Wizard is wrong on his Martingale analysis

Quote: andraaklly

Your anaysis is wrong, and lets see you model it with these facts in mind...

You could stand to use a little more tact if you want to discuss this like gentlemen, rather than come out guns blazing and insulting me on my own site.

Show me specifically where I say that the Martingale would lose on any game with a player advantage. Basically, what I say that is that any betting system can't beat a game with a house edge, like roulette. Not only can't betting systems beat the house edge, they can't even dent it.

delete

Quote: Wizard

You could stand to use a little more tact if you want to discuss this like gentlemen, rather than come out guns blazing and insulting me on my own site.

Show me specifically where I say that the Martingale would lose on any game with a player advantage. Basically, what I say that is that any betting system can't beat a game with a house edge, like roulette. Not only can't betting systems beat the house edge, they can't even dent it.

Hey, Wiz, I think I know the problem with this type of guy. People seem to get lost in the math. When I was getting to undedrstand the finer points of gambling I thought you could dent the house advantage by say progressive betting (ie: increase a unit after wins but flat bet after losses.) I got it when someone said, "Look at it this way, if you win half the bets and win .95 and lose half and lose it all you will never come out ahead no matter if you bet $1 or $1MM--IT DOES NOT MATTER." Or the guy said something like that.

I'd suggest that as a math guy and a college professor you should be able to make people understand. But I have read every last "Ask the Wizard" on WoO and been here almost since the start. These martingale guys are the type that think the moon landing was faked but professional wrestling is real.

heres a way to look at it. if you bet $10 and lose, do you think it makes any difference to the casino if you bet $20 the next hand or leave the table and the next guy proceeds to bet $20? were you more likely to win than him? is he now more likely to win since you lost the last hand and hes taking your place?

Quote: rudeboyoi

heres a way to look at it. if you bet $10 and lose, do you think it makes any difference to the casino if you bet $20 the next hand or leave the table and the next guy proceeds to bet $20? were you more likely to win than him? is he now more likely to win since you lost the last hand and hes taking your place?

A spurious example at best. Are you trying to say that if I bet the $20 the next guy won't come up and play and bet his $20?

System believers are almost hopeless. They believe with a religious faith that if an event has not happened for a while, like red in roulette, it becomes overdue, and more likely. They abuse the Law of Large Numbers to make their point. What is difficult to make them understand is that regression to mean happens, even with every trial being independent. I can't count the number of e-mails I've received from people who finally saw the light after spending money on several betting systems, and seen all of them fail, with the so called "money back guarantees" rebuffed.

Not to say this is the case with the original poster. If you have a positive EV game, then a betting system couldn't lose over the long run.

I'm guessing the OP, who joined today and made his first (and only) post today, was just trying to start some bs. My $.02 lol

Quote: mkl654321

It's sort of like a discussion on alchemy in the year 2010. If someone claims to be able to turn lead into gold, I don't actually need to see his experimental apparatus to know that it won't work. Similarly, we don't need to minutely examine a Martingale, nor pay attention to any new "twist" or variation thereon, to know that it's an exercise in futility.

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080527073447AASdVm8 we have, "Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Well, it can be done by nuclear reactions but it is much easier to convert Gold into Lead as the two elements are three protons apart.

Using neutron capture in the following reaction you can convert gold into lead. So any gold in a nuclear reactor would eventually become lead.

197Au + n �¨ 198Au (halflife 2.7 days) �¨ 198Hg + n �¨ 199Hg + n �¨ 200Hg + n �¨ 201Hg + n �¨ 202Hg + n �¨ 203Hg (halflife 47 days) �¨ 203Tl + n �¨ 204Tl (halflife 3.8 years) �¨ 204Pb (halflife 1.4x1017 years)

Of course you cannot convert lead into gold by any chemical reaction, which is what the alchemists wanted to do.
2 years ago"
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Unbelievable, how many of these posters, including the Wizard, are so quick to accept the "rhetoric"... even before others are allowed the chance to continue a worthwhile thread.

wiz 1, system believers 0...............game over.

Quote: Garnabby

Unbelievable, how many of these posters, including the Wizard, are so quick to accept the "rhetoric"... even before others are allowed the chance to continue a worthwhile thread.

I think most people would disagree, that it's not a worthwhile thread. It's a quick and easy disproof. And you just proved your own point -- you can't turn lead into gold!