View Single Post
  #30  
Old 07-17-2005, 03:49 AM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default Re: A Less Obvious Martingale Fallacy

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a finite bankroll for the casino. It is a finite bankroll for the player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same thing. The betting limit depends on the lesser of the two bankrolls. So if the bank's bankroll is finite, then effectively so is the player's. He can't double up his bets anymore once he gets to the point where the casino can't cover his bet.

[ QUOTE ]
The assumption was that the player is allowed to wager any amount he likes and chooses to wager 1 unit after a win and double the previous wager after a loss.

[/ QUOTE ]
This requires an infinite bankroll for the casino as well. How can the player wager an infinite sum if the casino only has $100?
Reply With Quote