Point out the flaw for me?
Thread Rating:
November 16th, 2013 at 12:53:13 PM
permalink
Say we are playing roulette, 1 to 1 payout. $5-1000 bets.
Essentially I am confused why I am getting a positive answer for the martingale working.
Chance of losing = 1/256 aka 2^8
Chance of winning = 255/256
((255/256) x 5) - ((1/256) x 640) = 2.48
(chance of winning five dollars) - (chance of losing 640dollars (which is how much youd be risking if you used the martingale)) = 2.48 expected win?!!
I KNOW the martingale doesn't work. What am I doing wrong? Is my math just terrible?!
Follow up question: if there was a $1 minimum table with no maximum bet, aka you can bet infinite, would the martingale work?
Than you so much
Essentially I am confused why I am getting a positive answer for the martingale working.
Chance of losing = 1/256 aka 2^8
Chance of winning = 255/256
((255/256) x 5) - ((1/256) x 640) = 2.48
(chance of winning five dollars) - (chance of losing 640dollars (which is how much youd be risking if you used the martingale)) = 2.48 expected win?!!
I KNOW the martingale doesn't work. What am I doing wrong? Is my math just terrible?!
Follow up question: if there was a $1 minimum table with no maximum bet, aka you can bet infinite, would the martingale work?
Than you so much
November 16th, 2013 at 12:59:54 PM
permalink
Quote: CrapLostInCRAPsFollow up question: if there was a $1 minimum table with no maximum bet, aka you can bet infinite, would the martingale work?
Than you so much
Yea, if you're the Gazillionaire.
By the way, check out his act under Caesars tent, he's a riot. Best show on the strip.
When somebody doesn't believe me, I could care less. Some get totally bent out of shape when not believed. Weird. I believe very little on all forums
November 16th, 2013 at 1:11:06 PM
permalink
Quote: terapinedYea, if you're the Gazillionaire.
By the way, check out his act under Caesars tent, he's a riot. Best show on the strip.
Loved Absinthe - great show! Not a bad seat in the tent!
November 16th, 2013 at 1:18:16 PM
permalink
Quote: CrapLostInCRAPs
Follow up question: if there was a $1 minimum table with no maximum bet, aka you can bet infinite, would the martingale work?
If you can bet infinite, that means you have an infinite bankroll.
So, if you have an infinite bankroll, why gamble at all? You cannot increase infinite.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see.
November 16th, 2013 at 1:18:16 PM
permalink
Quote: CrapLostInCRAPsSay we are playing roulette, 1 to 1 payout. $5-1000 bets.
Essentially I am confused why I am getting a positive answer for the martingale working.
Chance of losing = 1/256 aka 2^8
Chance of winning = 255/256
You are not always losing or winning exactly 1 unit for any given sequence of 8 events. You have to cycle over all sequences of 8 events XXXXXXXX where X is either a win or loss, each of which has a different win/loss amount. The probability and total payout of each sequence will vary according to the specific game you are considering. If you do that with the usual spread sheet combinatorial analysis, you will get the right answer, no matter the game.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
November 16th, 2013 at 1:29:22 PM
permalink
Quote: CrapLostInCRAPs
Chance of losing = 1/256 aka 2^8
Chance of winning = 255/256
((255/256) x 5) - ((1/256) x 640) = 2.48
First of all, chances of losing is not 1/2^8 (that would be on a fair game), it is (19/37)^8 or (20/38)^8 on a single or double zero wheel.
Second, after losing the 8th try, you lost 1275 (your 640 is the 8th bet, but you lost 1st to 7th bet already).
The correct formula should be
(1 - (19/37)^8) * 5 - (19/37)^8 * 1275 = -1.19 (single zero)
or
(1 - (20/38)^8) * 5 - (20/38)^8 * 1275 = -2.54 (double zero)
November 16th, 2013 at 1:39:30 PM
permalink
MangoJ youre a genius. Thanks!
November 18th, 2013 at 3:08:16 AM
permalink
Wonderful and simple answer! I'm ashamed of never having thought of it that way! Kudos, Keyser!Quote: KeyserSoze
So, if you have an infinite bankroll, why gamble at all? You cannot increase infinite.
Inf + 1 = Inf, thus you CANNOT win!!!
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
November 18th, 2013 at 3:28:19 AM
permalink
In the real world with a $1 bet and enough money behind you --- say a couple of billion dollars (give Bill Gates a call and you can go to about 70 billion dollars) --- chances are you'll win. I think the longest record of one color coming up was around 23 in a row (I'm too lazy to look it up in my book) so if you were betting black you would have lost 23 bets. So a couple of billion dollars probably takes you over 30 of the same color coming up in a row. If you bet different ways in 1-to-1 (meaning 10-9) bets the same would apply. You'd have to hit about 30 losses in a row to lose that two billion. (I am sure the mathematicians can work this out exactly. I have to get on the damn treadmill in order to keep my weight under a billion pounds.)
November 19th, 2013 at 9:24:16 AM
permalink
Quote: KeyserSozeIf you can bet infinite, that means you have an infinite bankroll.
So, if you have an infinite bankroll, why gamble at all? You cannot increase infinite.
I beg to differ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VSYmGSJtCA
November 19th, 2013 at 9:38:26 AM
permalink
Quote: KeyserSozeSo, if you have an infinite bankroll, why gamble at all? You cannot increase infinite.
Actually, infinite comes in different sizes.
November 19th, 2013 at 1:24:45 PM
permalink
Suppose you are the casino with an infinite bankroll. Should you offer roulette for an infinite table max ? Definetly. Although you can't increase an infinite bankroll, there is absolutely no reason for an infinitely funded casino to stick to any table max on roulette.
Hence "You cannot increase infinite" is the wrong explanation why a player should never play a martingale even with infinite bankroll. Because if this explanation where true, the casino should never offer such a game (which is clearly wrong).
Hence "You cannot increase infinite" is the wrong explanation why a player should never play a martingale even with infinite bankroll. Because if this explanation where true, the casino should never offer such a game (which is clearly wrong).
November 26th, 2013 at 9:57:26 AM
permalink
Hum, your explanation is not clear. If I understand correctly, you are referring to the possibility for the casino to earn an infinity in surplus of its infinite bankroll.
But inf + Inf is still Inf, so no avail. You would need to have an infinity of players. And yet this still would not make your countable infinite a continuous one, so, no again.
Anyway, we are talking "player with an infinite bankroll", and he is playing against one casino. We didn't say he would be playing an infinity of rolls or in an infinity of casinos.
Sorry, I can't see what you deem "clearly wrong"?
But inf + Inf is still Inf, so no avail. You would need to have an infinity of players. And yet this still would not make your countable infinite a continuous one, so, no again.
Anyway, we are talking "player with an infinite bankroll", and he is playing against one casino. We didn't say he would be playing an infinity of rolls or in an infinity of casinos.
Sorry, I can't see what you deem "clearly wrong"?
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
November 26th, 2013 at 10:09:26 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 28th, 2013 at 7:55:05 AM
permalink
Infinite bankrolls and infinite decks of cards only exist in the minds of those mathematically addicted.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
