[klinskyc]

This article makes some inane points.

1) The SuperDome has had a corporate sponsor (Mercedes Benz) since 2011. It's not like Caesars caused them to sell out.

2) No legal Pennsylvania sportsbook is advertising (or even offering options to bet on) B league Argentinian soccer. It's very likely the gambler in the article was on a grey-area offshore sports book (e.g Bovada), and legalizing sports betting helps combat those.

3) Sportsbooks paying $18 in total on two $10 bets is known as the "hold" and it's basically a transaction cost. You could make the same argument about poker (with the rake) or stock trading commissions. If there's a cost per transaction in an otherwise zero-sum game then money is being continuously removed from the total sum.

4) When you are betting in a non-exchange context (the case for all U.S based books), the sports book is taking the other side of the bet. They may try to balance the book, or lay off bets, but they often do end up taking risk on one side. This is advantageous for the book when done correctly.

5) Sports Betting is the only gambling option where you are betting against the house in a situation where the true odds are not known pre-facto. This is very different than blackjack or roulette where the odds are known beforehand, and the house can ensure the odds are always in their favor.

6) This means that sportsbetting is hypothetically (and often in practice) uniquely winnable in the long term. If you are better at determining the true odds for an outcome than the sportsbook, then you can have positive expected value.

7) If the above wasn't true, then sportsbooks would not have to limit winning players (which frequently happens). Sports betting is basically the only gambling option where the house does not always encourage/want more betting volume from players.

[umanwizard]

Slight correction: blackjack is also possible to play with positive value for the player[1], and casinos routinely ban blackjack players for being too skilled. It’s also much easier to play blackjack with positive EV than to bet on sports, but it’s also trivial to detect if surveillance is paying attention, so the real game is avoiding surveillance in various ways, e.g. by never staying at the same casino for long.

1: technically this depends on the exact rules, most notably (1) how much is paid out for a blackjack (3:2 is ok, 6:5 is unplayable) and (2) “penetration”, i.e. how many cards are dealt from a shoe before a reshuffle. But it’s still very easy to find blackjack games with beatable rules.

[pessimizer]

> blackjack is also possible to play with positive value for the player[1]

Unless you're talking about card-counting (it's fair if you are) it's not possible to "play" with a positive value for the player; doing what you have to do to get that 2% or whatever means you have to strictly run an algorithm and not fuck it up. Screw up once and that 2% is gone.

[cmeacham98]

Given that they mention 'penetration' I can practically guarantee they're talking about card counting, I can't think of any other reason it would ever matter.

Semi-offtopic: It seems like it would be very easy for casinos to completely prevent card counting at blackjack.

I wonder if the fact a lot of games are beatable is intentional bait for novice counters that will screw up and lose. Maybe casinos have done the math on this and figure they win more from the novices than they lose from the experts (before they kick them out).

[umanwizard]

> I wonder if the fact a lot of games are beatable is intentional bait for novice counters that will screw up and lose.

This is surely part of it. The other factors are that many non-advantageous players dislike continuous shuffle machines for superstitious reasons, and using a traditional shoe (not continuously shuffled) but massively decreasing penetration leads to less hands per hour (and therefore less profit) due to time wasted shuffling. So neither of the most obvious countermeasures is free for the casino.

But honestly, even though it’s still beatable, the modern shoe game is way less profitable than old-school single-deck games (and casinos that still offer single-deck, like El Cortez in Vegas, are famous for watching them like a hawk and kicking out players they have the slightest suspicion are counting). So it’s not like casinos have done nothing to protect themselves from advantage players.

[lotsofpulp]

I assume card counting is already pretty impossible due to automated shuffling machines with a ton of decks in them.

[umanwizard]

Card counting is indeed impossible on games with a continuous shuffling machine that shuffles after every hand (or every few hands). But many games don’t use those, because they’re expensive, and even non-advantage-players dislike them for superstitious reasons.

Indeed, plenty of games do use CSMs which is one of the many reasons card counting is harder and less profitable than it was in the past. But it’s not impossible.

[lotsofpulp]

Interesting, thanks for the additional info.

[umanwizard]

Yes, I’m talking mostly about card counting (although there are other advantage strategies, like trying to find an unskilled dealer who accidentally exposed their hole card).

[selimthegrim]

Side bets like insurance exist to derail this.

[umanwizard]

Competent card counters simply don’t play insurance unless the count justifies it, so it’s not really an effective countermeasure against them. It does increase the casino’s profit against unskilled players, though. (And indeed, plenty of people think they’re in the former category but are actually in the latter…)