3 ms·

I'll note that if you can deterministically calculate an EV, a Monte Carlo simulation isn't necessary. The fact that the EV of roulette is so easy to calculate

I'll note that if you can deterministically calculate an EV, a Monte Carlo simulation isn't necessary. The fact that the EV of roulette is so easy to calculate defeats the purpose of this exercise. Perhaps the MC can help you conceptualize volatility and distribution of results, but once you know that the EV is negative, there's no good (mathematical) reason to participate.

User23 3y ago
> but once you know that the EV is negative, there's no good (mathematical) reason to participate. Unless of course you know that the casino is willing to pay you out as part of their marketing budget (based on your ev to them); usually in the form of compensated room, food, and beverage, and sometimes even transportation. At that point your choice to participate becomes vacation planning for the mathematically literate.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  That has nothing to do with the example presented in this article.
chkas 3y ago
It is also about the "law of large numbers". If you go to the casino with $1000 and want to go home with $2000, the chance is more than 48% if you bet the $1000 on red. But if you play often and always bet $10 on red until you have $2000, your chance is less than 1%.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  ...which is why I stated "the MC can help you conceptualize distribution of results", however again this doesn't really require an MC simulation. To achieve $2000 while betting $1000 requires you to win one bet more than you lose. To get there while betting $10 requires you to win 100 more. Common sense should tell you which is significantly easier to achieve.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chkas 3y ago
    It is dangerous to rely on common sense. Many people believe that with a little luck you can win at roulette. Even according to my common sense, I would not believe that the chance is so low. But a little MC simulation tells me how it really is. https://easylang.dev/ide/#code=n%20%3D%2010000%0Afor%20i%20%3D%201%20to%20n%0A%20%20%20cash%20%3D%201000%0A%20%20%20while%20cash%20%3C%202000%20and%20cash%20%3E%3D%2010%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20cash%20-%3D%2010%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20numb%20%3D%20random%2037%20-%201%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20if%20numb%20%3E%3D%2019%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20cash%20%2B%3D%2020%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20.%0A%20%20%20.%0A%20%20%20if%20cash%20%3E%3D%202000%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20win%20%2B%3D%201%0A%20%20%20.%0A.%0Aprint%20win%20%2F%20n%20*%20100%20%26%20%22%25%22%0A https://easylang.dev/ide/#code=n%20%3D%2010000%0Afor%20i%20%...
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      You're trying to justify your own article. I don't think many people believe you just need "a little luck" to win $1000 at any casino game while betting just $10 per hand -- most recognize that it's close to impossible when betting that small, because it requires 100 more wins than losses. Perhaps you did not -- that's on you.
      - chkas 3y ago
        You are trying to justify your comment. You overestimate the mathematical judgment of most people. But all due respect to you for assessing it so accurately. I myself prefer to rely on a MC simulation.

User23 3y ago

> but once you know that the EV is negative, there's no good (mathematical) reason to participate. Unless of course you know that the casino is willing to pay you out as part of their marketing budget (based on your ev to them); usually in the form of compensated room, food, and beverage, and sometimes even transportation. At that point your choice to participate becomes vacation planning for the mathematically literate.

listenallyall 3y ago
That has nothing to do with the example presented in this article.

chkas 3y ago

It is also about the "law of large numbers". If you go to the casino with $1000 and want to go home with $2000, the chance is more than 48% if you bet the $1000 on red. But if you play often and always bet $10 on red until you have $2000, your chance is less than 1%.

listenallyall 3y ago
...which is why I stated "the MC can help you conceptualize distribution of results", however again this doesn't really require an MC simulation. To achieve $2000 while betting $1000 requires you to win one bet more than you lose. To get there while betting $10 requires you to win 100 more. Common sense should tell you which is significantly easier to achieve.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chkas 3y ago
  It is dangerous to rely on common sense. Many people believe that with a little luck you can win at roulette. Even according to my common sense, I would not believe that the chance is so low. But a little MC simulation tells me how it really is. https://easylang.dev/ide/#code=n%20%3D%2010000%0Afor%20i%20%3D%201%20to%20n%0A%20%20%20cash%20%3D%201000%0A%20%20%20while%20cash%20%3C%202000%20and%20cash%20%3E%3D%2010%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20cash%20-%3D%2010%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20numb%20%3D%20random%2037%20-%201%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20if%20numb%20%3E%3D%2019%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20cash%20%2B%3D%2020%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20.%0A%20%20%20.%0A%20%20%20if%20cash%20%3E%3D%202000%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20win%20%2B%3D%201%0A%20%20%20.%0A.%0Aprint%20win%20%2F%20n%20*%20100%20%26%20%22%25%22%0A https://easylang.dev/ide/#code=n%20%3D%2010000%0Afor%20i%20%...
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    You're trying to justify your own article. I don't think many people believe you just need "a little luck" to win $1000 at any casino game while betting just $10 per hand -- most recognize that it's close to impossible when betting that small, because it requires 100 more wins than losses. Perhaps you did not -- that's on you.
    - chkas 3y ago
      You are trying to justify your comment. You overestimate the mathematical judgment of most people. But all due respect to you for assessing it so accurately. I myself prefer to rely on a MC simulation.