more that would occur much sooner... it certainly doesn't require 'indefinite' play... 'in the long run' pretty much everyone is a loser if they have no edge...

    is the above totally realistic of roulette players? nope but it demonstrates the point - in reality you'll have a mix of behaviours from people increasing their bet amount because they believe they're 'on a winning streak' - this just means they'll lose even quicker. You'll also have people playing progressive systems, so again increasing their bet size which in turns means they'll lose even quicker (in the long run, though will show small increases and big drops across that period). Also the pay offs will be different from people picking single numbers or other combinations of bets (but the ev is the same regardless so this last point doesn't change the results in the long run)

    If you want to win, in the long run, then you need to have an edge! If you have an edge against a bookie or a casino, and they detect it, they will ban you ergo the statement:

    "Winners get often get banned when detected"

    The exceptions to this are simply outliers - a tiny tiny number of people (who we didn't see even one of out of our simulation of 10,000 players) who have gotten lucky through playing the game and a tiny number of people who've experienced some outlier event (accumulator bet, big jackpot etc..) big enough that it eclipses all their other losses past and future across their lifetime.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  11. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    Thats some cool work there dowie. :cool:

    The people you have modelled tho will not really generate the real life outcomes. you have designed these people with a limitless bank account where most people will have a limit as to how much they will lose before they walk away. With winning, people are more flexible with the amount they will win before cashing out. Also, where you talk about betting patterns where people will increase when winning etc. it will show a faster ramp up of the win. where as the loss will only drop at a rate of -$5 each time to a max of a pre decided amount, the rate of win could be up to 1000's before they cash and walk from a session. it makes the modelling a little more complex, but will show the volatility. of course over time, the losses will still outstrip any chance of a getting money back and seeing profit. But the volatility is what causes the opportunity to be a winner over a pretty long period of time.

    Bookies may employ harsher due diligence due to the nature of the business in that you are betting on events that they a: have no control over b:can bet on the same event in multiple locations. each providing operational difficulties.

    i can show you examples of blackjack counters being prosecuted. but they all involve using a machine to keep count. now, as i mentioned, no prosecution has been bought against somebody potentially counting but only using their mind, as it cannot be proven. it is however still cheating.

    you're obviously a reasonably bright guy, but you come across as a little butt hurt by gambling establishments. i'm guessing you've been excluded from matched betting and other scammy type money spinning activities? You're now blaming a business for protecting itself?
     
  12. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    that doesn't matter as far as the point is concerned - whether they've lost a bit or a lot they're still not winners and it is the winning players we're talking about here


    no, not at all - you've got that completely wrong, unless they've got an edge then they're still playing a negative expectation game, increasing the amount you bet just increases the chance of losing more over a shorter space of time. To believe otherwise means you're falling into the trap of gamblers fallacy. Just because you've won the past few spins say doesn't mean you've got any better chance of winning the next few in a game that has no memory.

    Of course they do, so are you actually agreeing with me now? That bookies will often ban winning players? (remember I'm not talking about someone winning a bet but people who are overall winners from their betting activities)

    We're not talking about using electronic devices though, you've stated card counting is cheating - why not just expand on that, explain how it breaks the rules? You've made that statement several times now and yet you're unable to back it up.

    Not really, I'm not into matched betting, I did a bit of it over a decade ago, I am interested in gambling though and I do think bookies ought to have an obligation to treat customers fairly.

    I'm assuming you work or have worked in the gambling industry? You seem to have some understanding but it is slightly flawed - you've fallen into gamblers fallacy in that post, you don't seem to understand that other than very few outliers you won't get overall winners in negative expectation games in the long run and you've blindly stated that card counting is cheating but you're unable to expand on the argument - is that because you worked in the casino industry and someone simply told you it is cheating without you questioning how or why?
     
  13. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    we are looking at over multiple sessions, so if each person can only spend $100 per session, their max loss lets say over 100 sessions can only be 10,000. and to get a "streak" to provide 10,000 is easier(more likely) than if the person has a limitless bank for each session incurring larger cumulative losses.

    eventually, they will all lose. i understand that.
    so lets say that after 1 session person has gotten pretty lucky, doubled up some bets and ends the night 12k up. the next time they come in, back to to their normal betting, only losing 100 per session. this person would still be a winner for another 120 sessions, 10 years of once a month gaming. they would lose it all back, but slower than when they won.

    if he was flat betting $5 then the max they could win in a session would be limited.

    they would not be barring someone on the fact of them being a winner alone. there would be other patterns or tells they would look for and systems in place to spot potential "scams". maybe innocent people do get caught up in the barrings by chance, but once again, they need to defend themselves.

    using an electronic device is solely to make the job of counting cards easier and more manageable, the counting of cards is where the cheating takes place.

    https://www.gamblinginsider.com/new...os-require-clarification-as-ivey-loses-appeal

    this is a recent ruling concerning 7.7m. you probably know the case.
     
  14. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    this is the fallacy bit - if you bet a bigger amount at a negative expectation game then you lose quicker... over some short period you might get lucky but overall it means you lose money quicker - there is no such thing as a winning streak in a game with no memory other than retrospectively claiming one which occurred at random due to chance - it isn't possible to predict one and thus adjust your bets accordingly. Yes when you bet higher amounts you increase the variance - that makes no difference to the above graphs, I can change the £5 to a 50 and it will have the same effect - the ev is unchanged. Mixing things up with £5 and £50 bets makes no difference either to the ev. If you believe there is any difference here then that is you believing there is such a thing as a winning streak - this is the old gamblers fallacy

    All the gambler's games/sessions of roulette can be seen as one continuous game, just because they've increased their bet size due to some belief in a fallacy doesn't mean they've got any better chance of winning, it will just increase their variance and make them more likely to lose quicker

    again we're not talking about individual bets but a winner being someone who wins overall... that requires you to make bets that give you value... and yes those people do often get banned when detected. There doesn't have to be anything shady going on, no scams... just being good is enough.

    yes that is edge sorting... there were also additional factors there such as the woman speaking in Chinese to the Chinese dealer and fundamentally changing how the game was played without the full knowledge of the Casino re: what was going on

    you've still got nothing re: card counting, again we're not talking about electronic devices here
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  15. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    we are not talking about an individual. we are talking about 10,000 random cases.

    10,000 people who can win up to 10,000 but lose only 100 per session. there are not winning "streaks" but a succession of winning hands could see one of the 10,000 players winning the 10,000 amount. but the biggest loss at any one sitting will be 100.
     
  16. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    doesn't change anything

    yet any 'sitting' is entirely arbitrary... roulette has no memory and it doesn't make any difference if they stop and come back another day or if they carry on in the same session... all their games of roulette can be viewed as one continuous game, stopping and coming back makes no difference to the actual results
     
  17. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    but in this case and in reference to your statement it does, as it is time constrained. unless your statement is that ALL winners get banned which is false. I am showing you that there is potential for legitimate winners to be up for an extended period of time and, through luck alone and that they would not be barred off of the back of soley being a winner.
     
  18. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    except there isn't... like I said it is just one big continuous game, by stating that someone would play some short sessions and some long sessions doesn't change anything - the graph is still the same it is just you could draw some vertical lines denoting sessions at variable rather than fixed intervals - your previous suggestion about winning streaks was flawed and relies on gamblers fallacy - if you increase the stakes at roulette you simply increase the chance of losing quicker

    the only winning players from negative expectation games are the tiny number of outliers and/or people who are 'winners' across a short period of their lifetime play where you ignore any prior or future losses

    your previous proposal was a bit ridiculous even with 10,000 players - chance of avoiding ruin for one player in a session like that when ramping bets up to £50 was of the order of 10^-6 so you'd need to stick a few more zeros on your proposed number of players... again you're basically citing outliers.

    I note you've still not come up with anything to show that card counting is cheating either nor your other suggestion that either handicapping or line shopping in sports betting is somehow dodgy or underhand.

    You win in gambling by gaining an edge - everything else is just temporary luck/random noise, there are perfectly legitimate ways of winning in gambling, generally sports betting and poker though card counting is possible despite probably being a waste of time for anyone with the ability to do it vs time spent playing poker not to mention plenty of variance

    casinos and bookies don't want actual winners for very obvious reasons - though they're happy with net losers who win over some short period of time and they're happy with the tiny number who may have won some huge amount on some outlier event (jackpots, accumulator bets) from carrying on participating in -ev activity

    Fact is they've got the discretion to pretty much ban anyone they want so long as they're not doing so on the grounds of race, disability etc.. thus they'll happily ban suspected card counters even though it doesn't break any laws/rules (if it did you'd have been able to cite some) - I don't blame them for that, they're just protecting their business. Some bookies on the other hand are a bit shady, they're happy to offer prices to some (mug)punters but not others, mostly because they're not very good at pricing. If they did that in some areas of finance they'd be out of business very quickly but the gambling industry is a lot less sophisticated. Australia brought in some legislation to deal with this but the UK isn't as evolved thus serious betters stick to exchanges or go offshore or to Asia via agents.
     
  19. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,475

    the term winner is misleading.

    Substitute for "professional gambler" and there would be no issue. Winner is not specific as people can be a winner and not have an edge or get barred.
     
  20. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 39,705

    no I clarified what I mean by winner some posts ago and such a person doesn't need to be a 'professional gambler'. It is perfectly possible to gamble recreationally with a positive expectation without it being your main source of income - plenty of people in the city play poker and place sports bets.

    you're seemingly happy to call a net loser a winner if they win over a short period i.e. this guy after a few hundred spins:

    [​IMG]

    but 'in the long run' he isn't, either that or you're relying on some rather rare outliers and the only reason those tiny number of people are still up is because they won't live long enough to lose back the winnings from whatever outlier event took place (lottery win, accumulator etc..)...

    on the other hand someone with a positive expectation (I flipped the odds) could lose for a bit but 'in the long run' wins overall:

    [​IMG]

    like I said before you can count all sessions as one long game, it is entirely arbitrary - when I say winner I'm talking about overall net winners not people who've lost before, won a bit then lose it all back and more...