Advantage play / cheating / crime....where is the line?

[unowme]

You can apply RoR to a -EV game with some predefined limit. Even recreational gamblers have to consider how much money they should take to the casino if they want to last 1 hour on their favorite slot.

I was answering the question under the assumption that a person planned to play again after they hit their limit (for example playing 150 similar sessions as Redietz mentioned) versus never playing ever again. Unowme, the actual figure is about 61%. That is, if you are playing 8/5 Bonus Poker $1 denomination VP, betting 5 coins a spin,with a bank roll of $55,000 (and perfect discarding strategy - no "special plays"), the probability of achieving a bank roll of $57,500 is 61%. So now there is an event that has a 61% of occurring. Does anyone seriously believe that you can play Russian Roulette long enough to make almost $400000 like Ron says given this probability (39% chance of ruin before achieving the bank roll goal) ? Ok Ron is doing denominational switching, but the pull of gravity does not disappear. It would be onerous to compute this mathematically, it would be best done by simulation. Gravity wins. Anyone who doesn't believe this is delusional. Using a players club card(s) like other posters have suggested is the only way to beat the pull of gravity (on a negative EV game). Ron's financial goals may have been achieved via the Nestor/Kane bug, but certainly not playing straight up 8/5 bonus poker (with generous free play it may be profitable, but this was never stated until recently as other posters have pointed out).

Thank you for that, sir. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that you can beat the house to infinity with a martingale like system. I was questioning how that 5% figure was calculated. That's far different than the 39% chance you're estimating. Of course your calculation doesn't account for a progressive betting system which must significantly influence that probability of making a modest goal in a single session.

So, my thought is that one might be able to structure the betting progression and limits such that the vast majority of people that play it end up winners but a few lose more in total than the winners. It doesn't overcome the pull of gravity, but might explain how someone could in fact make 400K doing it...they just can't continue do it forever. That's why I questioned the 5% number (I know...it's not your number). That's the key to whether it's even possible. If it's 5% it's highly unlikely. If it's 39% it's impossible. If it's .05%...I'm not so sure. As John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we're all dead'.

I'm beginning to think the 5% claim was originally drawn from thin air though.

In any event, I just posted here to talk about the original topic which was whether exploiting the Double Up flaw was cheating or a crime or immoral. It's morphed into an attack on Rod Singer's credibility which I find less interesting than who might play him in the future movie biopic. Carry on!