Can one overcome a -EV game?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I was not wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why do you refuse to bet on the whether your statements are correct? Not when you say something like 2+2=4, but the statements with which people disagree, such as the one I keep quoting and you keep deleting.

If you restricted your statements to the things you were willing to bet on, you wouldn't be having arguments on this in multiple forums. Or, I'd be richer.

<ul type="square">While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups.[/list]Whether you believe it or not, the martingale does not beat the game for any finite bankroll. 7 double-ups is not enough; 36 double-ups (Gates versus a casino with $1) is not enough. The player loses on average. The casino wins on average. No betting system will allow you to double your money with a probability greater than 50% on a -EV game.

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime you would like to wager and perform A trial to prove your point let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think being a 10:1 favorite to end a session ahead means you have a good deal, you have a definition of good deal considered absurd by serious +EV gamblers. I'd be happy to be the casino against you, and let you place bets on 35 out of 38 of the numbers in roulette (and quit after one trial, if you want). Are you trying to say that this is a way to beat roulette, because you can win 92% of the time with this system? I'd be annoyed to lose $1000 92% of the time, but the line of people willing to be the casino against you for one trial each would be very long.

Now, if someone had only $1000 or a bit more, they might not like being the casino against you. The risk of ruin might be too high for them. Someone else with a tougher stomach might not mind betting their whole bankroll with an 8% chance to multiply their bankroll by 35. However, no serious +EV gambler would think that you are getting a good deal, even though you win 92% of the time. The martingale is the same. Whether you think you might be too risk-averse to be the casino or not, it is never a good deal for the player, even if the player has the bankroll of Bill Gates.

A probability of winning close to 1 does not allow you to conclude the gamble is good, since the player is risking far more than the house. See the definition of EV.

[ QUOTE ]
you adamantly refuse to face the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why am I the one willing to bet on whether the statement is true? <font color="white">(Alex/Mugaaz also offered to bet.)</font>

You had a disagreement in the Mid-High NL forum. You came here and asked who was right. You have been told.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think being a 10:1 favorite to end a session ahead means you have a good deal,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a buddy that whenever he feels he is losing a debate he changes or rearranges the issue to suit (support) his point. I have never and still never calim anything accept that the betting max in a Casino is to prevent ruin. A winning "session" never entered the equation until you mentioned it. The point as you well know is that an infinite bankroll would destroy a Casino and there are finite numbers that would make it so close to certain (mathematically) that a Casino with a relatively inconsequential bankroll would go broke without betting caps. Now that was the arguement, is the arguement and is a correct statement. That's all.

Vince

[Yads]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is Vince and "the reasonable" people simply have a different definition of "beating" the casino. Vince defines "beating the casino" as taking their entire bankroll a large percent of the time. The reasonable folks think that beating the casino means having a positive expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what this disagreement is all about. Vince is right, that given a large enough bankroll, a player could bust the casino w/o even using martingale (in fact he would have a better chance w/o using a martingale system,) a large portion of the time. This does not make the game +EV, however, and that's not his point.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is Vince and "the reasonable" people simply have a different definition of "beating" the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]
We should all agree that given any finite series of trials in a game with a known expectation, the probability of any series occurring will always be &gt; 0. In the martingale (for this argument) the "house edge" is only realized in the occurrence of this single series. Even though it's mathematically correct to calculate the EV of every trial incorporating this single negative outcome, there are times that it's just plain silly to do so. If we believe that "everything that can happen will happen", then we have to believe that every insurance company must eventually go broke. Which makes them a bad investment. If we factor into our decisions occurrences that are less frequent than being hit by a meteorite -- then how do we factor the meteorite risk into our decisions? I think Vince is incorporating reasonable risk-tolerance in his belief that the "infinite monkey" represents zero risk, while pzhon holds to the reality that the number is something &gt; 0 and that the risk has to burden the entire process.

Pzhon has a better chance of proving his position logically, but I don't think even he would suggest logic should always dictate action.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a buddy that whenever he feels he is losing a debate he changes or rearranges the issue to suit (support) his point.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must have taken lessons from him.

It is as though you said, "2+2=4 and the square of a negative number is negative." When people point out that you are wrong, and offer to bet that the square of a negative number is positive, you say you stand by your words, and are willing to bet that 2+2=4.

[ QUOTE ]

I have never and still never calim anything accept that the betting max in a Casino is to prevent ruin.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, that is wrong. You have claimed many other things, and you said as much, "I thought we were discussing the advantage or disadadvantage of making a massive buy-in." Here are a few of the incorrect statements you have made in this discussion on the original thread and this one:

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work." (No player has an infinite bankroll. Playing a martingale loses on average with any finite bankroll, and in fact, loses more money on average as your bankroll increases.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "There is a built in mathematical advantage that large numbers have over small numbers when it come to probability." (I have no idea what you meant, but the same equations apply to large numbers as to small numbers, even if you find the large numbers exciting and powerful.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups." (No finite bankroll can make a martingale win on average. Even if the casino faces a high risk of ruin, it is not a good gamble for the player.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "Whatever you might want to believe you will find that the resulting numbers here will not be overcome by some -EV casino game unless the game is a %100 certainty." (Of course that was wrong. Changing the numbers without making the game a lock could change the player's expected loss from .1% of his bankroll to 99.9% of his bankroll. The player can't expect to win without making the game +EV.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials...when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials." (Sometimes the idea of repeated trials is used to help explain probability or expected value. However, that is not part of the mathematical definition. Probability and expected value are defined for events that happen only once.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "that is close enough to %100 in my favor as to be accepted as the expected result." (That a probability is close to 1 does not make it 1. That something happens with high probability does not mean you can say it is the mathematically expected result. This is particularly important in the context of gambling. See the definition of expected value.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "Now the massive stack will always have them covered and be able to turn an earlier loss into a win." (It could happen, but on average, there is no restoring force without a skill advantage. Having a massive stack does not give you a skill advantage.)

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] "In the hands of a skilled NLH poker player a massive stack is a horrible thing to face." (It's a problem if you have a deep stack, too. It doesn't matter if you don't have a large stack yourself. In fact, it can be profitable to play a short stack in a table of good players with deep stacks. See KaneKungFu123's posts.)

If you stuck with correct statements, you would not have so many respected posters disagreeing with you.

From your comments, my guess is that you feel it is an advantage to buy in for a huge amount in NL so that you can keep setting smaller stacks in until you bust them. However, you don't have an infinite number of chips, the short stacks don't have to stay at the table until you win, and the short stacks may buy in multiple times, taking many shots at doubling up repeatedly against you.

This reminds me of how I cleared the Bet365 September bonus. I bought in short on several NL 100 tables since I only had $100 on the site and didn't feel like depositing more. On one table, my pushes with AK, AJ, 99, QQ, etc. were called by KK (oops), K5, 22, AT, etc. and I busted out 3-4 times. One opponent cackled, "How many leaves are there on that money tree?" On another table, I bought in for $10 and ran it up to $140. Net gain: $173 before the bonus, and by my estimates I was slightly unlucky. When I started buying in short, my variance dropped tremendously, but to my surprise, my winrate (over 10 PTBB/100 at NL 100) has not fallen.

It is a common fallacy that it is always an advantage to have more chips in NL. As has been pointed out individually by many of the Mid-High NL players, it is tremendously profitable to play a short stack when people with deep stacks are playing badly and think no short stack can hurt them, that their stack size means they don't have to play +EV poker. Sometimes the optimal way to exploit this behavior with a short stack.

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
that given a large enough bankroll, a player could bust the casino w/o even using martingale (in fact he would have a better chance w/o using a martingale system,) a large portion of the time. This does not make the game +EV, however, and that's not his point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. In fact once I realized that I did not need the Martingale I changed to a simple double up strategy. Believe it or not there is an important point here. That is the potential strength of a large bankroll. It is very evident in tournaments. I was trying to apply this same idea to cash games. I realize that there is no inherent (mathematical) advantage to a massive buy-in when compared to the average buy-in by the rest of one's opponents. But if a player was to buy-in comparatively small and not quit until he or the massive bankroll played a significant number of all-in hands against each other I believe that the massive buy-in would have an advantage. The concept of getting the best of it is in direct conflict with this way of thinking and is, in my opinion, what Daniel is saying. He's right of course. When you gamble you want to get your money in with the best of it. But you also want to do it with the concept of "gambler's" ruin in the back of your mind. That is the point. If there is an advantage to massive buy-in it may be an intimidation factor that might not be quantifiable.

Vince

[TomCollins]

Vince, I'm going to ask you one more time (you must have me ignored).

What is your definition of "advantage" in this case.

Does it mean you will bust the other player a very large percentage of the time?

Or does it mean having +EV?

[Vincent Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
"The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely true. You claim it is untrue and back it up with the statement that no player has an infinite bankroll. An infinite bankroll vs a finite bankroll is part and parcel to my statement. You know that. You refuse to acknowledge that. You must know then that given an infinite bankroll and no betting cap the Martingdale will break a casino with a finite bankroll. I'll wait until you honestly answer this before continuing.

Vince

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely true. You claim it is untrue and back it up with the statement that no player has an infinite bankroll. An infinite bankroll vs a finite bankroll is part and parcel to my statement. You know that. You refuse to acknowledge that. You must know then that given an infinite bankroll and no betting cap the Martingdale will break a casino with a finite bankroll. I'll wait until you honestly answer this before continuing.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

The -EV game is still -EV game even though the ROR of the casino is 1 or close to one. I thought that originally you meant that an infinite bankroll with a Martingale betting system would turn a -EV game to a +EV game. Now I'm not sure what do you mean when you say that Martingale would work.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
"The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work."

This is absolutely true. You claim it is untrue and back it up with the statement that no player has an infinite bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
For a martingale to succeed with probability 1, you need both ingredients:

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] An infinite bankroll.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] No cap on the bets.

With either ingredient alone, a martingale would not succeed with probability 1. In particular, if you have a finite bankroll, and a casino lets you play a martingale with no cap on the betting limit, you will not win with probability 1, and you will lose money on average. The average amount of money you lose is greater when your bankroll is greater.

Unless there are people with infinite bankrolls (not just so large as to impress you, but infinite), your statement is wrong. Since no one has an infinite bankroll, no one could make the martingale succeed with probability 1, even if the casinos removed the betting limits.

I'm willing to bet that a 2+2 author would say your statement above is wrong, even though you say it is absolutely correct. Are you willing to bet on it?


By the way, your theory that the reason casinos have betting limits is to protect themselves from whales who would bet $20 billion is ridiculous. It doesn't explain why the betting limit for a red chip game is often $500 or less rather than $50k or more. By your theory, the betting limit should be the same on all tables, and should vary with the financial health of the casino. The explanations others have given make much more sense.

[ QUOTE ]
An infinite bankroll vs a finite bankroll is part and parcel to my statement. You know that. You refuse to acknowledge that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you think you just said.

Your statements about infinite bankrolls are completely trivial, when correct. No one is arguing with them.

You also made statements about people with finite bankrolls. All of the applications involve people with finite bankrolls, and buying in for a finite number of chips. Your assumption that the case of a large finite bankroll resembles what happens with an infinite bankroll is wrong, and your statements about the finite case and real world are wrong.