… and Faith says to Logic, “I’ll jus’ whup
yo butt, sonny.”
March 5,
2010
Dear Mark: I
have been going to casinos for years and
have never seen these so called “winning
streaks” you have written about. Not that I
need proof, but I would sure like to see
one. Bud C.
How’s
this for a quick reply, Bud? I received your
e-mail on February 11th, at 1:42 pm. I had
some idea on how to respond, however, by
happenstance, at approximately 3:30 pm EST
on that same day, I get a call from a friend
of mine, Tom, who happened to be in Las
Vegas. Luckily, he wasn’t tapped out and
calling me to wire him some seed money for a
poker room romp, but to share what was
happening on a roulette table at Caesars
Palace. Black had just appeared 23 times in
a row. Immediately I had Tom e-mail me a
photo with his iPhone, which I promptly
forwarded to you. (Readers can view the
display board
at http://markpilarski.com/23row.html.
Although the winning roulette number display
only shows the results of the previous 17
spins, the photo was taken on the 23rd
consecutive black.)
Now a
question for you, Bud. When a streak like
this happens, which way would you bet on it?
Tom’s friend, Brian, who happened to be on
the game, started betting an aggressive
progression that red would eventually have
to appear based on the “due factor,”
assumptions that don't necessarily happen
over his short gambling timeline, and are
not necessarily shared by the roulette
wheel.
His conviction regarding
streaks in gambling was that after black
appeared so many times, a red would have to
pop up to self-correct that streak. So,
after seven, eight, nine, ten black’s in a
row, his faith led him to the faulty
conclusion that based on past performance,
red was due; ergo, time to bet more. Brian,
like many gamblers, doesn’t realize that
faith and results are different. One doesn’t
necessarily create the other. Brian
witnessed a deviation in one direction
(Black, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, etc.), so he
believed that a reversal was going to occur
to restore balance.
Time and
time again you’ll see a guy like Brian who
wagers more, and more, and more, because he
KNOWS that this time red’s going to show.
Brian thought this form of betting to be
foolproof because you have to win sooner or
later. The problem is, it didn’t work 23
successive times, each spin is an
independent event, he didn’t have an
inexhaustible bankroll, and in any event,
our friends who own the casinos would limit
the maximum size of his wager.
Say for instance Brian had jumped on red
after the third black and started doubling
his previous bet to recoup his loss. His
20th wager would have cost him $10,485,760,
just to get his measly 10 bucks back. Had he
been betting black all along, his ledger
wouldn’t have shown 10 million in the black
either because the casino puts a ceiling on
your win via the table max so you don’t end
up owning the joint.
Yes,
Caesars has some hefty table maximums, but
I’m guessing he wasn’t carrying that size of
a bankroll, nor is the casino willing to
part with that kind of loot to a $10 player.
Gambling Wisdom of the
Week:
“A
winning hand is not assured,
Until
proceeds are secured.
So you
may find you're out of scratch,
By
counting chickens ere they hatch.”
--Sumner
A. Ingmark
