All mathmatical systems will beat any crap, roulette or other similar game

Quote: rdw4potus

You show me how to make a spreadsheet that includes infinite time and money without using formulas, and I'll be happy to comply.

Come on. That's radiculous.

I got sick of waiting. here is mine.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3eruTU5Xu_jOTg0YjgxMGMtMTk5Yi00NzllLWEzZGUtMGZiNzE0OTE2YTNm

download the file to your desktop so you can look at the formulas and run it as many times as you want.

Hit F9 to refresh. Hit it as many times as you want. the roulette martingale makes money EVERY time. It doesn't take infinite anything. I also have a lay system as well (you need to multiple x3 plus the vig to cover the loss). This doesn't work as well, but OFTEN makes money, but looses a bit sometimes.

Quote: slackyhacky

Show me.

Make an excel spreadsheet. Let's not say he said, she said. Show me. Not with formulas - they are like statistics (which from mark twain we know are lies).

show me.

First off, there's no point in using a spreadsheet without formulas, so let's skip the spreadsheet. Want to see how the Martingale can't change the house edge? Let's start with two assumptions.

One is that you agree that a player who makes flat bets doesn't expect to beat the game. Let's use the red bet on roulette. Do you accept that a player flat-betting red on an American roulette table has a house edge of 5.26%?

Two is that the results of a player at a first roulette table are totally independent of a player at a second roulette table. Whether the second player wins or loses has nothing to do with whether the first player wins or loses.

If you accept these two basic facts as true, then it is easy to see that the Martingale doesn't "work". That's because the Martingale is equivalent to a bunch of different players at different tables, all of them flat betting different amounts, and then adding up the total results. Here's how:

At table 1, Andy bets $1 on red. He keeps betting $1 until he loses. When he loses, he shouts to Bill that it's his turn.
At table 2, Bill waits for Andy to yell at him. When Bill hears Andy, Bill bets $2 on red. If he wins, he shouts back to Andy to start again. If he loses, he shouts to Chuck.
At table 3, Chuck waits for Bill. When Chuck hears Bill, Chuck bets $4 on red. If he wins, he shouts back to Andy. If he loses, he shouts to Dave.
At table 4, Dave waits for Chuck. When Dave hears Chuck, Dave bets $8 on red. If he wins, he shouts back to Andy. If he loses, he shouts to Edgar.
At table 5, Edgar waits for Dave. When Edgar hears Dave, Edgar bets $16 on red. If he wins, he shouts back to Andy. If he loses, he shouts to Frank.
This pattern continues for another 5 or 10 tables, depending on the maximum house limit. Maybe the rest of the players are named Gerald, Hank, Izzy, Joe, Kurt, Leif, Mark, Nick, Oswald, and Paul -- they all wait until the player at the table before them lost, and then they make a flat bet that is double the last player's wager. Except for Andy, they never bet twice in a row, and Andy only bets multiple times in a row when he goes on a winning streak.

All of these players are flat-betting. They never change their wagers, and they just sit around most of the time waiting for their designated time to bet. And if you were just walking by the roulette table where, say, Frank was playing, you'd never say "wow, Frank just waits around and bets $32 on red every once in a while. That's a winning system!" In fact, you would expect Frank to lose his fair share of those $32 bets and overall have results that approach the house edge. You would never think that Frank was somehow a guaranteed long-term winner.

But here's the point: if Andy isn't a guaranteed long-term winner, and Bill isn't a guaranteed long-term winner, and Chuck isn't a guaranteed long-term winner, and so forth for the rest of them, then the combination of all of them can't be a guaranteed long-term winner either. After all, you're just adding up their results, and if all of them are losers individually, they're all losers together.

Now consider that instead of using Bill, Chuck, Dave, etc., to make bigger bets, Andy just runs from one table to the next, making the flat bet of the appropriate size on the table. If he loses, he goes to table 2 and bets $2. If he loses there, he goes to table 3 and bets $4. If he wins, he goes back to table 1 and starts over at $1. Now it's all Andy's money, but it's exactly the same results as if Bill, Chuck, Dave, etc. had been betting some of it. Andy still isn't a guaranteed long-term winner.

And finally, consider that instead of Andy running from one table to another, he gets lazy and just sits at the same table making the bets he was going to make at all the other tables. He starts at $1, then flat bets until he loses and then bets $2. If he loses he bets $4; if he wins he starts over at $1. That's the Martingale system. Still think it's a guaranteed long-term winner?

Quote: slackyhacky

Come on. That's radiculous.

I got sick of waiting. here is mine.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3eruTU5Xu_jOTg0YjgxMGMtMTk5Yi00NzllLWEzZGUtMGZiNzE0OTE2YTNm

download the file to your desktop so you can look at the formulas and run it as many times as you want.

Hit F9 to refresh. Hit it as many times as you want. the roulette martingale makes money EVERY time. It doesn't take infinite anything. I also have a lay system as well (you need to multiple x3 plus the vig to cover the loss). This doesn't work as well, but OFTEN makes money, but looses a bit sometimes.

I noticed you went as high as 8 losses in a row, with the top bet of $512 winning. A person doing this will inevitably continue catching those losses at 1024, 2048, 4096 etc., etc. I wouldn't want to be that guy whose bankroll becomes busted.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you accept these two basic facts as true, then it is easy to see that the Martingale doesn't "work". That's because the Martingale is equivalent to a bunch of different players at different tables, all of them flat betting different amounts, and then adding up the total results. Here's how:

All of these players are flat-betting.... then...... he gets lazy and just sits at the same table making the bets he was going to make at all the other tables. He starts at $1, then flat bets until he loses and then bets $2. If he loses he bets $4; if he wins he starts over at $1. That's the Martingale system. Still think it's a guaranteed long-term winner?

Owned. ME sinks the 30 foot putt for eagle!

Quote: slackyhacky

Come on. That's radiculous.

I got sick of waiting. here is mine.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3eruTU5Xu_jOTg0YjgxMGMtMTk5Yi00NzllLWEzZGUtMGZiNzE0OTE2YTNm

download the file to your desktop so you can look at the formulas and run it as many times as you want.

Hit F9 to refresh. Hit it as many times as you want. the roulette martingale makes money EVERY time. It doesn't take infinite anything. I also have a lay system as well (you need to multiple x3 plus the vig to cover the loss). This doesn't work as well, but OFTEN makes money, but looses a bit sometimes.

OK. Even though I didn't bother to examine the formulas, I tried it.

In the 100 times I hit F9, there were some net profits, and some net losses. Never more than +/- 150,000.

Except for the three times that I lost the entire 10 million!

hi ME,

very good post.
In my opinion your fact number two (which is true, of course) and the fact that result A at time tA does not influence result B at time tB at the same table is something people (at least those believing in martingale) do not grasp at the same thing.
Most believers of the martingale system believe that the last result doesn't influence the next result. They hear losing twice in a row happens only 25% of the time. So after they lost one time they think that now they are more lucky to win. They do not understand that the first 50/50 chance has already happend and the next is still 50/50. To make it more visible. Here are the possible results of 3 50/50 events:

LLL = 1/8
LLW = 1/8
LWL = 1/8
LWW = 1/8
WLL = 1/8
WLW = 1/8
WWL = 1/8
WWW = 1/8

Now because LLL only has a chance of 1/8 they think if they lost twice in a row and losing 3 times in a row is just so unlikely (1/8) they are due to win. What they don't realize is that their are already at point LL (1/4) and still at a 50/50 chance to either hit LLW or LLL.

For all of you who don't want to download this document, it's a craps simulator where the player is laying the 10 and tripling his bet after a loss.

So, if you bet $21, you win $10. If you lose, you bet $63 to win $21. This is over 40,000 rolls, which represents about 400 hours on a craps table or 8 hours a week for a year.

So, after pressing F9 a few times, here's the minimum and maximums in bankroll (starting with a 10,000,000 bankroll)

1. 9,078,106
2. 9,727,625
3. 9,923,911
4. 9,702,425
5. 9,717,499
6. 9,975,735
7. 9,938,614
8. 9,908,321
9. 9,392,203
10. 623,821 (loss of 9.7 million)

In 100 trials, I lost the kitty (all of it) FOUR times.

Quote: slackyhacky

Come on. That's radiculous.

I got sick of waiting. here is mine.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3eruTU5Xu_jOTg0YjgxMGMtMTk5Yi00NzllLWEzZGUtMGZiNzE0OTE2YTNm

download the file to your desktop so you can look at the formulas and run it as many times as you want.

Hit F9 to refresh. Hit it as many times as you want. the roulette martingale makes money EVERY time. It doesn't take infinite anything. I also have a lay system as well (you need to multiple x3 plus the vig to cover the loss). This doesn't work as well, but OFTEN makes money, but looses a bit sometimes.

Nice spreadsheet. But it's not a martingale system, it uses a fixed bankroll (not infinite), and it's not making money.

Quote: rdw4potus

Nice spreadsheet. But it's not a martingale system, it uses a fixed bankroll (not infinite), and it's not making money.

uhhh......

where to start...

please screen shot the roulette side showing it not making money. It does everytime for me.

martingale doubles your losses. My spread sheet clearly does this. Please define your definition of martingale.

I don't care about infinite. What does that have to do with it? Show me a spreadsheet that uses a system that doubles your losses (whatever you want to call it) that doesn't work. I have shown you mine, it works everytime I have run it (probably over 3 million now) with a gain.

Let's not talk. let's show. How about that? post the image. post the screen shot.

Quote: boymimbo

For all of you who don't want to download this document, it's a craps simulator where the player is laying the 10 and tripling his bet after a loss.

So, if you bet $21, you win $10. If you lose, you bet $63 to win $21. This is over 40,000 rolls, which represents about 400 hours on a craps table or 8 hours a week for a year.

So, after pressing F9 a few times, here's the minimum and maximums in bankroll (starting with a 10,000,000 bankroll)

1. 9,078,106
2. 9,727,625
3. 9,923,911
4. 9,702,425
5. 9,717,499
6. 9,975,735
7. 9,938,614
8. 9,908,321
9. 9,392,203
10. 623,821 (loss of 9.7 million)

In 100 trials, I lost the kitty (all of it) FOUR times.

I have both roulette and craps on there (as I thought I mentioned.)