|
|
#11
02-12-2005, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t work
No matter how creatively you arrange the terms, you can't add negative numbers to make a positive number.
The table limit is not the problem. Your bankroll would be a limit even if the table limit were not there. You can't double up more than 50% of the time by making bets with negative expectation. If you have $n, a martingale to try to win $1 will fail to win $k at least 1/(n+k) of the time. Due to the house advantage, you will fail a lot more frequently than that. Here is the probability that you double up while using a martingale to try to win $1 at a time. I assumed that if you fall below half of your current level, you try to double up, and otherwise you bet just enough to win $1. $1: 47.37% $2: 45.62% $5: 43.71% $10: 42.10% $20: 40.39% $50: 38.03% $100: 36.19% So, if your goal is to turn $100 into $200, you would be better off betting everything on red than trying to get $1 at a time by playing a martingale. <font color="white">As I have pointed out elsewhere on these forums, there are better strategies than betting everything on red.</font> By the way, the probability that you lose everything on the first step is about 1/70 if you start with $100. Playing the martingale cost you an average of 43 cents. The martingale translates to betting $100 to gain $1 69/70 of the time. At $1000, your probability of losing before you win $1 is about 1/597. Playing the martingale costs you an average of 68 cents. Playing a martingale with $1 million would cost an average of about twice that. 
|
|
#12
02-13-2005, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t work
I'm not a math major, I'm middled aged and just going back to school, so I'm not great in math, but have a general understanding. IF THE ODDS ARE AGAINST YOU, EVENTUALLY YOU LOSE. no matter how smart you are and what creative equation you come up with. the KISS formula works well here.
|
|
#13
02-13-2005, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t work
I've read most of these responses, and they are all going the wrong route on this one.
Your friend is absolutely correct that his system would work. Mathematically, if you double previous bet, the total is 1 more then sum of all previous bets. Now, all he has to do is find a roulette table with no maximum bet so that he can make his bets with his infinite bankroll. Reality. Lets say you found a roulette table with $1 minimum bet and that the maximum bet for this table was $10,000. Lets see how many hands you can lose in a row, 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096... Lets say your friend sits down and loses 13 straight "black" bets in a row, your friend would be down $8191, but not to worry, his next bet is 2 * 4096 = $8192, so if he wins that $8k bet, he will be up $1 total. ... but if that 14th red or green comes up your buddy is down sixteen large, now he has to go find a roulette table where he can bet $32,000 a hand. After that, the numbers rise exponentially fast, and 2^20 will be over 1 million. Anyway, I dont remeber seeing many roulette tables with bet limits exceeding $2,000. Im sure you can get those in the high roller pit, but then you wont be betting $1 a hand there. Theoretically, its a winning stategy. It just wont work in a casino.
|
|
#14
02-13-2005, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t w
Table limits have nothing to do with it. The casino could permit you to bet as much as you want using a Martingale and it still wouldn't work. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot lose 10 times, 1000 times, 1,000,000 or any number of times you care to name in a row. As you increase the number of consecutive trials you wish to examine, it's just that the likelihood of losing however-many-times in a row decreases; it is never equal to zero. The fact that, for any given trial, the current wager is always $1 more than the sum of your previous losses doesn't mean you will recoup your losses and gain that $1. You still have a more likely chance of losing than winning that particular trial.
If you're trying to take the limit as the number of trials goes to infinity (well, I should win EVENTUALLY), you can't just look at the probability of consecutive losses and say they approach zero. You must also examine how fast your bet grows. The two do not cancel each other out; the wager increases faster than the overall likelihood of loss decreases. So it's always -EV and you will always lose money in the long run.
|
|
#15
02-13-2005, 04:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t w
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically, its a winning stategy. It just wont work in a casino. [/ QUOTE ] I think the thread for spouting poorly thought out stuff on this subject has already been done.
|
|
#17
02-13-2005, 06:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t w
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that, for any given trial, the current wager is always $1 more than the sum of your previous losses doesn't mean you will recoup your losses [/ QUOTE ] No, it means you will recoup your losses and be up $1. And it has everything to do with bankrolls and table limits. Theoretically you cannot lose. With an infinite bankroll, and an infinte table limit, that worst that could happen is that you are in an eternal stalemate betting on black while the ball only lands red. Martingale works, not becuase its a "system", its just betting $1 more then your cumulative losses. As stated, its not a practicle application in casino betting. There are simply no bankrolls or table limits to support it.
|
|
#18
02-13-2005, 11:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t w
[ QUOTE ]
No, it means you will recoup your losses and be up $1. And it has everything to do with bankrolls and table limits. Theoretically you cannot lose. With an infinite bankroll, and an infinte table limit, that worst that could happen is that you are in an eternal stalemate betting on black while the ball only lands red. [/ QUOTE ] Nonsense. The martingale idea is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong, and saying that it works is dishonest. The only context in which it doesn't fail horribly in theory is one in which gaining $1 does not matter, and where the mathematical model diverges from reality. I tell you as a professional mathematician: The limiting result is failure. The theoretical result is failure. The practical result is failure. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how to treat infinities in mathematical models.
|
|
#19
02-13-2005, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t w
[ QUOTE ]
And it has everything to do with bankrolls and table limits. Theoretically you cannot lose. With an infinite bankroll, and an infinte table limit, that worst that could happen is that you are in an eternal stalemate betting on black while the ball only lands red. [/ QUOTE ] If you have infinite bankroll, and an infinte table limit you also have infinite losing streak. So it doesn't work.
|
|
#20
02-13-2005, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Help me convince friend that Martingale Betting Strategy Doesn\'t work
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a math major, I'm middled aged and just going back to school, so I'm not great in math, but have a general understanding. IF THE ODDS ARE AGAINST YOU, EVENTUALLY YOU LOSE. no matter how smart you are and what creative equation you come up with. the KISS formula works well here. [/ QUOTE ] You got that right. Your friend with the Masters in Math should go back to kindergarten. The more math you throw at people to try to prove it doesn't work, the more they think you're lying. So most of the fish stay fish and the sharks stay sharks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
