Man to bet all on Vegas roulette spin ... what an idiot!

[alkemyst]

I am somehow thinking they already know the 'outcome' of this.

He added that if he won he would probably take his winnings rather than spin again.

I wouldn't be surprised if he won he decides to take this spin as well....

anyone know for sure this is really *live*.

Å

 

[bigalt]

Originally posted by: Mookow
"Always bet on black"

if i'm ahead on the way out of the casino, i always bet the difference on black.

 

[sash1]

Too bad this wasn't Russian Roulette, that would've been sweet

`K

 

[Babbles]

The few times I have played roulette I have bet black. Works for me!

 

[Shelly21]

Did he win?

 

[PanzerIV]

Yes, he actually did!!! I have no such luck. I would now be living in a homeless shelter if I had taken that bet.

 

[Shelly21]

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Yes, he actually did!!! I have no such luck. I would now be living in a homeless shelter if I had taken that bet.

So I guess he wasn't an idiot eh?

 

[PanzerIV]

Originally posted by: Shelly21

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Yes, he actually did!!! I have no such luck. I would now be living in a homeless shelter if I had taken that bet.

So I guess he wasn't an idiot eh?

Umm...that's still debatable!

 

[anxi80]

Man Bets Life Savings, Wins $270,600
33 minutes ago

By BRUCE HARING, Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS - A man who put his life savings on the line Sunday took home $270,600 in a double-or-nothing roulette wheel gamble at the Plaza Hotel and Casino.

Ashley Revell, 32, a London man who said he liquidated all his possessions to fund his leap of faith, put $135,300 on red at the roulette table as a film crew videotaped his wager.

Wearing a rented tuxedo, he brought cash to the casino, said Rich Rose, the Plaza's president of sports and special events.

After trading the cash for chips and engaging in some low stakes gambling as a warm-up, Revell placed it all on red.

A crowd, including his mother and father, watched as the roulette wheel was spun. The ball bobbled into various slots before landing on Red 7.

His winnings were paid at the table, Rose said. The cash is now nestled in a safety deposit box at the hotel.

Messages left for Revell by The Associated Press were not immediately returned.

Rose said Revell claimed he came to the hotel "with nothing but the clothes on his back."

The idea for the bet was hatched earlier this year during a casual conversation between Revell and a friend, Rose said.

The two explored their options and enlisted a film crew to record the event for possible future release.

Revell received a bottle of champagne and a suite from the hotel. The hotel had him sign the roulette felt and will put it on display in the lobby, Rose said.

 

[maddogchen]

lucky bastard. What can I say? He had the balls and he won.

 

[royaldank]

So, he sells everything he owns for a third of what it's worth. Then, bets all that on a spin of the wheel and wins. Now, he has to pay a crap load of taxes and buy back new stuff at higher prices than he sold off his stuff. I wonder exactly how well he manages money wise from this. Granted, he got his name in the headlines and comps from the casino, but it sounds more like a pain in the rear to me.

 

[Kenazo]

any article about the win?

 

[Dissipate]

This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

well, i like to gamble.
and since i earn the money i gamble with; its my choice to use it as i see fit.
but i would never do what he did; im not that big of a gambler.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

well, i like to gamble.
and since i earn the money i gamble with; its my choice to use it as i see fit.
but i would never do what he did; im not that big of a gambler.

The issue here is not the manner in which he gambled, but the size of his bankroll. Obviously his bankroll was waaaay too big. If your bankroll is larger than a couple percent of your income or wealth you are going beyond entertainment and simply throwing money away.

However, that being said if someone has a fixed bankroll that they gamble with every month, or every year the best way to gamble this bankroll is to put it all down in one shot. This will insure that you will have the greatest chance of winning because it reduces the total number of random events that you are subject to. The more you break your bankroll up and the more units you bet over a larger period of time the more and more dismal your chances become of doubling your bankroll or even walking out of the casino a winner.

In fact I wrote a short essay about this subject. I guess it would be fitting to post it here.

 

[Dissipate]

The Mechanics of Gambling and How Gamblers Fleece Themselves

The most well known reason for why casinos are highly profitable is that the odds on all of the games in the casino are in favor of the house. In more technical terms this means that every game in the house has a negative expectation. An expectation is the amount of money a gambler will receive back in relation to the amount of money that gambler wagers on a game. Therefore, it follows that if the expectation for a game is negative a gambler will receive less money back than they wager in the long run. For instance if a slot machine has a percent return of 97% this means that for every $100 the gambler wagers in this game the gambler will receive back $97 in the long run. If 100 is subtracted from the percent return on a given game a percent value is returned. If this value is negative it means the game has a negative expectation, if it is positive the game has a positive expectation and if it is zero the game has a zero expectation (the gambler will receive back precisely what they wagered in the long run). To calculate the expectation in the case of the slot machine with a percent return of 97%, 97% - 100% = -3%. This slot machine has a negative expectation of 3%.

The fact that virtually every game in a casino has a negative expectation (a few select games actually do not but these won?t be discussed here) is an obvious reason for why the gambling industry is extremely lucrative. If all of the games in the house have negative expectations and people play those games then the house will make money. However, there is another statistical and psychological concept at work in the casino that is not as well known but at the same time is just as important as the concept of negative expectation.

A common concept and rule in statistics and probability is that the more random events that occur the closer the results of those random events will match their given odds. The classic illustration of this is the coin flip simulation. Flip a coin four times and the results are not as likely to be as close to 50% heads and 50% tails (the true odds) as if the coin is flipped 100,000 times. This concept applies to all the games in a casino as well. The more times someone plays roulette the closer the results of their play will be to the true odds and because the odds are against this person it is more likely this person will walk out of the casino a loser. Here are some numbers that illustrate this claim. If a gambler bets their entire bankroll at once on a game that has an expectation of -1% the probability that they will double their bankroll before going broke is .490 or 49%. On the other hand if a gambler splits their bankroll up into 100 units and bets one unit at a time on the same game the probability that they will double their bankroll before going broke is a paltry .018 or 1.8%. The lesson learned here is that the most successful gamblers who are playing games with a negative expectation bet their entire bankroll in one shot.

Observation of a casino and the way that people gamble reveals that people do not gamble in this manner. People will take their bankroll, split it up into small units and bet these units over a relatively long period of time. This is the exact opposite of how they should be playing and this is one of the major psychological factors at work that generates the huge financial success that casinos enjoy.

Those who gamble for entertainment and those who gamble to win money both gamble in this manner but for different reasons. The gambler who has high hopes of boosting their small paycheck will split their bankroll up into small units because they are too afraid to bet all of their money in one shot. It is a scary proposition afterall, they could lose all their gambling money in one hand, one roll of the dice or one spin of the wheel. Even a cool headed ?expert? gambler would be very nervous and holding their breath if they put their entire bankroll on the table at once. A gambler who is gambling for entertainment will split up their bankroll in small units because to them it is not fun to bet their entire bankroll in one shot, the longer they are gambling the more fun they are having and only making one bet reduces their gambling session to a few minutes and thus reduces their perceived fun greatly. Because of this the casinos have it made, both major types of gamblers will do the exact opposite of what they are supposed to time after time.

Most gaming machines force people to split their bankroll up into tiny units and bet them over a long period of time, almost completely ruining their chance of walking out a winner. For instance if someone goes into a casino with $1,000 and plays a $1 slot machine they will obviously be forced to split their bankroll up into 1,000 units and bet these units over a long period of time, which according to our law of statistics utterly destroys their chance of doubling their bankroll or winning much of anything. It is no wonder that slot machines are the ?cash cows? of the modern casino.

Casino games are slow. A slot machine can only do a certain number of spins per hour, blackjack dealers can?t deal 500 hands in two minutes, video poker machines the same way. If someone knew nothing of human psychology this would not make sense to them. Why doesn?t the casino have a slot machine that lets a gambler put in $100 and do 500 spins in a few seconds? This would be sure to make the casino magnitudes more money according to the statistical laws that have been discussed. It would except for one problem. If the casino had a slot machine or any game that allowed gamblers to do this the gamblers would quickly discover how abysmal their chances of winning really are. Time and time again these gamblers would do their 500 spins in a few seconds and end up with a depleted bankroll and only once in a great while would they have doubled their bankroll at the end of this accelerated slot machine session. As long as the slot machine only does a small number of spins per hour the gambler has time to remember the small jackpots they won instead of blowing through these wins instantaneously.

 

[gwlam12]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
any article about the win?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=6&u=/nm/20040411/od_nm/people_bet_briton_dc

 

[alkemyst]

all houses have to have at least one game that is a 'winner' I believe for Las Vegas....those off shore may not.

However this game changes day to day (odds get affected by payouts as well as other controllable factors). If you play this 'winning' game statisically you should always leave with at least a penny ahead of when you started (usually much more...although you can still lose if you are talking just one game).

Now the hard part is playing that winning game each day...the casinos catch this and just ask you to leave, permanently. They are private establishments, they can ask you to leave without any reason and bar your entry forever.

Å

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

I thought the roulette table when there's only 1 green had the best odds, unless you've memorized the black jack tables (of when to hit/stay). He's a professional gambler, so I'd think he'd know the tables... but that doesn't mean he didn't gamble on nothing but horse races professionally for 20 years.

BTW, what a ton of free publicity for the casinos! They are even going to display the roulette table felt that he signed... The casinos can only hope (and I suppose expect now) more people will attempt the same thing. This type of thing appeals to stupid people who will lose their money, rather than people who gamble purely as recreation.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

I thought the roulette table when there's only 1 green had the best odds, unless you've memorized the black jack tables (of when to hit/stay).

You can also push the odds in your favor in craps. Although you have to play a pretty tame game and it's not that much fun.

He's a professional gambler, so I'd think he'd know the tables... but that doesn't mean he didn't gamble on nothing but horse races professionally for 20 years.

"Professional" really just means he did it as his profession. It doesn't really mean he is any good at it or had any success. And I got the impression from the articles that he was only a "pro" gambler for a few months.

Case in point, there is a motivational speaker here in NJ (Big Al Szolack) who claims to have been a "Professional Basketball Player." You hear this and think NBA, ABA, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird.
But what he really means is just that his professions was "basketball player." His team? The Washington Generals. For those of you keeping score, the Washington Generals was the old basketball team that stood around looking silly while the Harlem Globetrotters performed their antics. He wasn't lying, his PROFESSION really WAS basketball, but being a part of a team that had a record of around 2 and 10000 over 70 years isn't what 99% of the world has in mind when they hear that you were a pro basketball player.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Dissipate
This guy gambled the correct way. Not to say that he isn't stupid for risking everything but when you are in a losing situation you are best just putting your entire bankroll down in one shot. If everyone did what this guy did the casinos would take in a lot less money. Really though, you shouldn't gamble in the first place.

I thought the roulette table when there's only 1 green had the best odds, unless you've memorized the black jack tables (of when to hit/stay). He's a professional gambler, so I'd think he'd know the tables... but that doesn't mean he didn't gamble on nothing but horse races professionally for 20 years.

BTW, what a ton of free publicity for the casinos! They are even going to display the roulette table felt that he signed... The casinos can only hope (and I suppose expect now) more people will attempt the same thing. This type of thing appeals to stupid people who will lose their money, rather than people who gamble purely as recreation.

You are right, Blackjack with perfect basic strategy is better than the roulette wheel. However, for the particular game of roulette the man employed the best strategy there is: betting the bankroll all in one shot.

As for being a "professional gambler" Jzero hit the nail on the head. A real professional gambler who consistently wins would never ever do what that guy did. The reason why is that when you are in a winning situation the best strategy completely turns around. For instance if you have a 1% edge over the house putting your entire bankroll down in one shot is the worst thing you can do. What you want to do instead is break your bankroll up into the most number of units possible and bet those over a long period of time, because the more independent random events there are the closer the total outcome of those events will be to the true odds. So if you want to double your bankroll in a winning situation you want to do the exact opposite of what you would do in a losing situation.

 

[richardycc]

who was that blonde chick that was hugging and jumping up and down with him after he won? maybe he won a new friend with this too. hehe

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: lancestorm
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- A British man who has sold all his possessions, including his clothes, will stand in a rented tuxedo on Sunday and bet everything on a single spin of the roulette wheel.

If he wins, he doubles his money. If he loses, he will be left with only the television crew documenting his every move.

Ashley Revell, a 32-year-old Londoner, said he was worth about 75,000 pounds ($138,000) after he sold everything in March.

"I thought I was worth at least 100,000 pounds," he said in a telephone interview from Las Vegas, where he is putting in a week gambling about $3,000 in a bid to raise his pot.

By Wednesday, he was down $1,000.

Revell said he had planned to have a friend videotape his bet-it-all spin, but Britain's Sky One television decided it was worth a short reality series, called "Double or Nothing."

Sky will not pay him, he says, but a crew has followed his preparation and will cover the spin live on Sunday at the Hard Rock casino in Las Vegas. It also plans to follow him for a month afterward, win or lose.

Revell, recently a professional gambler, said he decided to take a big plunge while he was still young and raised the stakes as high as possible, including selling his clothes.

"I like to do things properly," he said.

He had not decided yet whether to place his money or red or black on Sunday afternoon.

"I don't know, man," he said. "One of them is going to be the right thing to say and one is going to be the wrong thing."

He added that if he won he would probably take his winnings rather than spin again.

he went to the hard rock to do this? DUH

if he was going to try it for that kind of $, the alladin is a giood place since it only has a single zero