This is a good question, and my answer is that by keep losing. That's why they offered him the 20% rebate, because by his history they knew he would eventually lose. Since the article is coy about his losses, it is quite possible that he had lost 2 mill (over the months, years) at one casino, before making the big 4-5 mill pay day. Then he walked away....
It's a well known fact that house odds are less than 1% when a player uses basic blackjack strategy. Obviously the number varies slightly depending on specific rules that might differ between each casino, but the house edge is indeed under 1%. The best casino bet to make is the pass line odds bet in craps. 0% house edge.
Same with trading , you hold long term you lose. You stay longer at the blackjack table you lose. Thats what they want , casinos and wall street buy and hold , stay and play.
It's per stay after some total amount of action has transpired. I have no idea if this guy has an actual edge at blackjack or is just lucky, but the rebates are not stupidly structured. They will not turn a winner into a loser, only turn a big loser into a marginally smaller loser. Believe it or not most casinos have the phone number of someone who can do basic math, even if there's no one on staff
This is false - "pass" in craps has a house edge on the order of 2-3%. I don't remember exactly how much, but it's not break-even.
The house has a .2% edge with single-deck blackjack and it jumps to .35% with double-deck. An eight deck shoe gives the house a .66% advantage. The house advantage for a craps pass line bet varies depending on the odds multiplier. A 1x bet has .85% and it drops down to .02% for a 100x bet. While no casino game has a zero, much less a negative, house advantage, blackjack is the only game that gives the player the best overall odds.
So I am guessing based on what people have said on this thread and the article, this is what went down: 5 casinos at a min were involved, not necessarily all taking a loss. He would run a martingale strat. He plays perfect blackjack and has a .5% deficit. So if he starts with 12k bets he has a 6% of hitting max loss with a 100k(96k) top max bet. Loses the 5 hands in a row and loses 180k but gets 36k back. But all he has to do is not lose at the next casino for 12 straight martingale sessions then he is positive.
No he is correct. But only if you are talking about putting "odds" behind your pass bet. Just the odds bet has no house advantage, but you can't get there without coming out first. Then the sum total is, of course, negative for the player.