You took the bonus - now what?

[kirby]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Vesuvio]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

With a 20x playthrough on slots, assuming a 5% house edge, you're expected to lose everything (in this case $150) i.e. 3000x0.05=150. That could be why you're struggling to make a profit

 

[realwtfsup]

I take bonus to gamble with. Gamble to me means I might lose all my money =)

Have had some luck especially with my firt two Lucky Nugget and The Gaming Club. It is a slots only bonus deposit $50 get $200. Cashed out $1500 total at both.

 

[Pinababy69]

Sometimes I win with a bonus, but more often than not I lose it all. I'd say I win about 10% of the time if I'm lucky. And I am a strictly slots player, don't play anything but slots.

 

[Nomad]

There is a way to make these profitable if you can handle the variance. Essentially, you bet everything on one hand of blackjack, red/black on roulette, or some other essentially 50/50 bet. Check the T&C, but some places will allow you to play these games, just not to count them towards the WR. At this point, you've either doubled or busted. If you double, play through the WR and cashout. If not, you're out a hundred bucks. Basically, the effect is cutting the WR in half. If you wanted to, you could go further than just doubling. Just a personal preference. This strategy is not one that I devised, but it does work mathematically. How well it workds depends on the terms of the particular bonus.

[edit] Due to the variance, this requires a substancial bankroll, especially if you expect to try to make this significantly profitable. A somewhat smaller bankroll is ok if your goal is to simply increase your odds a bit, but not to necessarily guarantee a long term profit. [/edit]

 

[buck]

Bonus WR

If you can get some decent build up even playing BJ most MG will have some double line non jackpot slots that pay close to even money. Have used this in the past. But normally skip the bonus. Be careful that specific games are restricted from WR but no prohibited.

Buck

 

[KasinoKing]

OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus. You've got a x20 playtrhough so you're going to have to wager $3000 without losing that $150. Rules probably prohibit or restrict the use of blackjack, video poker or craps to meet that requirement.

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.

Well, I only deposit when I get a bonus, and I make profit 9/10 months.
So I guess the answer is yes, I can consistently outlast the house odds.

I don't have a specific strategy, and I very rarely play Blackjack or Video Poker that so many others seem to advocate (even when it is allowed in WR).
The main thing is don't lose too much on any one game, but quit when you're ahead, and switch to a different game.
This should especially be applied to slots. I know we all think 'the feature hasn't hit for ages - it MUST come soon!' But when you've done 400 spins of Thunderstruck without ever hitting 3-Rams, and lost half your bankroll - you are WAY past the point you should have stopped!
I recently did a deposit $100, $300 bonus, 20x WR = $8000 on MG slots only - and came out the other side with $475 in the bank (no mega-wins). So it can be done! Mind you - it took me over a month!

Good luck!

 

[Black21Jack]

I recently did a deposit $100, $300 bonus, 20x WR = $8000 on MG slots only - and came out the other side with $475 in the bank (no mega-wins). So it can be done! Mind you - it took me over a month!

It took over a month to make a $475.00 profit? and you had to risk your tiny $100.00 deposit with $8000.00 in wagers? Holy cow! no wonder I stay away from bonuses.

 

[kirby]

Thanks to all for the comments thus far. I had thought about the all-in bet to boost the bankroll so it's interesting to see that for some it works. Need to check the T&C as backjack is the only "table" game tht I know how to play.

The other comments go to my ambivalence towrds the bonuses. It is gambling and, yeah, expecting to lose it all is part of the game, but the deck seemed stacked against us (so to speak) at 20x. Seems like a lot of work for something "free."

Thanks again

 

[KasinoKing]

It took over a month to make a $475.00 profit? and you had to risk your tiny $100.00 deposit with $8000.00 in wagers? Holy cow! no wonder I stay away from bonuses.

Well it wasnt like that was the only casino I used or that played it every day for a month!
I usually play 10-15 different casinos per month. But I do stick to very low stakes as I recall, I think that $8K took over 13,000 spins!
I love gambling, but hate losing my mission is just to finish every month in the black.
(PS: Actually it was $375 profit - I can see maths is not your strong point! )

The other comments go to my ambivalence towards the bonuses. It is gambling and, yeah, expecting to lose it all is part of the game, but the deck seemed stacked against us (so to speak) at 20x. Seems like a lot of work for something "free."

The Blackjack experts (like Black21Jack!) will assure you 20x WR is extremely good if Blackjack is allowed and youre dealt a fair game. If you flat bet the WR the maths say you should come out with a profit. But I (and many casinos) consider that to be a) Bonus Abuse, and b) Extremely boring and sad!
Casinos are for gambling and having fun so have a go at slots, stud, or 3-card poker you never know, you might catch a big one! It works for me!

 

[sirius]

The 'boost your bankroll by playing BJ or roulette' method is actually flawed and some casinos seem to believe in it and have banned those games totally. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering and not banned altogether. It doesn't make sense to stop new players from playing the popular games. All the games have a house edge so any play on those games will help the casino in the long run and reduce a player's bankroll on average. They would still need to play enough on the allowed games to cashout.

It is true that there is an advantage in boosting your bankroll before finishing the wagering (in effect treating it as a sticky bonus that is lost after wagering) but most players will actually have a higher chance of *really* boosting the bankroll playing the allowed slots due to the extreme variance! You should be doing ok on the slot-only bonuses, and you don't even need to bet big on them.

 

[sirius]

Can anyone post their wins on the slots bonuses? I'm sure there will be a lot of very big winners. Of course, most of the time you will lose but you should be ahead on average if you play enough of them. It does help to bet big on them but it is not necessary.

 

[GrandMaster]

The 'boost your bankroll by playing BJ or roulette' method is actually flawed and some casinos seem to believe in it and have banned those games totally. They should just be excluded from counting towards the wagering and not banned altogether. It doesn't make sense to stop new players from playing the popular games. All the games have a house edge so any play on those games will help the casino in the long run and reduce a player's bankroll on average. They would still need to play enough on the allowed games to cashout..

This idea is not flawed, you can increase your expected profit by this method at the expense of increasing the variance. I don't know how many people actually use it.

It is true that there is an advantage in boosting your bankroll before finishing the wagering (in effect treating it as a sticky bonus that is lost after wagering) but most players will actually have a higher chance of *really* boosting the bankroll playing the allowed slots due to the extreme variance! You should be doing ok on the slot-only bonuses, and you don't even need to bet big on them

I think most slots-only bonuses don't have a positive expectation for the player, but I don't know the probability distributions to make the calculations. You should certainly bet big to increase your expectations.

 

[chalupa]

"Boost your bankroll" strategy absolutely works, and in fact is the only way to make money in the long run with many of these bonuses.

Assume this:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus with 20x wagering required on slots

Expected loss on a 5% slot machine is 20x(50+100) x 5% = $150


Results without bankroll boosting:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus - $150 expected loss = $0
Net profit/loss: -$50.00


Results with maximum roulette bankroll boosting (first risk it all on 1 number in roulette, then play out slots if you win):
36/37 times = $0
1/37 times = $5400 win - $150 expected loss = $5250
Average = 5250/37 = $142
Net profit/loss: +$92.00


This extreme example of bankroll boosting turns a $50 LOSS into a $92 PROFIT, in the long-term.

That is why casinos don't allow roulette with bonuses.

 

[chalupa]

By the way... don't try the above example at home unless:

1. You are comfortable with the extreme variance (you can go a long time before you hit that one number... the Theory Of Probability can be a harsh mistress in the short term).
2. You are certain the casino will pay out if you do hit the big one.

You should always bankroll boost first in this situation (unless you're just playing for fun... bankroll boosting tends to shorten your playing time considerably in the short-term ), but perhaps in a less extreme fashion.

If you risk it all on less of a longshot, your profits won't be as high, but they will be more consistent and you will be less likely to run into raised eyebrows upon withdrawal.

No matter what you do, you of course always need to follow the casino's Terms and Conditions to the letter, because the casino doesn't like smart players.

 

[sirius]

"Boost your bankroll" strategy absolutely works, and in fact is the only way to make money in the long run with many of these bonuses.

Assume this:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus with 20x wagering required on slots

Expected loss on a 5% slot machine is 20x(50+100) x 5% = $150


Results without bankroll boosting:
$50 deposit + $100 bonus - $150 expected loss = $0
Net profit/loss: -$50.00


Results with maximum roulette bankroll boosting (first risk it all on 1 number in roulette, then play out slots if you win):
36/37 times = $0
1/37 times = $5400 win - $150 expected loss = $5250
Average = 5250/37 = $142
Net profit/loss: +$92.00


This extreme example of bankroll boosting turns a $50 LOSS into a $92 PROFIT, in the long-term.

That is why casinos don't allow roulette with bonuses.

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots (most players will have more chance of boosting it a lot playing the slots as they need to bet big in the other games). It is flawed to ban roulette and blackjack. Slots actually have much higher variance so the house edge isn't a significant consideration for many thousands of spins.

The expected loss you calculated for slots assumes you will wager $3000 but, due to the variance, the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered. Betting big will increase the average profit for the player but it probably isn't necessary to have an advantage.

I hope you understand why it is flawed for casinos to ban these popular games. The average player can easily hit tens of thousands on the slots due to the variance but are unlikely to 'shoot that far' playing blackjack and roulette. The odds of hitting a certain target in blackjack and roulette will be slightly higher due to the lower house edge but the max target a player will aim for will not realistically be as high as is possible playing slots. Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

 

[sirius]

Basically, I am saying that it's not a bad idea to play slots for the 'phantom/sticky' bonuses (including other bonuses where you are expected to lose the lot in the wagering), especially if you bet big. When playing with the bonus, you want to have the possibility of winning a high amount to maximize the average profit. The fact that you will lose the whole lot most of the time isn't something you should worry about because it minimizes the average wagered amount.

 

[chalupa]

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots...

I'm sorry, I think you have this exactly wrong. The more you play slots, the more likely it is that the high house edge will grind you away into oblivion.

Your only hope is to hit a huge win -- and the chance of that happening is much smaller than the 1/37 chance of hitting a single number on roulette. A small win here or there won't do it, because you don't have the option to cash out early. You still have to complete your wagering requirements.

the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered

Huh? In this case the player loss is not less than $50 -- it is exactly $50.

I hope you understand why it is flawed for casinos to ban these popular games. The average player can easily hit tens of thousands on the slots due to the variance but are unlikely to 'shoot that far' playing blackjack and roulette.

You are correct, I believe, about the average player

The average player is going to bet small and stretch their gaming experience. Regardless of what game the average player chooses, unless they get absurdly lucky, they are doomed.

Clearly, the casino is not worried about the average player.

The casino IS worried about the bonus hunter, to whom the 36:1 leverage offered by roulette is a potent weapon.

Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

The average result on your total balance is negative, yes. There is no way around that.

But you don't care about that. What you care about is the result relative to your initial deposit. And as I showed in my example, it is possible to show a substantial long-term profit by leveraging the bonus money.

------

Some of the above also brings up another point about large wagering requirements, specifically the "risk of ruin".

Risk-of-ruin is the chance you will be wiped out before completing the wagering requirements, even if the bonus amount is higher than your expected loss for those wagering requirements.

Even a good game like blackjack has a high risk-of-ruin if you are required to wager a large amount compared to your bankroll.

Look at the seemingly generous 32% sign-up bonus at Old / Expired Link that allows blackjack. Then check out this table at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. Do you think 32 Red picked those wagering requirements and minimum bet sizes by sheer coincidence?

And when you compare blackjack to a high-variance high-edge game like slots, you can imagine that your risk-of-ruin goes through the roof. Especially when you consider that a 5% slot machine may actually be closer to 10% if you don't count the extreme longshot of the jackpot.

Again the solution, is... LEVERAGE that casino bonus money while you have it, before the wagering requirements grind it away. Double-down, and double-down again, baby!

 

[KasinoKing]

Again the solution, is... LEVERAGE that casino bonus money while you have it, before the wagering requirements grind it away. Double-down, and double-down again, baby!

I really like your positive attitude, baby!

But I can't believe you're really serious about the 'one number at roulette' plan. Losing 36 out of every 37 deposits would grind down even the most hardened of gamblers!
Have you ever actually tried it yourself? I doubt it!

 

[chalupa]

Of the top of my head I don't know any place that allows roulette with a match bonus currently, but when they did I have taken my long-shots -- never more than $100 per number though.

Currently about the only time I play roulette is for promos where you get cash back on losses, as it is usually allowed. Again, in those situations, it is to your advantage to take a long-shot. Generally I go for about a 6x return.

For match bonuses, I routinely risk hundreds where I have roughly only a 25% or 10% chance of winning.

The 25% is typically all on Pair Plus in three-card poker. The 10% (roughly) is to bet $100 multihand video poker and double it 3x.

And yes, you are right, it can be brutal in the short term -- I just lost about $1000 today. But I do have a nice long-term profit to show for it.

 

[thelawnet]

What I was trying to explain was that you are just as likely to increase your bankroll by that amount or more playing the slots (most players will have more chance of boosting it a lot playing the slots as they need to bet big in the other games). It is flawed to ban roulette and blackjack. Slots actually have much higher variance so the house edge isn't a significant consideration for many thousands of spins.

The expected loss you calculated for slots assumes you will wager $3000 but, due to the variance, the player loss is more likely to be less than $50 on average because many times the bankroll will be wiped out well before even a third of the requirements are wagered.

This is true.....

If we consider a hypothetical simplified slot with the following (generous) paytable:

Probability Pay
.00002 10,000
.035 10
.4 1

The payout can be seen to sum to 95%, and the WR is $3000 with a $1 stake. Given our initial bank of $50 deposit + $100 bonus = $150, it seems we should lose $3000 *.05 = $150, or lose all our money. So the offer seems to be bad for us.

Based on a 10,000,000 trial simulation, we get an average final balance of $119.65. Ths is a $69.65 profit on something that appears to have no advantage!

Why? Well, the average number of spins was 632.6, because if we hit the jackpot we will definitely do all 3,000 spins without busting, but if not then it's highly unlikely. So the actual practical average WR is $633. This sounds a lot better than $3,000! The downside is the reason for that low WR is that you have lost all your money most of the time....

So using the actual average wagered amount, 632.6 * 0.05 = $31.63 expected loss. So rather than losing $150 (all the bonus + the deposit) on average, we lose far less. If the casino hadn't given us a bonus, then we would have lost $31.63 on average (where in order for the mean of the sampling distribution to appear normal, you need to playing this offer thousands of times at the least), which is as you would expect for a game with a house edge, but as they gave us $100, so we are ahead.

The downside is that we have a 98.8% chance of busting out, so the offer is very high risk to lose $100, much less to win.

This wouldn't work where you have to meet the WR to get the bonus, only when you get the bonus in advance.... Or if you continued to the WR, redepositing (which would be pointless, given that there is no more bonus to get). So the correct strategy that maximizes EV (at the expense of horrible risk to your bankroll) on a given bonus-paid-before-WR-met promotion is to reduce the number of expected number of spins to a minimum by choosing a game that has most of its payout as the jackpot. Obviously a low house advantage is good as well, but given a $3000 WR, and the choice between a 95% return on a low-variance slot with an average of 2,000 spins before busting, or a 90% return on average of 800 spins, the 90% slot has a higher EV (but much higer variance).

Unfortunately my example above is purely theoretical, and I have no idea whether it bears any resemblance to any actual slot..... It's much easier to find probabilities for video poker than for slot machines. But if you had the pay table and probability for a casino's slots, you could compare them all with for the WR and work out the risk of ruin (or rather the risk of NOT getting ruined, which is probably more appropriate when the risk of ruin is 99%!), and decide which is the best one to play.

The odds of hitting a certain target in blackjack and roulette will be slightly higher due to the lower house edge but the max target a player will aim for will not realistically be as high as is possible playing slots. Obviously for all these games, the average result will be negative due to the house edge in all of them.

If we used this hypothetical slot machine, then the average win, excluding bust-outs is $119.65 * 100/1.12 from $150 (now disregarding the bonus) = $9960, or slightly less than the $10,000 (jackpot.

If we played roulette with a $150 balance, with an evens payout on 18/37 odds, betting the whole balance every time, then to get to $10,000 we would need only 6 bets (1 bet taking us to $300, 2 to $600, 3 to $1200, 4 to $2400, 5 to $4800, and 6 to $9600). (18/37)^6 = 0.013.

So in fact a $10,000 target is equally reasonable (1.2% vs 1.3%), even playing a suicidal roulette strategy. It's simply psychology that allows people to feed $150 into a slot machine chasing that improbable win, whereas they are unlikely to keep doubling up from $1200 to get that $9600 win, for fear of losing what they have already got. But in fact in both cases you are jeopardizing your $150 in return for a remote chance of $10,000.

 

[KasinoKing]

Welcome to the forum, thelawnet!

Exactly how many maths degrees have you got???

VERY impressive stuff! :notworthy (I just wish I could understand some of it!)

 

[sirius]

First of all, I'm glad someone can see what I'm trying to say!

This is true.....

If we consider a hypothetical simplified slot with the following (generous) paytable:

Probability Pay
.00002 10,000
.035 10
.4 1

The payout can be seen to sum to 95%, and the WR is $3000 with a $1 stake. Given our initial bank of $50 deposit + $100 bonus = $150, it seems we should lose $3000 *.05 = $150, or lose all our money. So the offer seems to be bad for us.

Based on a 10,000,000 trial simulation, we get an average final balance of $119.65. Ths is a $69.65 profit on something that appears to have no advantage!

Why? Well, the average number of spins was 632.6, because if we hit the jackpot we will definitely do all 3,000 spins without busting, but if not then it's highly unlikely. So the actual practical average WR is $633. This sounds a lot better than $3,000! The downside is the reason for that low WR is that you have lost all your money most of the time....

So using the actual average wagered amount, 632.6 * 0.05 = $31.63 expected loss. So rather than losing $150 (all the bonus + the deposit) on average, we lose far less. If the casino hadn't given us a bonus, then we would have lost $31.63 on average (where in order for the mean of the sampling distribution to appear normal, you need to playing this offer thousands of times at the least), which is as you would expect for a game with a house edge, but as they gave us $100, so we are ahead.

The downside is that we have a 98.8% chance of busting out, so the offer is very high risk to lose $100, much less to win.

I haven't simulated any slot machine but I'm sure most slots aren't as high variance as that (there will be more payoffs inbetween in the paychart). You wouldn't want as high a chance of busting as that.

This wouldn't work where you have to meet the WR to get the bonus, only when you get the bonus in advance.... Or if you continued to the WR, redepositing (which would be pointless, given that there is no more bonus to get). So the correct strategy that maximizes EV (at the expense of horrible risk to your bankroll) on a given bonus-paid-before-WR-met promotion is to reduce the number of expected number of spins to a minimum by choosing a game that has most of its payout as the jackpot. Obviously a low house advantage is good as well, but given a $3000 WR, and the choice between a 95% return on a low-variance slot with an average of 2,000 spins before busting, or a 90% return on average of 800 spins, the 90% slot has a higher EV (but much higer variance).

It is better to choose the higher house edge slot in your example but you can usually also effectively increase the variance by increasing the bet/coin size. It therefore probably doesn't matter too much which slot is chosen. Players could analyse the variance using the 'fun mode' of casinos if they wanted to create a paytable to run through a simulation.

So in fact a $10,000 target is equally reasonable (1.2% vs 1.3%), even playing a suicidal roulette strategy. It's simply psychology that allows people to feed $150 into a slot machine chasing that improbable win, whereas they are unlikely to keep doubling up from $1200 to get that $9600 win, for fear of losing what they have already got. But in fact in both cases you are jeopardizing your $150 in return for a remote chance of $10,000.

It is common sense that a high win is almost as equally reasonable playing slots. Due to the high variance, players will also probably win more on the occasions they do win as they wouldn't aim as far playing roulette or blackjack. The house edge won't be significant because the wagering is only in the few thousands. Casinos must have been browsing the 'bonus hunter' forums and been taken in by the methods of others and believed they should ban those games. It's bad for business for them to ban the popular games such as roulette and blackjack completely in promotions. They obviously should not count them for the wagering requirements if they feel they need to do that but it doesn't make any sense to ban them altogether.

 

[loganberry]

You took the bonus...now what...

Kirby writes:
OK, say you deposited $50 and got a $100 bonus....

I can sometimes get up $1000 or maybe $1500 on slots before I'm broke.
I question whether anyone can actually consistently outlast the house odds, but if you have a strategy, I'd love to hear about it.


Have turned $5 bonus into between $2000 - $2800 a few times, playing only on slots.

I usually start playing on a bonus slot for around 80c per go and if/when I reach $16, I try my luck at Break Da Bank, playing one line at $1 per go. If I hit $320 or $640, which I have done, then I go to What a Hoot/Carnaval, and play a few $2.25 spins to get a feel as to how things are going, then increase the bet to $45 for a couple of spins, then back down to $2.25, then back up to $45 for a couple more spins, etc. etc.

It's hard work, and takes me hours, but if I crack it, it is well worth it....By the way, does this then make me a 'smart' player who the casinos despise? I am playing for entertainment, but I am also playing to make a profit!

If on Break da Bank I only win $40/$80, then I revert to playing bonus games again to try to build it up to something more.....Ho Ho Ho, Tally Ho, etc @ $1.50 per go. If I win nothing at all, then there is always next time.

My usual deposit is about $50, and I did convert that to $18k once, using the same play methods as above. Took the best part of 24 hours, but was it worth it!!!

On a few occasions, the total wager has been well in excess of $15k...gulp...but all from either a $50 purchase or $5 bonus.

 

[thelawnet]

First of all, I'm glad someone can see what I'm trying to say!



I haven't simulated any slot machine but I'm sure most slots aren't as high variance as that (there will be more payoffs inbetween in the paychart). You wouldn't want as high a chance of busting as that.

I don't think it's that bad..... 20% of the payout as returned as jackpot, the rest will pay off regularly (and there are plenty of worse slots than 75% in the world). So the greater the percentage of the payout whose chance is lower than the number of spins, the lower the number of expected spins.

It is better to choose the higher house edge slot in your example but you can usually also effectively increase the variance by increasing the bet/coin size. It therefore probably doesn't matter too much which slot is chosen. Players could analyse the variance using the 'fun mode' of casinos if they wanted to create a paytable to run through a simulation.

Actually increasing coin size is not as effective in increasing variance as increasing the proportion of the jackpot that goes to an improbably jackpot, although there's no question that it does. Although the payout of slot machines is not distributed normally, in general increasing coin size by a factor of x would increase variance by of sqrt(x). This isn't accurate for modelling risk of ruin for slots as the distribution is not normal for big jackpot slots for sample sizes less than several million units. If I bet $1 a time, according to my example above, 1.2% of the time you hit the jackpot and complete the 3000 spins, hence $3,000. The rest of the time you will lose $25 out of every $100 you bet, as if we took out the $10,000 jackpot the slot would pay 75%. But the average number of spins is 636, given that 1.2% of the time we get a jackpot, completing all 3,000 spins. If we multiply the coin size by 10, we have 60 spins, but we still lose $600. But given that the jackpot was already improbable for our sample size, reducing the sample size by increasing the coin size does not have a huge effect on our expected value for our hypothetical slot machine, reducing the chance of a jackpot for our sample to 0.12%, and meaning that we will complete (roughly) 60.36 spins for a total value of $604 rather than $636...

This will increase our EV by $32 * 5% = $1.60, but means we have a 0.12% chance of winning $100,000 rather than a 1.2% chance of winning $10k... You pays your money and you takes your choice, but on a jackpot slot increasing coin size won't increase the EV of a promotion as effectively as choosing a slot that pays more of its return as a jackpot.

BTW, I like your idea of playing the slots in fun mode... I am surprised nobody seems to have done this. It would be useful to know the paytables for each game. I have not really played slots much, but I believe Viper slots have autoplay, with stats showing each win, which will play about 3,000 spins per hour. If you ran this for a day it would be enough to give some fairly accurate probabilities for at least the lower jackpot games.

 

[Nomad]

Based on a 10,000,000 trial simulation, we get an average final balance of $119.65. Ths is a $69.65 profit on something that appears to have no advantage!

Thanks for running the simulation. I agree that, in many cases, the more chance you have of busting out, the higher your EV, even though this is counterintuitive. Would it be possible to re-run the simulation using $300 as the starting point to see what your expectation is if you double on roulette? You would have a $300 starting balance 18/38 times and $0 the rest. Also, what about doubling twice, which gives you $600 on 324/1444 trials and should give you a slightly higher EV also. Not sure how these will work out with the pay table you described.

My personal preference would be to create variance in the doubling phase and then look for the lower variance slots to try to come closer to guaranteeing a profit (for the times I didn't bust when doubling).

 

[chalupa]

I've thought about this some more and I can see some of the points in defense of the slots strategy.

But I think the problem is still that you aren't getting maximum leverage of the casino's money at a reasonable house edge.

When you bet it all on roulette, you are getting ALL of the casino's money on the wheel, all at once, and are paying the house edge only once, at a relatively reasonable 2.70%.

Contrast this with slots, where you are subjecting yourself to a 5% edge repeatedly with smaller amounts. This is a sure-fire recipe for ruin, with the remote exception of hitting a jackpot or a series of smaller wins.

The comparison of 1.2% for slots vs 1.3% for roulette chance of hitting a $10,000 target is interesting if it's correct... I'm not quite sure that the slots have that "good" of a chance given the signficantly higher house edge. But in any case $10,000 is of course a realllly longshot target. Roulette allows you to choose a more realistic target.

By the way... repeatedly doubling your $150 at roulette would be a bad way to shoot for $10,000 because (just as with the slots) you subject yourself to the casino edge repeatedly. A better strategy would be to put your $150 on 20 numbers, then take your $270 win and slap it all on one number for a $9,720 win. This is a higher win than the $9,600 acheived by doubling, and with a better chance of success -- 1.46% instead of 1.33%.

But if you really want the best shot at a huge payoff (greed is good!), I think your best strategy may be video poker. Bet as much as you can on multi-hand Jacks Or Better, and then hammer that double down button until the desired result is achieved. The advantage of this strategy is that the double-down bet has a 0% casino edge.

 

[winbig]

Looks good on "paper", but in any online casino you're not going to be able to cover 20 numbers on $150 ($150/20 = $7.50)...The max numbers you could play to keep the bets the same across each number is 15. That increases your win to $350 instead of the $260 if that number hits, but lowers the odds considerably.


For 20 numbers, the closest you could come is changing the bet size for different numbers; but then you're totally messing with the % depending on which number and what size bet actually hits.

 

[chalupa]

So you put $7 on ten of the numbers and $8 on the other ten, and if you win the subsequent 37:1 shot you are a happy camper either way.

The example was just to show the mathematical advantage of betting it hard and fast.

You could also do it in reverse -- $150 on one number, then $5400 on 20 numbers -- to get around the rounding issue. Same payoff, same chance of success.

A bigger problem in practice is probably whether you can find a casino to allow that much action on a single spin.

I think you are more likely to be able to come close with a strategy where the last bet is a long-shot rather than the repeated doubling strategy. I'm not sure if there are online casinos that allow you to put $4,800 on an even money bet. Maybe they do, I've never tried.

 

[winbig]

So you put $7 on ten of the numbers and $8 on the other ten, and if you win the subsequent 37:1 shot you are a happy camper either way.

The example was just to show the mathematical advantage of betting it hard and fast.

You could also do it in reverse -- $150 on one number, then $5400 on 20 numbers -- to get around the rounding issue. Same payoff, same chance of success.

A bigger problem in practice is probably whether you can find a casino to allow that much action on a single spin.

I think you are more likely to be able to come close with a strategy where the last bet is a long-shot rather than the repeated doubling strategy. I'm not sure if there are online casinos that allow you to put $4,800 on an even money bet. Maybe they do, I've never tried.

True True True....all of it, lol

Just checked solomons, and theirs is $250 max. I'm sure most places are about the same - you'd need VIP status to be able to make it work.

 

[sirius]

By the way... repeatedly doubling your $150 at roulette would be a bad way to shoot for $10,000 because (just as with the slots) you subject yourself to the casino edge repeatedly. A better strategy would be to put your $150 on 20 numbers, then take your $270 win and slap it all on one number for a $9,720 win. This is a higher win than the $9,600 acheived by doubling, and with a better chance of success -- 1.46% instead of 1.33%.

It isn't that much of a difference even though when you win, the wagering is approaching 10k for the doubling method but far less in your method (although it's actually the average wagered amount that determines the odds of success). If you aim for a target of x times your starting bankroll, if the game is high variance enough or you can bet high enough, then the chance of reaching x is almost the same whatever the house edge is and this is especially true if you can minimize the average amount wagered to get there. The chance of success in your example is around 10% higher and will affect the average final bankroll by this much too. The effect on EV depends on the ratio between the bonus and deposit. So if you had a high percentage bonus, it will affect EV to a similar degree to the effect on the bankroll.

There is a fundamental difference between the strategies. In Slots only, you cannot aim for a specific win but are playing at a level which minimizes the amount wagered to maximize EV (at the 'expense' of high variance). In the other strategies, you have a specific aim to reach and it's an 'all or nothing' approach. In both, the only thing that really matters is the average wagered amount and this actually determines your EV. In the 'all or nothing' approach you then still have to play the slots wagering in full and this lowers EV further!

[$50 deposit $100 bonus]
Both 'all or nothing' roulette strategies (either you win or you lose it all) :
1: doubling strategy (which is not as good)
0.0133*9600 + 0.9867*0 = $127.68 which is an EV of ~$77.68

A loss of $22.32 which (due to the house edge) means an averaged wagered amount of 37 times that = $826 wagered on average per attempt.

2: strategy you gave to minimize wagered amount:
0.0146*9720 = ~$141.91 which is an EV of ~$91.91 (about 18% more EV due to the 100 bonus on the 50 deposit)

A loss of $8.09 which is an average wagered amount of $299

Without a house edge, you would have a ~1.56% chance of reaching 9600 so the house edge doesn't affect the chance of success too much but the EV can be affected more than this depending on the bonus/deposit ratio. You may think the $14 or so difference ($78 v $92 profit due to the differences in the wagered amounts) is a lot, but the variance will be very high so it actually isn't significant. With the maximum EV I think there is actually more variance due to the reduced number of bets and lower average wagered amount but I'd have to calculate the average bet size to be sure.

Now you will still have to play the slots but the EV of your bonus has now been reduced significantly playing roulette!! If you have boosted your bankroll, you will on average now wager the full amount each time and lose the bonus in the slots wagering. This will bring the average wagered amount up and in turn lower your EV even further but the amount of difference depends on the chance of success of boosting your bankroll in the first place. If w is the slots wagering requirements and s is the chance of success in boosting your bankroll, then s*w will be what is needed to be added to the above average wagering requirements and from there you can easily calculate the final EV of the bonus. The downside of having to play the full wagering requirements in slots whenever you succeed in boosting your bankroll is that you will have to make the chance of success of boosting your bankroll extremely low (such as in the above example when aiming for nearly $10k) to make this effect negligible on the final EV.

If you just played slot in the first place, you can do whatever you want to minimize the wagered amount (i.e. play large coin sizes and more lines) but due to the extreme variance, you will probably usually wager in the hundreds even playing average bets. When you win, you will only be wagering up to the WR but in the other strategies you will always wager even more (the 'boosting' wagers) and the average win in the slots-only strategy, when you don't wipe out, will also likely be in the thousands. This will mean that the average loss (you can calculate this from the average wagered amount) will be similar to the roulette calculations and in effect it is no different than boosting your bankroll using roulette but with the roulette method you have to further erode the EV playing the full WR in slots. That's why the method is flawed. Don't you think it would be best just to play slots?

 

[chalupa]

With the maximum EV I think there is actually more variance due to the reduced number of bets and lower average wagered amount but I'd have to calculate the average bet size to be sure.

Since you are in both cases "going for broke", the result is either $0 or approximately $10K. Therefore the variance will be LESS with the higher EV, since it also has a higher percentage chance of winning.

------

I understand (and hadn't considered before some of this thought-provoking debate) what you are saying that if you first go-for-broke with roulette you are always (upon success) subjected to the full slots wagering requirements.

However, as you point out, this is also true for slots (upon success), if you get lucky and win the jackpot.

So if you "need" a $10K slots jackpot to survive, then it seems to me you have to decide if it's more likely that you'll hit that $10K playing out your meager bankroll on slots, or going for broke on a lower house edge game like roulette.

Using the previous assumed numbers for slots and my improved roulette method, the chance of hitting that $10K is 1.2% for slots vs 1.46% for roulette. That is a (relatively) HUGE difference.

So... going for $10K roulette win vs $10K slots jackpot... seems like advantage to roulette.


But I think more importantly, roulette allows you to make money on a more consistent basis. There is no way to do this with the slots-only approach.

Again using the previous numbers, a slots-only approach was estimated to have only a 0.2% chance of not busting out!

With the roulette-first approach, you can adjust your chance of a successful cashout by choosing your initial target, something that slots (with a huge fixed jackpot) does not allow you to do.

Lets say you shoot for a $900 target with roulette first, with a 16.2% chance of hitting it. You then play it out on slots, giving you (I'd guess) something like an overall 15% chance of cashing out with a decent chunk of change.

Yes, you have to suffer the full slots wager requirements, lowering your long-term EV somewhat.

But... making a good (positive expected value) bet with a 15% chance of getting something out, is looking a whole lot better than a somewhat more positive expected value bet with only a 0.2% chance of success.

Sure, I'd take the 0.2% approach if I was convinced (still am not ) it was better... and I could repeat it about 100,000 times.

But since we are talking about bonus hunting, at only 0.2%, you could go a LIFETIME without ever cashing out.

 

[nafanny29]

I think we should rename this thread to "You got the maths degree - now what"

Seriously though very interesting stuff

 

[sirius]

Since you are in both cases "going for broke", the result is either $0 or approximately $10K. Therefore the variance will be LESS with the higher EV, since it also has a higher percentage chance of winning.

You are correct. It is just the success or failure odds in each case (binomial) with no other outcomes considered so the playing method won't affect the variance (the only difference is from the slight difference in the odds). If the probabilites weren't so low, you would be able to approximate the binomial (or any distribution) to a normal distribution after a suitable number of attempts but it's not feasible for such a low chance of success (unless you can play it hundreds of times) so you will have to use the binomial equations and the numbers are not going to be nice at all.

------

I understand (and hadn't considered before some of this thought-provoking debate) what you are saying that if you first go-for-broke with roulette you are always (upon success) subjected to the full slots wagering requirements.

However, as you point out, this is also true for slots (upon success), if you get lucky and win the jackpot.

So if you "need" a $10K slots jackpot to survive, then it seems to me you have to decide if it's more likely that you'll hit that $10K playing out your meager bankroll on slots, or going for broke on a lower house edge game like roulette.

Using the previous assumed numbers for slots and my improved roulette method, the chance of hitting that $10K is 1.2% for slots vs 1.46% for roulette. That is a (relatively) HUGE difference.

So... going for $10K roulette win vs $10K slots jackpot... seems like advantage to roulette.


But I think more importantly, roulette allows you to make money on a more consistent basis. There is no way to do this with the slots-only approach.

Again using the previous numbers, a slots-only approach was estimated to have only a 0.2% chance of not busting out!

I think this was misinterpreted. The chance of going bust was said to be 98.8% I think so success was actually 1.2%. This was actually not the chance of going bust, but the chance of the jackpot! It was said later that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as that because of other wins (even though the example slot only had a few different payoffs).

With the roulette-first approach, you can adjust your chance of a successful cashout by choosing your initial target, something that slots (with a huge fixed jackpot) does not allow you to do.

Lets say you shoot for a $900 target with roulette first, with a 16.2% chance of hitting it. You then play it out on slots, giving you (I'd guess) something like an overall 15% chance of cashing out with a decent chunk of change.

Yes, you have to suffer the full slots wager requirements, lowering your long-term EV somewhat.

But... making a good (positive expected value) bet with a 15% chance of getting something out, is looking a whole lot better than a somewhat more positive expected value bet with only a 0.2% chance of success.

Sure, I'd take the 0.2% approach if I was convinced (still am not ) it was better... and I could repeat it about 100,000 times.

But since we are talking about bonus hunting, at only 0.2%, you could go a LIFETIME without ever cashing out.

The 0.2% chance is wrong. You could easily make it 20% or more chance of not busting or anything you like with slots too by adjusting betting levels. Having a high chance of success defeats the purpose of this method which is to maximize EV. You should try to bust as often as reasonably possible, otherwise the method obviously won't work as well!

If you increase the odds of hitting the target in roulette (by lowering the target), you will reduce the overall EV in the opposite way to before. With this roulette method, not only will you be reducing the EV playing the roulette but you will then reduce the EV further when you win because the full wagering requirements need to be played through on slots. Usually, if playing to maximize EV, the main loss in EV is in the 'booster' wagering requirements but if you lower the target, the most EV is taken from the increased wagering in Slots. For a 16.2% chance of success, for the $3k wagering on a 5% slot edge means you will lose a further .162 * 3000 *0.05 =$24.3 of EV on top of the EV loss going for the roulette target. The slot method will have exactly the same EV loss for successes (assuming the playing method will create the same 16.2% chance of wiping out) and no further wagering is required.

The further wagering in roulette will lead to a further EV loss. 0.16216*900= 145.944 so your 16.216% chance of reaching $900 will mean an extra $4.05 lost in EV for the roulette method ($28.35 altogether). This means $150 (37*4.05) on average wagered on each roulette attempt (there are other ways to get there too but it would mean more wagers and slightly different odds). We can ignore the wagered amounts on slots for the successes because it is the same for both methods ($3000 is wagered 16.2% of the time on both the slots-only and the roulette methods) and adds the same $24.3 loss to the slot-only method EV.

This just leaves the average wagered amount in the slots method excluding the times when you win. Due to the higher house edge it would actually have to be around $96.66 wagers (on non-successes) on average to have the equivalent EV as the roulette method ($4.05/[0.838*0.05]). Obviously this isn't possible but it doesn't mean playing slots is a bad idea with a 16.2% chance. As long as you can keep it down (remember this is the average wagers for the times when you don't succeed in completing them), you will keep most of the bonus. A quarter of the bonus is gone anyway due to the chance of success being set quite high (this is nothing to do with which method you choose).

To play it properly to maximize EV would be to minimize the chance of success even more (higher target) and both methods would then approach a similar EV because more roulette wagering will be needed in that method to reach the target (low table limits will increase the amount needed to wager) so more can be wagered in the slots to have the same EV result and the EV difference between the methods should reduce.

The chance of success is really dependent on the variance of the slot which can also be manipulated with changing bet sizes. It's hard to say what a 16.2% chance of not busting in slots will mean in terms of average total amount wagered but it shouldn't be too many times the bankroll.

 

[chalupa]

Having a high chance of success defeats the purpose of this method which is to maximize EV. You should try and bust as often as reasonably possible, otherwise the method obviously won't work as well!

In the theoretical math world, yes you would always maximize EV. In the real world I'd prefer to cash out now and then.

Which would you rather bet $100 on if you could do it once per day?

A. Coin flip for $250 if it comes up heads (EV=$25)
B. Million-to-one shot to win $126 million (EV=$26)

If you choose "B" with a superior EV, let me ask you again in five years... after you've refinanced your home a couple times. I'll drive over in my new Mercedes (vanity plate CNFLIP) and we'll do lunch.

(Yes, in 0.18% of parallel universes* you can come see me in your Learjet. In which case YOU are buying lunch, you lucky bastard! )

The 0.2% chance is wrong. You could easily make it 20% or more chance of not busting or anything you like with slots too by adjusting betting levels.

Ok, it's 1.2% not 0.2%, my mistake.

But how in the (real) world can you obtain a 20% chance of success with slots in this example?


* 0.18% = 1 - (1 - 1/1,000,000 odds) ^ (365 days * 5 years)