Dear
Mark, A few weeks ago, I saw a man on live television walk into a casino in
Las Vegas, bet his entire life savings, and win $270,000. A few questions if I
may. Will there ever be a time when we can make wagers from home while the action
is played in a casino elsewhere by someone else? Also, with you formally being
in the gaming business, would you have taken the wager? Finally, how sound
was the bet? Danny R.
The person you are speaking of was Ashley Revell,
who put up his entire net worth of $135,300 on red at the roulette table while
a British film crew recorded the event. However, Danny, it was not live as your
question suggests, but taped delayed. The reason for the tape delay was because
the Wire Act provides criminal penalties to anyone engaging in the
business
of betting when using a wire communication facility for the transmission of interstate
or foreign commerce of bets or wagers on any sporting event, contest or betting
information. I’m sure The Plaza Hotel-Casino in downtown Las Vegas, where
the bet was placed, made sure the wager was taped and not broadcast live. So,
Danny, the answer to your first question is NO, I cannot foresee even lobbied
politicians of unsound mind allowing you to wager from your lazyboy chair on whether
Ravell wins or loses.
You also inquired if I, as an imaginary casino owner,
would have taken Ravell’s “life savings” wager. Not a chance, Danny. Even
with the global exposure that the wager received, I would have nixed the idea
of someone betting his or her life savings on one spin. This columnist has recommended
countless times that you should only bet what you can afford to lose, not everything
you own. Most of the casinos in Las Vegas would probably agree with Yours Truly;
of course, the others would have had their limos curbside at the airport awaiting
Revell’s arrival.
Finally, even though he won $135,300 (not $270,000,
see below) when the ball dropped into the seven slot, a red number, I must challenge
Revell’s wisdom for choosing roulette when risking his total net worth. There
were plenty of wagers in the casino that offer a better deal than double zero
roulette, where the house edge is 5.26% on every bet you place on the table, including
betting red. Revell broke the most fundamental principle of all of gambling; finding
the best bet and conditions. He was not gambling smart when he decided a single
spin at a double-zero roulette table is where he’d lay his brazen bet.
If
Revell was so gung-ho on roulette, he should have at least made that same wager
on a single zero roulette wheel where the house edge is a less murderous 2.70%.
Better yet, he should have avoided Las Vegas entirely and made the play in Atlantic
City, where some casinos have a special rule that allows only one half of the
wager to be lost whenever the ball lands on zero or double zero (0, 00). This
even-money outside bet is called Surrender. Surrender (or "en prison"
in French) is allowed only on even money bets that pay off at 1 to 1 (Red/black,
odd/even, 1-18/ and 19-36). In Revell’s case of betting Red, if 00 or 0 came
up, without Surrender, he would have automatically lost his bet. If Surrender
were available at the casino where he made the play, half of his wager would remain
on Red through the next spin. Itˆs called Surrender because his bet is temporarily
held hostage, or "en prison" if you like, awaiting the outcome of the
next spin. This Surrender option cuts the house edge on even money bets to 2.63%
on the American game, and down to 1.35% on the European, single-zero table.
By
the way, Danny, he did not win $270,000 as many news accounts reported. He risked
$135,300 and won $135,300.
