All or nothing is a bad
bet anytime, anywhere
3 May 2004
By Mark Pilarski
Dear Mark,
A few weeks ago, I saw a man on live television
walk into a casino in Las Vegas, bet his entire
life savings, and win $270,000. A few questions
if I may. Will there ever be a time when we can
make wagers from home while the action is played
in a casino elsewhere by someone else? Also,
with you formally being in the gaming business,
would you have taken the wager? Finally, how
sound was the bet? Danny R.
The person you are speaking of was Ashley Revell,
who put up his entire net worth of $135,300 on
red at the roulette table while a British film
crew recorded the event. However, Danny, it was
not live as your question suggests, but taped
delayed. The reason for the tape delay was
because the Wire Act provides criminal penalties
to anyone engaging in the business of betting
when using a wire communication facility for the
transmission of interstate or foreign commerce
of bets or wagers on any sporting event, contest
or betting information. I'm sure The Plaza
Hotel-Casino in downtown Las Vegas, where the
bet was placed, made sure the wager was taped
and not broadcast live. So, Danny, the answer to
your first question is NO, I cannot foresee even
lobbied politicians of unsound mind allowing you
to wager from your lazyboy chair on whether
Ravell wins or loses.
You also inquired if I, as an imaginary casino
owner, would have taken Ravell's "life savings"
wager. Not a chance, Danny. Even with the global
exposure that the wager received, I would have
nixed the idea of someone betting his or her
life savings on one spin. This columnist has
recommended countless times that you should only
bet what you can afford to lose, not everything
you own. Most of the casinos in Las Vegas would
probably agree with Yours Truly; of course, the
others would have had their limos curbside at
the airport awaiting Revell's arrival.
Finally, even though he won $135,300 (not
$270,000, see below) when the ball dropped into
the seven slot, a red number, I must challenge
Revell's wisdom for choosing roulette when
risking his total net worth.
There were plenty of wagers in the casino that
offer a better deal than double zero roulette,
where the house edge is 5.26% on every bet you
place on the table, including betting red.
Revell broke the most fundamental principle of
all of gambling; finding the best bet and
conditions. He was not gambling smart when he
decided a single spin at a double-zero roulette
table is where he'd lay his brazen bet. If
Revell was so gung-ho on roulette, he should
have at least made that same wager on a single
zero roulette wheel where the house edge is a
less murderous 2.70%. Better yet, he should have
avoided Las Vegas entirely and made the play in
Atlantic City, where some casinos have a special
rule that allows only one half of the wager to
be lost whenever the ball lands on zero or
double zero (0, 00). This even-money outside bet
is called Surrender. Surrender (or "en prison"
in French) is allowed only on even money bets
that pay off at 1 to 1 (Red/black, odd/even,
1-18/ and 19-36).
In Revell's case of betting Red, if 00 or 0 came
up, without Surrender, he would have
automatically lost his bet. If Surrender were
available at the casino where he made the play,
half of his wager would remain on Red through
the next spin. It's called Surrender because his
bet is temporarily held hostage, or "en prison"
if you like, awaiting the outcome of the next
spin. This Surrender option cuts the house edge
on even money bets to 2.63% on the American
game, and down to 1.35% on the European,
single-zero table.
By the way, Danny, he did not win $270,000 as
many news accounts reported. He risked $135,300
and won $135,300.
Gambling quote of the week: "Has there ever been
a movie or television sequence when the final
bet was modest?" Allen Dowling, The Great
American Pastime (1970)
|
