MovieChat Forums > Lola rennt (1999) Discussion > Casino fix ******Spoliers*****

Casino fix **Spoliers*

posted 16 years ago by darkestblue
12 replies | jump to latest

Don't know if I imagined it, but I'm almost sure that in the casino, the manager next to the roulette table (Daniel Craig look-a-like) gave the croupier a nod. It was only the very slightest head movement but I thought it was as if to say "let her win a second time". (I'm assuming he's the manager cos he seems to override the big security guard who wants her to leave)

Why would he do this??

Some scruff walks in amongst a load of suits and he lets her win big - wouldn't this p**s of his regulars?!

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

[–] Supernova90 16 years ago

The nod was to wait, as far as I know.

i don't like quentint tarantula because his page takes too long to scroll through.

[–] mccarronsj 16 years ago

I understood it to mean "wait" too

"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it"

[–] darkestblue 16 years ago

Guess I was reading into it a bit too much!!

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

[–] Mrs_Bundy 16 years ago

I liked that scene. If you look carefully at the painting on the wall you'll notice that it references Kim Novak's blond French twist in Vertigo.

[–] hutsell 16 years ago

When the game is being honestly operated, this is the method of communication (in the States) used between a "dealer" and a "pit boss" when a bet by a player is above the maximum limit -- it's 3000.00 at most tables I've seen in Nevada (at Lake Tahoe, Reno and Las Vegas). The "pit boss", at his discretion, is allowed to make an exception and give the "okay" for the dealer to let the player continue the bet. In this case, it seemed the reasonable thing to do; the odds of 36 to 1 for a player to get the same number in two successive plays are insurmountable -- the Casino would obviously regain the previously lost 3500. However, his decision (gambling on a 'sure thing') was an epic fail (and many stunned expressions) costing the Casino a cool 126 Grand.

[–] darkestblue 16 years ago

Cool - thanks for this. This makes a whole lot more sense now - not having ever stepped foot in a casino I didn't get this exchange of looks!!

Cheers

darker than biscuit, lighter than oak

[–] matted-6 16 years ago

"In this case, it seemed the reasonable thing to do; the odds of 36 to 1 for a player to get the same number in two successive plays are insurmountable"

The odds are still 36 to 1 no matter how many times the same number comes up. Just like rolling a six-sided die. If you roll a die and 99 times in a row a 6 comes up, what are the odds of rolling a 6 in the 100th throw? Still 1 in 6......

[–] Hans-Wurst123 16 years ago

u should go back to school..

[–] gypsielou 15 years ago

No Matt is right.
It's a classic mistake but if you think about it... the chance of a six coming up is one in six whether you have already rolled the dice or not.

[–] lordrosemount 15 years ago

Aye, once you've already won on one number the odds of the same one coming up again are only 36 to 1, but I guess the poster was meaning that at the start of the sequence, before any bets had been placed, the odds of the same number coming up twice are really 36^2 to one, or 1296/1 . Which in the long run still isn't all that improbable given the number of times the game would be played every day, but then the odds that on the one-in-1296 occasion it did happen, a player would actually have had the effrontery to bet on it twice over (and bet the winnings of the first bet on the second, to boot) - well, the chances of that happening are infinitesimal.

[–] denham 11 years ago

1/36 would be the probability of selecting the winning number if there were 36 numbers, but there are not. There is also a zero, which is not there to be bet on but rather to provide the house with its 'edge'. (This is in a German casino; if it was in America the house would retain an extra zero, or rather double zero. This is one reason for playing roulette, if at all, in Europe rather than America.) Therefore the probability of selecting the winning number is 1/37, hence the probability of achieving this twice in succession is 1/37^2 = 1/1,369.

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] GreyHunter 10 years ago

I think that's what the poster meant. The odds of getting given number don't change from spin to spin, but the odds of getting the same number twice in a row are much lower than getting it each individual instance. To simplify it for others (not you, since you clearly get it), upon flipping a coin a hundred times in a row and calling heads every time, the odds of it coming up heads on the hundreth flip are 50%. The odds of it coming up heads the first 99 times as well are much, much lower (approximately 1 in 6.3 × 10 to the 29th power.) She wasn't betting on it hitting black 20. She was betting on it hitting black 20 again. And, just to complicate things, the odds of her winning 2 times in a row but switching the number the second time are exactly the same. But that's counterintuitive...most people would assign better odds to the ball hitting two different numbers in consecutive spins than to it hitting the same number in consecutive spins. So does changing the number improve her odds? Yes and no. That's where things really get argumentative, heh, and people start nattering on about heuristics and the gambler's fallacy and the difference between statistical likelihood of two random events specifically occurring vs statistical likelihood of two specific events randomly occurring.