Maringale~Regression to the Mean~Fade

I will use Roulette for an example, but this goes for all even money bets. "On August 18th, 1913, at the casino in Monte Carlo, black came up a record 26 consecutive times", and a Google search revealed an insane 32 consecutive red spins, at a Brazilian casino, 40 years ago. (fake??) My question for the Wizard, is that IF I HAD A CONSTANT SUPPLY OF INDIVIDUALS with the fortune or misfortune of hitting/missing 22-24 in a row, could I martingale/regression to the mean/fade, etc., them into a profit? It makes sense to me because barring an epic streak of historical proportions, my bankroll would be safe. I look forward to your reply, or any others are welcome to chime in on this approach.

not sure what regression means here, but it sounds like your problem would be the ordinary circumstance of shorter streaks!

Your real problem will be table maximums. Casino's have figured out how to stop an unlikely series from costing them too much.

Quote: ncfatcat

Your real problem will be table maximums. Casino's have figured out how to stop an unlikely series from costing them too much.

I wonder if this could be overcome by having 2 or more people make the same bet? Yes, I realize that the casino may close a table or not allow action on a color at some crazy level, but for most?

That martingale system is seductive. Problem is, the theory is sound. Wiz himself states if you had an infinate bankroll and if you had no limits and if you had infinate time that it would work. So everybody tries to see if you can work it with fewer "ifs."

NOTE: this is a theoretical question only, I know the reasons Martingals doesn't work.

Quote: AZDuffman

I wonder if this could be overcome by having 2 or more people make the same bet?

That'll just allow you to get one level past the table limit. Add two more people and you can climb one more rung up that ladder. A couple more losses, and that table will be too crowded to play.

Quote: AZDuffman

Problem is, the theory is sound. Wiz himself states if you had an infinate bankroll and if you had no limits and if you had infinate time that it would work. So everybody tries to see if you can work it with fewer "ifs."

I doubt that the wizard ever said the theory was sound. Given an infinite bankroll, and infinite amount of time, and infinitely high table max wouldn't matter because you would eventually hit an infinitely long losing streak. Think about it. If everything else was infinite ( a vague concept) then so would the losing streak.

You have to be very careful of how you use the word "infinite". Mathematicians (particularly Wierstrauss) developed very specific definitions in the 19th century of how to define concepts like "infinite", so you won't be trapped into these logical fallacies.

The highest table limits I have ever seen allowed you to lose up to 10 times (doubling each time) before you hit the table limit. But 5 or 6 times is more common. But it doesn't matter how big the table limits are. Even given no house edge, you are twice as likely to hit a long enough streak to bankrupt you before you double your bankroll (assuming your bankroll is large enough to cover the maximum number of losses permitted by the table). That is a mathematical fact.

Artificially increasing your maximum bet by having dummy players doesn't mean anything.

Quote: AZDuffman

Wiz himself states if you had an infinate bankroll and if you had no limits and if you had infinate time that it would work. So everybody tries to see if you can work it with fewer "ifs."

I never said that. In fact, I have said the opposite, that even with infinite money, betting limits, and time the Martingale still doesn't win in a negative game like roulette. It has been argued here before, and it gets ridiculous because it gets into semantics about what infinity means.

Quote: Wizard

I never said that. In fact, I have said the opposite, that even with infinite money, betting limits, and time the Martingale still doesn't win in a negative game like roulette. It has been argued here before, and it gets ridiculous because it gets into semantics about what infinity means.

Sorry if I quoted it incorrect, I was going off of this:

http://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/76/

I didn't remember the semantics of infinity part.

OK, forget roulette, never should have used it as an example.

Dear Wizard, Welcome to Ohio! I have filled "The Horseshoe" with 105,000 coin flippin' Ohio State Buckeye fans! We have sealed the exit ramps, so they will be here for a decade. 24/7, they are flippin' coins, and happy to do it. (just roll with it, establishing law of large numbers) We instruct them to come down to midfield if anyone can flip 22 heads or tails in a row. The process is mundane, but several times a month, people come to midfield as instructed. Even though they've accomplished an amazing feat, they are sat back in their seat if they can't extend their streak to 25 in a row. The few that can get to 25, we begin to fade them. No juice, no house edge, just a bankroll of $100,000 with $100 bets, and using martingale. We will also apply, "Regression to the upper mean", since mean is 50% in a coin flip, we will stop betting with these people when their percentage drops under 95%. Even though it would set world records, STILL a flawed betting system for even money games???

Quote: DHass22

OK, forget roulette, never should have used it as an example.

Dear Wizard, Welcome to Ohio! I have filled "The Horseshoe" with 105,000 coin flippin' Ohio State Buckeye fans! We have sealed the exit ramps, so they will be here for a decade. 24/7, they are flippin' coins, and happy to do it. (just roll with it, establishing law of large numbers) We instruct them to come down to midfield if anyone can flip 22 heads or tails in a row. The process is mundane, but several times a month, people come to midfield as instructed. Even though they've accomplished an amazing feat, they are sat back in their seat if they can't extend their streak to 25 in a row. The few that can get to 25, we begin to fade them. No juice, no house edge, just a bankroll of $100,000 with $100 bets, and using martingale. We will also apply, "Regression to the upper mean", since mean is 50% in a coin flip, we will stop betting with these people when their percentage drops under 95%. Even though it would set world records, STILL a flawed betting system for even money games???

Why not do this at Notre Dame so people stay willingly and you don't need to seal the exits?

On the serious side, assuming a truly unbiased coin flip it should not matter, neither side will come out ahead in a game with no edge for either side. The 25th bet is no different than the 1st, odds are 50/50.