Citation: the house edge is based on percentages, not absolute values. IOW, the house has a 1% edge, not a $1 edge, with the exact number determined by the probabilities and rules of the game. Multiplying all dollar amounts does not change either of those factors, so a house edge of 1% with a $1 bet will remain exactly the same 1% at a $1 million bet.
The ONLY thing that might change is that if youâre betting a sufficiently large amount of money the casino might give you access to a private game with slightly more favorable rules.
Letâs say you have a coin that is 55% heads, 45% tails. Heads you lose, tails you win.
If you flip a couple of times you might come out ahead you might get lucky and win. If you flip 100,000 times you are virtually guaranteed to lose more than 50% of the time. The only thing having a sufficiently large bank does is allow you to play enough games to reach the point where your long-run losses become virtually guaranteed.
Now, bank size would be a factor if the game inherently favored the player in the long run (IOW, had positive expected value) as long as you could survive the short-term losses. But blackjack, like all casino games, inherently favors the house. Over an infinite number of blackjack hands you will lose money.
You can flip a coin 10 times and all of those will be tails.
Do you think its impossible? It is possible for sure because people did that. And it was not rigged.
Probability of it is very slim, but it exists. You can try. I am sure you will suceed. The question is after how many times. You dont know till you start flipping. Or read how it works. You will lose less time.
Now, if someone will get 100 tails in a row, well, does it sound so improbable for you?
You can always use this
Probability of someone using rigged coin is always more than the odds of using normal coin and getting 100% tails every time.
Well, its posible when we are using normal coin and it will not be rigged. Would need enough quantum computers to throw enough coins for us. Is it good way of spending time and energy? Probably not.
But its essentially what gambling is. Convince someone to throw enough times, only some people bet money for result. So what if its nearly impossible, if there is enough money at stake, someone will gamble.
We are talking about you and me playing a game. Computers have no room here.
Your argument that it is possible is wrong. With low enough probability, itâs safer to consider you will die during the experiment. Or actually anything else. That means, the low probability becomes hidden by the noise of all the other âlow probabilityâ.
If you have 100 tails in a row, the coin is rigged. Period.
Computers are real cases you know. So you are wrong in that we have to use some metal quarter. And gambling is done using computers these days. HyperNet being example.
only when you want to derail the topic and nitpick about BS.
And nobody gives a â â â â . We are talking real cases, and you come say âbut with a simulator on a simplistic modelâ. You are out of the topic.
Your event probability is below the error margin of the model. Thus , that even happening is called ânoiseâ.
No, when you talk about âcomputer toss coin for youâ they are simulators. They obey to the rules they have been given, they follow a model that you gave them, that is over simplified for those big numbers.
When a computer âtosses coins for youâ, itâs not the same as you tossing coins. For example, you canât toss 100 coins and have a tail - unless itâs rigged.
When it isnt rigged, there is still probability. You know there is, so it isnt impossible. Theoretically and mathematically.
Practically its not using metal quarter.
About the real random number, maybe you have heard of it?
PERFECT randomness. Not rigged in any way.
So I would argue computers have a place in that coin toss.
I already answered that. They are out of topic when we talk about real case, because their simulation is not real.
I said âyou tossâ. You answered âcomputer tossâ. You then are out of topic. You tossing a coin, and a computer simulating a toss, are not the same thing.
Only when you use a simplistic model.
In reality, that never happened, that wonât ever happen (because thatâs actually how you define if a coin is rigged) .
The probability of an oversimplified model says that it could happen, but once you remove the oversimplification, it never happens.
It is not about who tosses tho, its about the result. The chance. You are falling for the simplest gambling blunder your brain can produce. That wto tosses have an ability to cause proper result. That the coin is important, that you can have bigger or lesser chance in a bet using different coin or using other handâŠ
I say that computers can be a honest, and not at all biased and rigged source of randomness.
No, it is about a real case where I have 100 tails in a row and YOU claim itâs not rigged.
When you are talking about computers simulating the toss, you are out of topic. Because itâs not a REAL case but a simulation, with oversimplifications.
