Negative Progression roulette

[outdrwn]

I think I have found a system that could make anyone money, playing roulette. Just pick a color, put down a bet of...200 bucks(or w/e is within your bankroll, which should be about 100X the size of your initial bet). If you win your bet, you quit(profit 200 bucks, from 1 lucky coin toss, basically). If you lose, you bet 400. Win, quit, lose, bet 200+400+200=800. Win, quit, lose, bet 1800. Etc.

Why doesn't everyone do this? Im sure there are plenty of online casino's that would have you even if u did break every casino in vegas regularly. Is there something I'm not seeing?

thanks...

[cardcounter0]

Yap. You are not seeing the little green 0 and 00 on the wheel.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[outdrwn]

There is a casino that has only 1 green spot...you could play there, and I think it would be worth it because even if it landed green every time you could still get away with just one win.

[cardcounter0]

With just one green spot then you lose your money at a rate of AVG BET x 2.6%, or 1/2 as fast as with two green spots.

Let's flip a coin. Heads you win, tails you lose. Bet as much as you want on any flip. Every 38 tosses, you pay me $100. The more you flip, the more times you pay me $100, and eventually I have all your money. You can spread your bets around on the other tosses however you want -- you are going to break even on them in the long run.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have found a system that could make anyone money, playing roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

The casinos have already found such a system.
1) Put a roulette wheel in your casino
2) Wait for people to come and play their "system".
3) Profit.

[junkmail3]

He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability. If you hit a streak of 11 misses in a row, which isn't too crazy to think of happening, then ... frankly, you're [censored].

And many casinos have limits on bets.

So, basically, your system has you double your bet each time until you win, then you're up one initial bet. Let's use your system ($200 bet with a $20,000 bankroll (100x$200)

Assume you lose each roll (for the sake of 'bad luck'):
Bet 1: $200 Total down: $200
Bet 2: $400 Total down: $600
Bet 3: $800 Total down: $1400
Bet 4: $1600 Total down: $3000
Bet 5: $3200 Total down: $6200
Bet 6: $6400 Total down: $13000
Bet 7: $12800 Total down: $25800

You can only spin the wheel 6 times until you don't have enough money for the next bet to bring you back up to even.

6 rolls ... could it really land on one color that many times in a row? Well ... why not?

Edit: millions --> unlimited

[valenzuela]

practical example:I was 13, and I said ..mmmm Ill see if this system works...I had my monopoly and my european roullete( 1 cero)
I was doing good, and then it happened...I lost 9 times on a row and lost all my playmoney. Then I realized the only way to make money with roullette is to BE THE HOUSE. Of course I started an illegal casino in my middle school with an overwhelming profit of 30 cents.
Theorical demostration: IT doesnt matter if you bet with ur fingers crossed or if u bet praying to god...THE HOUSE HAS AN EDGE OVER YOU!!! IT DOESNT MATTER HOW U PUT UR MONEY , WHEN DO U PUT UR MONEY , HOW MUCH MONEY U PUT OR WHERE DO U PUT IT, THE MATH IS AGAINST U.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

[junkmail3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my post to say unlimited funds with unlimited wagering ablility. (At which point, why would you want to make small amounts of cash?)

This system will work in the above situation: If you have a 47% chance to hit your color, you're going to hit it. It's that simple. If you double your money every time you lose, until you win, and then start over with the initial bet, you will win. It's that simple. This system can beat the house. Problem is, the house has betting limits (that I'm sure you could get them to wave if you're losing as much money as you are). Other problem is that you have a limited bank roll.

With an unlimited bankroll and unlimited wagering ability, this is a profitable system. Every spin is -EV, but the design of the system is +EV in these conditions.

[valenzuela]

If u suppose infinite bankroll, i can suppose infinite losses.

[junkmail3]

This is impossible. As you approach infinity with the number of spins, the distribution of black v. red v. green will become more statistically accurate to it's true statistical distribution. So, you will have wins intelaced there. And with the infinite bankroll, there is no fear of ever busting. So, sure, you could have infinite losses, but you still have one more roll to try to win. And if you lose, one more.

Basic point. This system works for what I have described. No one uses it and wins long term with it, because no one can meet the specifications.

Nothing I have said before is openly disputed. Anywhere you read about the martingle system you will read things similar to what I have written.

[The Goober]

go here (http://www.wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems.html)

I remember when I first came up with the martingale system too, and I felt pretty smart for a while.

Making a long-term profit off a -EV game is like violating the law of conservation of mass-energy, it just won't happen no matter how hard you try.

[valenzuela]

And yet again youre wrong...if red has come 56 times on a row...there is a 48% red will fall again.

[bholdr]

...you can eliminate the house advantage, that is, make it an even money game, at least according to mike caro and his computers: linky (http://www.gamblingtimes.com/writers/mcaro/mcaro_winter2001.html)

it sounds like BS, but i believe it's been tested and proven a few times. NO MORE HA? . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability. If you hit a streak of 11 misses in a row, which isn't too crazy to think of happening, then ... frankly, you're [censored].

And many casinos have limits on bets.

So, basically, your system has you double your bet each time until you win, then you're up one initial bet. Let's use your system ($200 bet with a $20,000 bankroll (100x$200)

Assume you lose each roll (for the sake of 'bad luck'):
Bet 1: $200 Total down: $200
Bet 2: $400 Total down: $600
Bet 3: $800 Total down: $1400
Bet 4: $1600 Total down: $3000
Bet 5: $3200 Total down: $6200
Bet 6: $6400 Total down: $13000
Bet 7: $12800 Total down: $25800

You can only spin the wheel 6 times until you don't have enough money for the next bet to bring you back up to even.

6 rolls ... could it really land on one color that many times in a row? Well ... why not?

Edit: millions --> unlimited

[/ QUOTE ]

I was playing poker somewhere in Vegas the other night. Guys bitching and moaning about the wheel. 13 blacks in a row. The wheel [censored] him!

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about the Martingle system. (At least I'm pretty sure.)

This is a fine system, if you have millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It is not a fine system if you have millions. There is no betting system that can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my post to say unlimited funds with unlimited wagering ablility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. Okay. The system is great for those people who have an infinite amount of money and also are playing roulette at some place that will book billion dollar bets. Much better than just admitting that you were wrong. Woohoo. There is no betting system by which you can turn a negative expectation bet into a positive expectation bet. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[bholdr]

odds of losing 13 bets in a row: 1 in 2048. you'd need a 1.6mil roll to be able to absorb a 1 in 2k event. that's risking 1.6m to win 200$x2000 plays, or400k. you're taking like 4 to 1 the worst of it with this sysytem, and that doesn't count the green 0 and 00.

excuse my drunk math, please.

[TStoneMBD]

would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

[valenzuela]

I cant believe this thread now has 18 posts.

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
...you can eliminate the house advantage, that is, make it an even money game, at least according to mike caro and his computers: linky (http://www.gamblingtimes.com/writers/mcaro/mcaro_winter2001.html)



it sounds like BS, but i believe it's been tested and proven a few times. NO MORE HA? . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Could u please explain this to me lik e I am a 3 year old?

esp thiss part.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, you need to be very disciplined in excluding the number 30 and the group of consecutive numbers that begins with 11 and continues clockwise through and including 14.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks

[EliteNinja]

lmao
5 ppl voted yes.
So sad is the state of 2+2.

[popniklas]

Just to make it clear if anyone still thinks that Martingale would be a winning system under certain circumstances (such as a very big bankroll, or an infinite bankroll):

If, and only if, you assume a) an infinite bankroll b) possibilities to bet an infinite sum but NOT c) the possibility of an infinite losing streak, the Martingale is a safe system.

In the real world a) and b) are practically impossible conditions. Also, I don't think you ever could assume that an infinite losing streak is impossible, but someone better than me at maths might convince me otherwise, I don't know.

However, even if you had an infinite bankroll, could bet any amount you like and never hit an infinite losing streak, this would not be a winning system. Why? Because infinity + 1 = infinity. If you have an infinite bankroll, you can not add to your bankroll. It is already infinite.

So... back to the real world. If you want a probable small win, and can accept a small possibility of a huge loss, then you can play the Martingale for a while. But it will still be a -EV proposition, and if you do it often enough, you'll end up losing your bankroll often enough more often than your many small winnings would compensate for. Nuff said.

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think everybody ignored my post because 1), you dont know the answer and 2), you thought i actually believed the martingale system works.

i believe that it doesnt work simply because of all the talk on these boards in the past that it doesnt. i believe you guys. now i want to know why it doesnt work, and how to explain that it doesnt work to a person who is not familiar with gambling.

[popniklas]

why it doesn't work: (in this example, you do the martingale betting black at roulette)

1. sooner or later, red WILL turn up ten times in a row and you will lose all your money. that DOES actually happen and there is nothing strange about that.

2. the odds at casino games like roulette and craps are set up against you. on each bet you make, you will lose on average. if you bet on red a millions times, you will lose more than half a million of those times. as long as the odds remain the same, no betting system can change that.

if you do the martingale for just a short while, you are more likely to win than lose. however, if you do it over again a million times, your many small wins will not cover up for your unfrequent, but big, losses.

3. size of the bankroll does not matter, any finite bankroll could be lost, because red could theoretically come up any number of finite times in a rew.

4. even if you have an infinite bankroll, it still does not work (for reasons stated in my previous post). and by the way, if you have an infinite bankroll, why bother to try to make more money?

[popniklas]

...and if they still don't believe you, tell them that the casinos would be out of business by now if this system worked. and give them the url to www.wizardofodds.com (http://www.wizardofodds.com)

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would i be correct in saying that if you bet $1 every time, and made a profit of $2048 after an extended period of time, that the law of averages would dictate that you would in turn lose $2048 consecutively by using the martingale system, cancelling out all profits and totally discreditting the martingale system?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think everybody ignored my post because 1), you dont know the answer and 2), you thought i actually believed the martingale system works.

i believe that it doesnt work simply because of all the talk on these boards in the past that it doesnt. i believe you guys. now i want to know why it doesnt work, and how to explain that it doesnt work to a person who is not familiar with gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think part of the reason you didn't get any replies is that you used the dubious term "law of averages". I know you don't mean it this way, but lots of fallacious thinkers use it to justify the thinking that previous random events have an impact on future indepedant events (i.e. "its hit black 10 times in a row, by the law of averages this next spin is more likely to be red!").

Here's my take on the easiest way to explain why martingale doesn't work:

Suppose we play a simple game - you bet 1 unit and I shuffle and turn over a card. If the card is 9-A, you win a bet, if it's 2-8 you lose your bet. Clearly your expectation is -1/13 bet per play (over 13 tries, you lose 8 times and win 7 times).

Now we modify the game. Now, you have to bet 13 units to play. If the card is anything but a deuce, you win 1 unit. If its a deuce, you lose your whole bet (all 13 units). Sounds good right? Now, for each time you play you have a 12/13 chance of winning 1 unit.

It's clear, though, that you haven't changed your expectation at all. Over 13 tries, you win 1 unit 12 times, and lose 13 units once. This is exactly what you are doing by playing a martingale system - you are trading off a greater chance of a small win for smaller chance or a large loss. The more times you can afford to double up (and the not hit the table limit), the more likely you are to make a small win, but the amount that you stand to lose goes up proportionally and you keep your expectation the same.

Also note that as your bankroll goes to infinity your chance of winning a small amount approaches 1, your chance of losing approaches 0, and the amount that you can lose approaches infinity. Your infinitesimal chance of losing is cancelled out by your infinite loss, and the whole mess is still going to have the exact same EV as you started with.

[cardcounter0]

Why the martingale doesn't work:

Using the martingale, double your bet on the next toss.
Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose. Here are the possible outcomes:

H - win $1
T - lose $1
net results - $0

flip it twice. Here are the possible outcomes:
HH - win $2
HT - win $0
TH - win $1
TT - lose $3
net results - $0 (notice you have two winning sessions, but your one losing session wipes out your wins)

flip it three times. Here are the possible outcomes:
HHH - win $3
HHT - win $1
HTH - win $2
THH - win $2
TTH - win $1
THT - win $0
HTT - lose $2
TTT - lose $7
net result - $0 (notice you have 5 winning sessions, but two losing sessions wipe out your wins)

Continue flipping and using a martingale as many times as you want. You will find that eventually you hit the long losing streak that wipes out all your previous wins.

Now a coin flip is a strict 50/50 proposition, with no house edge. That is why the ending result comes out to $0. If you are playing a game with an unfair payout (ie. the house edge) then your results will come out to losing your AVG BET X HOUSE EDGE.

So just take the total amount you wager, divide by the number of bets you make, this gives you your average bet, multiple by the HOUSE EDGE for the game - that is how much a martingale will lose you in the long run. In the short run, you will have many winning sessions, until you eventually hit the wall on the long losing streak, and wipe out your profits.

[bholdr]

it's a joke. if you take a look at a wheel, you'll see that his system eliminates ALL numbers. (thus, no HA!) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[47outs]

I voted 'good idea' cause I want you to learn the hard way.


outs

[youtalkfunny]

Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

(I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.")

[Wino67]

Is there any way we can get the screen names of the people who think a martingale will work? I would like to play poker with them.

One other thing about the martigale system, Which side has all the risk? You are gambling against money you have ALREADY given the casino. The Casino is risking about 1 dollar....

Cheers
Wino67

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I knew it didn't work. I tried it at an online casino anyway as cover play for bonus whoring. On about the 10th trial, I hit a bad streak and lost more than the table limit.

Those who think streaks don't happen are not observant. Randomness involves a lot of long streaks of wins and losses.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say it doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

(I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Im 16 I realized the system didnt work when I was 13. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

I bring it up in conversation at the poker table so the sharks think I am a fish.

Stu

[magiluke]

Me and some of my friends did some serious math trying to find a system to win in roulette. Anyway, we called this system red-black double (I'm not sure if it's the actual name, or if it has one).

The biggest flaw with most systems, which I didn't see anyone mention, is the fact that casinos impose limits on their tables. Their minimum limit is because they are greedy, and want people to bet at least a certain amount. Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system.

In short: The casinos ALWAYS win...NO MATTER WHAT!

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Their maximum limit is there so that people can't walk in with giant bankrolls, and play some sort of increasing bet system.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems to be a common misconception. That the martingale fails does not depend on the table limit. It gives you no advantage over the casino. Betting systems only allow you to push your losses over the horizon so you can ignore them for a while.

You can't add negative numbers to make a positive number, even if there is no limit on the size of the negative numbers.

[CORed]

Maximum limits are not imposed to thwart the Martingale. A successful Martingale series only nets one unit. The rest of the payout of the winning bet simply gets back the money lost. Maximum limits are imposed to limit the casinos variance, so that a whale on a lucky streak (or winning a single humongous bet) doesn't kill their profit, and to protect the casinos reserve fund. A Martingale doesn't work regardless of the size of the bankroll or the betting limit. The risk vs. reward for a Martingale is ridiculous. If you start with a $1 bet, sooner or later you will find yourself risking several thousand dollars to make a net profit of $1.

[Flipside]

When i was younger i too believed I had invented a system that would beat the house....later I found that it already had a name and people had been getting busted with it for years....however in my process of 'developing' it I had several very profitable sessions....then...payback. The losing sessions are crushing....having several thousand taken down by the house on the 10th red in a row to try to win back my money + $10 isn't fun. Whats even worse is, as a spectator now, you watch the next number come up black.

Bottom line is it doesn't work in the long run.....but hey...we all play table games in the casino and know the odds are stacked against us....so if you feel lucky go for it...just don't be fooled into thinking you've beat the system.

[Cyrus]

Roulette, straight up:

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

If it's not, head for the bar instead.

If they don't, can you loan me a grand ?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you can't. With no table limits, and a bankroll larger than the house's, you still lose.

Why do so many people think there is a way to arrange negative numbers to add up to a positive number?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]No, you can't. With no table limits, and a bankroll larger than the house's, you still lose.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not correct.

I cannot understand how a poster as well versed in probability theory as you can miss the importance of comparative bankroll size. I thought it would be trivial for you to know (and show) that Bill Gates at the roulette table, playing without limits, would bankrupt the house with a significant probability.

To illustrate my point, I'd ask you to consider the reasons why the casino places upper limits on the wagers at the high-limit tables. OK, the minimum limit clears out the "riff raff" from such tables, but why have an upper limit?? Why stop Kerry Packer from losing his money faster? Why not allow him to wager ten million dollars a hand in Blakjack, if, as you say, he "can't overcome expectation"? (Which he can't. Mr Packer is no AP.)

[ QUOTE ]
Why do so many people think there is a way to arrange negative numbers to add up to a positive number?

[/ QUOTE ]Beats me.

But this is not about progession systems, as such, or other "money management" fallacies.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for all you guys who say [progression] doesn't work:

When you were younger, did you go broke trying it?

(I did. Now I'm one of you, telling all the youngsters, "It doesn't work.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Your cause is noble - but the way the question was put across may lead to some misunderstanding.

So I'll say this : Even if twenty people on this board come back with (true) testimonies about how progression systems actually worked for them, that would still NOT prove anything!

The quest for anecdotal evidence is worthy - but conclusive is the mathematical proof that progression systems do not "work".

Mike Lea's article on progression betting (http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/prog.htm)

[cardcounter0]

Cyrus is correct.

If someone had a large enough bankroll, even though playing a negative expectation game, eventually you will randomly hit a long enough win streak to wipe out the smaller bankroll.

Sure probability says that eventually the odds will "even out" and the long run expectation will lose equal to house edge of the game. But if the smaller bankroll gets wiped out before the "long run", then the game is over and the long run never occurs.

Some degenerate gamblers could be offered an purely even money game, with no house edge, and since the house has a larger bank, they will always go broke. Win or lose they would just continue to play until they hit the ultimate "bad run" and go bust. As long as the casino had a much larger bankroll than the players, they could always "weather" the players hot streaks and eventually break them on the cold streak.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]No, you can't. With no table limits, and a bankroll larger than the house's, you still lose.

[/ QUOTE ]That is not correct.

I cannot understand how a poster as well versed in probability theory as you can miss the importance of comparative bankroll size. I thought it would be trivial for you to know (and show) that Bill Gates at the roulette table, playing without limits, would bankrupt the house with a significant probability.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course that is trivial. Losing on average is not a good deal. It is not "beating the crap out of the house." If the house puts up $1 against your $10, and the house wins only 20% of the time, are you happy? Maybe you call that winning, but I call it losing.

Progressions do not allow you to obtain an advantage over the house.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If someone had a large enough bankroll, even though playing a negative expectation game, eventually you will randomly hit a long enough win streak to wipe out the smaller bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are making that argument. This is stupid. <font color="white">And wrong, of course.</font>

If you start with X, and you play a negative expectation game, your average result is less than X. You might have a probability greater than 50% of ending up with more than X, but that doesn't mean you got a good deal.

You call yourself "cardcounter0." I presume that means you have counted cards successfully in blackjack. Do you attribute your success to

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Having a bankroll larger than the casino's bankroll?
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Quitting while you were ahead, before a 99%+ ROR had a chance to occur?
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Betting so the game was favorable, that is, so that the game was +EV?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are making that argument.

[/ QUOTE ] Please re-read the relevant posts in this thread: I am not arguing and neither is anyone of sane mind that a money management system will change the sign of the EV in a negative expectation game! This is not about progressions, it's about Ruin -- the gambler's or the house's.

[ QUOTE ]
You call yourself "cardcounter0." I presume that means you have counted cards successfully in blackjack. Do you attribute your success to

Having a bankroll larger than the casino's bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ] The CC's BR is always smaller than the casino's. (If it was larger, he would have no business tying his BR in such an endeavour. But let's not digress!)

[ QUOTE ]
Quitting while you were ahead, before a 99%+ ROR had a chance to occur?

[/ QUOTE ]The "quitting-while-you're-ahead" pseudo-strategy is, as you know, another common fallacy.

As to the CC's ROR, it should never be anywhere near what you posted!

[ QUOTE ]
Betting so the game was favorable, that is, so that the game was +EV?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes.

And for more about the kosher concept of money (BR) management, readers are invited to look up "Kelly" in websites such as Richard Reid's Blackjack Mathematics. (Also, BruceZ has some excellent posts up on 2+2 about the subject.)

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are making that argument.

[/ QUOTE ] Please re-read the relevant posts in this thread: I am not arguing and neither is anyone of sane mind that a money management system will change the sign of the EV in a negative expectation game! This is not about progressions, it's about Ruin -- the gambler's or the house's.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, you are trying to make a trivial point in a way that might mislead people into thinking that progressions are worthwhile?

[ QUOTE ]
If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]
First, progressions have nothing to do with this, so why bring them up? A martingale would not be the right way to try to ruin the casino.

Second, you make it sound like it is a good opportunity you would have if only your bankroll exceeded the casino's bankroll. If a casino is risk averse on a large scale, then they can be hurt if you make -EV wagers they would prefer not to accept. However, that doesn't mean you gain. You brought up the idea of bankroll management, which assumes you are risk-averse. It is never right to play a -EV game if you are risk-averse. <font color="white">Ok, it is never right to play an independent -EV game. It may be right to hedge.</font>

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Quitting while you were ahead, before a 99%+ ROR had a chance to occur?

[/ QUOTE ]

As to the CC's ROR, it should never be anywhere near what you posted!

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it was. The point was that the casino has a much larger bankroll than the card counter, yet the card counter can have a low risk of ruin. The probability of losing is not 1, even when your bankroll is much smaller than your opponent's bankroll.

[Double Down]

Let me see if I can clear this up. Let's say that a poker player wanted to play you heads up 10-20 hold em until one of you goes broke. You are a significantly better player than he is. However, you only have $100 bankroll and he has $100,000. Even though you have a mathematical advantage, you do not have the bankroll to withstand the negative swings inherent in achieving a longterm success over a worse player.


The reason why card counting can be achieved through a large enough bankroll is because even though the house has an infinitely larger bankroll than the player, the player has (should have) a large enough bankroll as well to withstand the negative swings to see through a long term profit. It would be like if the same inferior player made you the same offer, but you had a much bulkier 50k compared to his 100k. His bankroll is double yours, but your advantage is big enough and the betting amounts (10-20) are small enough so that the eventual result will be achieved. He would need an incredibly lucky run of cards to take your 50k. As we all know, insufficient bankroll to see to the long run is a reason why so many up and coming positive ev bj and poker players go broke.

The same sort of concept comes up in tournament poker, where large stacks will often call shorts stacks with what they know is an inferior hand, for a shot at eliminating a player. The slight disadvantage in mathematical expectation is worth the infinitely better expectation of eliminating the player. If a large stack has 10k and a small stack has $200, it is much more insignificant if the small stack doubles to $400 than if he exits the tourney.

Of course, getting into the specifics of the quality of hands and ratio of stacks are a matter of certain examples. There is of course a point where your stack isn't dominating enough to do this. It depends a lot on circumstances, the players, prize structure, etc.

Therefore, hypothetically, if a player's bankroll was significantly larger than a casino's, the disadvantage was small enough, and the bets could be large enough, a player could break them. Of course, this is imaginary because a casino has a virtually unlimited bankroll, especially compared to the size of the bets a player is allowed to make. If a casino had 50 billion dollars and a player had 200 billion, they still could not crack the bank with a max bet of 1k per spin. The casino would grind that 200 billion down.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you are trying to make a trivial point in a way that might mislead people into thinking that progressions are worthwhile?

[/ QUOTE ] No. I have made it clear, from the start, that progressions "do not work".


[ QUOTE ]
A martingale would not be the right way to try to ruin the casino.

[/ QUOTE ] I did not say it was.

...Although I had a merry old time with the well-written (albeit bogus) account of Norman Leigh's exploits (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0948353996/qid=1118126008/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-2973304-0331024)!


[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like it is a good opportunity you would have if only your bankroll exceeded the casino's bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ] Bankroll size is, let's say, somewhat important in terms of RoR. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif This is all I'm bringing up. We do not disagree (I hope) about the basics.


[ QUOTE ]
If a casino is risk averse on a large scale, then they can be hurt if you make [player] -EV wagers they would prefer not to accept.

[/ QUOTE ] This is precisely the point I was making. A player that is sufficiently well bankrolled can "break the bank" playing a negative-EV for the player game. Hence, table upper limits.


[ QUOTE ]
You brought up the idea of bankroll management, which assumes you are risk-averse. It is never right to play a -EV game if you are risk-averse.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely correct, of course. And I am bringing the concept of BR from the point of view of the house, in order to underline its importance.

One more thing: "Risk-averse" by itself means little if not qualified and specified, eg in EKB terms.


[ QUOTE ]
Ok, it is never right to play an independent -EV game. It may be right to hedge.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm still paying medical insurance. Dumb, huh?.. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


[ QUOTE ]
The point was that the casino has a much larger bankroll than the card counter, yet the card counter can have a low risk of ruin. The probability of losing is not 1, even when your bankroll is much smaller than your opponent's bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ] The card counter plays with an edge. Which makes a world of difference from the negative-EV game.

Now, from the casino's point of view: The probability of the casino winning is not 1, either, in Roulette. Yet, the casino wins consistently (in terms of hold) because it can withstand variance (since it is sufficiently bankrolled) to "play" against the lucky player another day. The card counter in 21 should be also well bankrolled for exactly the same reason.

Moral of the story : Even if you're [insert name of number 1 poker player in the world here], you need a sufficiently stocked bankroll to play poker.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you are trying to make a trivial point in a way that might mislead people into thinking that progressions are worthwhile?

[/ QUOTE ] No. I have made it clear, from the start, that progressions "do not work".

[/ QUOTE ]
When someone asked whether progressions are a good idea, and you responded, "If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression," you were being clear that progressions do not work? Nonsense.

If you say you went to Vegas and did some damage, people will assume you won, not that you found a lose-lose situation. That you pointed out (without context) that an underbankrolled, risk averse casino might not be happy, is misleading. Whether you find such a casino or not, the player always loses on average, and a progression doesn't help at all.

Was your double-talk intentional or accidental?

[ QUOTE ]
Moral of the story : ... you need a sufficiently stocked bankroll to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
In response to a question about whether progressions are a good idea for playing -EV casino games, you say you need a bankroll to play poker. Brilliant.

[cardcounter0]

"If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression"

100% correct.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Was your double-talk intentional or accidental?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being intentionally provocative.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was your double-talk intentional or accidental?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being intentionally provocative.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you proud of being a troll? What did you gain by joining the clueless in saying that progressions are good? What you were saying wasn't witty or new, just stupid. You added nothing to what the people who actually believe in progressions have said.

I suppose you have the right to be a twit, and try to irritate those who want to help people, but I hope you find another pastime.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
What did you gain by joining the clueless in saying that progressions are good?

[/ QUOTE ] Up to now, I was giving your obnoxious responses the benefit of the doubt -- and some large dose of benign neglect. But I now realize that you are a stubborn little mule who will not try to see beyond its wet nose.

Now, for the record, and for the second time in this thread : I did not claim nor state anywhere that "progressions are good". Either you are reading what you want to read into a text or you are suffering from acute dyslexia. I can't be arsed.


[ QUOTE ]
You added nothing to what the people who actually believe in progressions have said.

[/ QUOTE ] There is much less than what gullible gamblers believe about snake oil money management -- and there's slightly more to games than some people with moderate knowledge realize.

You have just qualified yourself as someone with, at best, moderate knowledge of gaming.

[ QUOTE ]
Proud of being a troll? ... just stupid ... a twit ... I hope you find another pastime.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not your problem. Something else is your problem. But, really. I can't be arsed.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If the house puts up $1 against your $10, and the house wins only 20% of the time, are you happy?

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, I'm amused - with you. I never proposed laying 10:1 for a game that offers me 4:1. You silly rabbit.

Now, if you bother to check my intervention in this thread more thoroughly, you will realize that I very specifically claimed something different: Roulette, straight up: If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

I challenge you to refute that claim.

In fact, I challenge you to play a game against me with your bankroll of $500 against mine of $20,000. You will be enjoying a constant edge of 2.703% and I'll be freely setting the size of my bet each time. Are you happy ?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Roulette, straight up: If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

I challenge you to refute that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, you post that misleading double-talk.

You count it as a success if you lose on average, just because the house runs a risk of busting out? I don't. I doubt the original poster asking what was wrong with progressions cares what happens to the casino, either. He wants to win on average.

If you want to win on average, progressions are worthless, as always. You can't add negative numbers to make a positive number. If you have no table limit, you don't need to use a progression to expose the house to a high risk of ruin.

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, I challenge you to play a game against me with your bankroll of $500 against mine of $20,000. You will be enjoying a constant edge of 2.703% and I'll be freely setting the size of my bet each time. Are you happy ?

[/ QUOTE ]
2.7% on $500 isn't worth my time, or the time of a referee. If you can make it worthwhile, I'd accept. I suggest having Michael Shackleford (the WizardOfOdds) hold the stakes and carry out the experiment. He'll probably be willing to do this for a fee.

Do you think anyone believes this is +E$ for you? Or do you not think the idea of +E$ matters, only troll-equity?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt the original poster asking what was wrong with progressions cares what happens to the casino, either. He wants to win on average.

[/ QUOTE ]And I could not care less what your opinion is about Original Intent Of This Thread. I'm sorry but I don't. What I did was, after all the proper and usual litany about progressions was correctly aired (i.e. they can't change the house advantage), to post something that not many people realize.


[ QUOTE ]
Troll equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are being a mule.

In contraband lingo, even a mule carries something of value. But all you have done in our little exchange here, was engage in insults and obnoxious obstinance.

Now, I can argue with logic, I can argue with history and I can argue with math. Can't argue with character.

[Reef]

seriously people, you can't beat roulette without cheating.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Roulette, straight up: If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

I challenge you to refute that claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

(Note: I assume that we're taking utility to be exactly equivalent to dollars, i.e., we are neither risk-averse nor risk-loving.)

Are you arguing that it is +EV for someone to play roulette under certain conditions on bankrolls? Because that's wrong. If the house is underfunded and you win the house's entire bankroll, you win very little compared to how much you lose if they win yours. You haven't solved the problem with progressions at all.

You still don't seem to understand why "winning 90% of the time" is not the correct goal. Of course there exists a small enough house bankroll such that you will bust them with 99% probability. So what? pzhon tried to explain earlier why this is the wrong way to look at it.

Cyrus, can you please provide some actual numbers for house bankroll, our bankroll, house edge, and bet size/type of progression where you believe that playing roulette would be +EV? I only need one, and the numbers don't even have to be realistic, just finite.

P.S. The idea that "You can't add up negative numbers and get a positive one" is exactly why your idea is wrong.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously people, you can't beat roulette without cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am up over my lifetime for roulette wagers.
Of course, these were all made with matchplay coupons.

I don't think that it is beyond reason to think that it might be possible to clock the wheel. This is probably going to require a device and thus be cheating in Las Vegas. I'm not sure whether it would be cheating everywhere else as well.

No betting system is going to beat the game, as it is -EV.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you arguing that it is +EV for someone to play roulette under certain conditions on bankrolls?

[/ QUOTE ] (sigh) No.

Here:


[ QUOTE ]
Progression betting : A form of betting which requires one to change the size of his bet based upon the results of the last hand or series of hands. Progressions can be negative, which usually means a bet is raised after a loss, or positive, which usually means the bet is raised after a win. No progression has ever been devised which can change the actual expectation in any given game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright? That (http://www.bj21.com/glossary/pages/p.html) was one of my contributions to Bootlegger's Blackjack Glossary. Do I get a pass now? (Another one (http://www.bj21.com/glossary/pages/t.html) of my entries was about TARGET. Do I get called a supporter of Jerry's snake oil next?)

[ QUOTE ]
If the house is underfunded and you win the house's entire bankroll, you win very little compared to how much you lose if they win yours.

[/ QUOTE ] Correct. But you have busted the house! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MCS]

Okay, so you concede it's not +EV.

FWIW, I don't think of having a large probability of winning as "beating the crap out of the house."

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so you concede [progression betting is] not +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not concede. The word means "To acknowledge something, often reluctantly, as being true". I have always maintained that progession betting is not +EV in itself.

[MCS]

Then you must think it is sometimes +EV, which is what I asked you to demonstrate. But when I asked you if it was +EV under certain conditions, you replied by saying "(sigh) No."

How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You must think [progression betting] is sometimes +EV, which is what I asked you to demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ] I am not responsible for what you think and the way you interpret my text. Expected value and ruin are different concepts. One may go bust playing a +EV game; one may bust the bank playing a -EV game.


[ QUOTE ]
When I asked you if [progression betting] was +EV under certain conditions, you replied by saying "(sigh) No."

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sorry that my sighing confused you.

It was exasperation, not pathos.

[ QUOTE ]
How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ] By reading what's written and not what you think is written. And by constructing logical and sensible conclusions from the text.

I'm sure, for example, that the sentence "Progression betting has provided me with a positive-expectation game in Blackjack in the past", which happens to be true for me, would be thoroughly misunderstood by a lot of folks in this forum (about 34% of 'em, at the latest count (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2585596&amp;page=1&amp;view=e xpanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=) /images/graemlins/grin.gif) who would take it to mean that "progression betting can change a game from -EV to +EV". It's called myopia.

Well, I am grateful that it's impossible to eradicate myopic logic from the gambling public! Otherwise, who'd pay for those lights?

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
Expected value and ruin are different concepts. One may go bust playing a +EV game; one may bust the bank playing a -EV game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. In fact, it appeared that YOU didn't understand it, which is why people responded in the first place. I agree with you that you can have -EV and still a high P(house ruin).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is someone supposed to interpret what you're saying?

[/ QUOTE ] By reading what's written and not what you think is written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I thought you had something to say other than, "You can break the house if they're underfunded," since that is obvious.

Also, why do you think that multiple people are confused about what you're saying? Do you think we're all careless? Do you think we don't understand math well enough?

If I felt I were being misinterpreted by more than one person who was logical, mathematically competent, and fluent in English, I would wonder if the fault really were completely others'.

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
This is a fine system, if you have unlimited funds, with unlimited wagering ability.

[/ QUOTE ] Nah. If you bet on the roulette wheel an unlimited ammount of times, there is a 100% chance you will face an (unlimited number of) unlimited losing streak(s) at some time during this betting. (You will also face unlimited winning streaks, so your unlimited bankroll will be multiplied unlimited times, at the same time as unlimited ammounts will be lost.)

Okok, my point: You can deduct some stupid [censored] if you're allowed to presume "unlimited" anything.