Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » OT: DUMB BUT LUCKY
  • OT: DUMB BUT LUCKY

    Filed at 12:36 am under by dcobranchi

    A Briton bet his entire net worth (some $130,000) on a single roulette spin. As you probably figured from the title, he won. What an idiot! Roulette is a sucker’s bet. He should have played blackjack.

    British TV filmed the event for a short reality series. I think it’d be more interesting (though a longer term project) to see what happens next. Does he blow the money, or does he parlay his winnings into something more? Enquiring minds want to know.

    2 Responses to “OT: DUMB BUT LUCKY”


    Comment by
    Steven Gallaher
    April 12th, 2004
    at 2:49 pm

    PEDANT WARNING!

    (Ignore if you don’t care about casino odds.)

    If I had to place all my money on a single iteration of a game in a Las Vegas casino, I would choose baccarat (house edge = 1.06% if you bet on the bank). [Even better would be taking 10x (or 100x) odds behind a don’t pass bet at craps, but that might not be considered a single iteration (or an even money bet).]

    Blackjack is a poor choice because a significant part of your return in blackjack comes from being able to split and double down. If you’ve bet your entire bankroll, you can do neither. This drives the house edge from about .5% to about 2.5% (depending on the exact rules in play). That’s better than roulette (house edge = 5.26% with double zero on the wheel), but not as good as some other things.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    April 12th, 2004
    at 2:57 pm

    Steve,
    Good point about doubling down and splitting. I hadn’t factored that in at all.