|
|
#21
03-01-2004, 04:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
True, so I guess that's when the old EV comes from haha. But in practice that won't happen, but also in practice you have limits and you don't have infinite BR. So let's just all agree to stop the argument because in some ways we're all right and in some ways we're all wrong. You have to stop to win, but if we're talking about infinite values I think we need to assume you play infinitely long. So, if it's less than a 50/50 proposition, the chances of an infinitely long losing streak are higher than an infinitely long winning streak, therefore you will lose.
|
|
#22
03-01-2004, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
Your claim is that if you make enough bets with a negative expectation you are guaranteed a profit in the end.
Why does dropping this bomb never end the discussion immediately? I don't understand. What else is there to say?
|
|
#23
03-01-2004, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
this comes up so often [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
nobody understands math anymore!
|
|
#24
03-01-2004, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
People not understanding math should get [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
not [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
|
#25
03-01-2004, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
Having an infinite amount of money and seeing no table limits, you must win eventually. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Because, well hell, infinity is a long time? Nobody can lose that long, can they? Wouldn't they be "due"? No George Bush "fuzzy math" please.
|
|
#26
03-01-2004, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim is that if you make enough bets with a negative expectation you are guaranteed a profit in the end. Why does dropping this bomb never end the discussion immediately? I don't understand. What else is there to say? [/ QUOTE ] Answer: Because this little bomb was incorrect in the context in which it was offered. Does this answer your question Ed? Do I get a chapter in your new book? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#27
03-01-2004, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
Well you don't really have to win eventually. If you have infinite money and infinite time, you will eventually hit an infinatly long losing streak. [/ QUOTE ] No, b/c you can never infinitely lose what you infinitely have.
|
|
#30
03-01-2004, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn\'t the old roulette trick work?
[ QUOTE ]
Your claim is that if you make enough bets with a negative expectation you are guaranteed a profit in the end. Why does dropping this bomb never end the discussion immediately? I don't understand. What else is there to say? [/ QUOTE ] This bombshell doesn't disprove the theory that the system works with an infinite bankroll, although it does disprove it with any finite bankroll. I've already stated the reason for this. If your bankroll is infinite, a finite amount of wins / losses cannot possibly alter the size of your bankroll; therefore you can neither win nor lose. If you were to say with a finite bankroll, the system is always negative EV, I would obviously agree with you. If you were to say with an infinite bankroll, the system is always negative EV, I have to disagree.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
