Chicago Sun-Times: Hot streaks are just temporary escapes from law of averages

Q. What's the longest winning streak you have ever witnessed in gambling?

Mary Ann G.

A. A streak is nothing more than a welcome (to one side, that is, unwelcome to the other), momentary flutter in an endless timeline, which will soon be balanced by one or more unwelcome flutters.

As for streaks observed, I once dealt a lady 32 straight winning hands in blackjack. I tried like the dickens to get her to progressively bet more, but she took her $64 (32 hands at $2 each) after the run ended and walked away a happy camper, with a smile and a yarn for a lifetime.

I once had a horse in the money in 17 consecutive races over two days at Pimlico, offset by not having a horse crossing the line for cash for the next 35 races. See why the gods of chance are always shown grinning?

But the most superlative streak belongs to Kimmy T. from Traverse City, Mich., who accumulated 47 winning sessions in a row in a casino. Yes, readers, don't let your eyes deceive you -- you're reading it right. As an eyewitness at both the Leelanau Sands and the Turtle Creek Casino, I observed or documented Kimmy briefly tossing the odds into a cocked hat. She started her run nine months ago when she, her husband, my wife, my father and I hit the Leelanau Sands for an afternoon of leisurely gambling.

Her eventual gambling timeline, 47 consecutive visits to the casino and coming out a winner each time, is still within the realm of unusual fluctuations, where -- briefly -- results seem to defy the dictates of probability. The casino's built-in advantage on the games she played didn't hold during her brief gaming stints. She made her gambling timeline as short as possible, always beginning with a bankroll of $80, walking away with as little as a $20 profit in 10 minutes, or as much as $1,150 in a two-hour period.

Kimmy's games of choice were but three: double-zero roulette, where the house edge is 5.26 percent on all the wagers she made; three-card poker with a simple basic strategy she learned from this column, which lowered the house edge on the "ante" wager to about 2.1 percent and the "pair-plus" bet to a slightly higher 2.3 percent; and, dare I say it, $1 slots.

The casino advantage on one-armed bandits in Michigan is unknown. Though many state gaming regulatory or tax agencies publicize casino slot returns for their respected jurisdictions (Illinois does), Michigan casinos are not required by law to release information on their slot-machine payback percentages. All the Michigan casino must do is meet the same standards for machines as in New Jersey or Nevada. In New Jersey, the minimum return is 83 percent; in Nevada, it's 75 percent. Thus, Michigan casinos must return at least 75 percent to comply with the law.

Yet, the casino edge for slot machines -- and, for that matter, for all casino games -- is based on long-term trials. Casinos are open 24 hours a day, greeting with a big smile those millions of handle pulls. With thousands of hopefuls playing Kimmy's games of choice -- slots, double-zero roulette and three-card poker -- at any given moment, and with a mathematical advantage to the casino in every one of them, the casino doesn't lose, unless a godsend anomaly occurs, as it did for her.

Have faith, Mary Ann, in the casino's advantage being quite real, but predicated on the operation of the "law of averages" over a long period. By exposing your money for an extended period, you veer unavoidably closer to the ultimate built-in loss that the casino's statistician has prepared for you. Brevity of a gambling session is, for that reason, the secret weapon Kimmy employed.

Mark Pilarski is a syndicated gaming writer. Send e-mails to: pilarski@markpilarski.com.