50 blacks in a row
So this is a very specific math problem i'm trying to work out and would love the help of wizard.
Essentially martingale doesn't work to to the maximum table bet limits. This is never disputed. However what if the table limit is set to allow for a series of 50 doubling bets, and you have the bankroll to make the bets.
Say we are flipping a coin and betting even money. 1 pays 1.
My question is, what are the chances of losing 50 times in a row?
And will you come out ahead if you make 1 bet every second.
MORE INFORMATION
This is a very specific problem. Essentially the house edge is 1%. A bet has a 49.5% chance to win and pays even money.
I think, I could be wrong, that a 1% house edge is inefficient in this scenario.
Do i know how much the max bet would be?
Well, the betting starts at .00000001 and goes to 5,000,000. For the purposes of this discussion and to make the numbers easier I left that out. Essentially it becomes "you can double your bet 50 times"
Quote: tehepidemickHowever what if the table limit is set to allow for a series of 50 doubling bets, and you have the bankroll to make the bets.
Have you calculated how much that 50th bet would be???
ever recorded was 33 reds in a row in Brazil
in 1947. I saw 19 reds, a black, and 10 more
reds at the Rio in Vegas.
It looks like the poster edited his first post, also, so now we're talking about coin flips.
But you can't edit the title.
Quote: tehepidemickEven though this is for roulette, lets use coin flips so its an easier 50%.
So this is a very specific math problem i'm trying to work out and would love the help of wizard.
Essentially martingale doesn't work to to the maximum table bet limits. This is never disputed. However what if the table limit is set to allow for a series of 50 doubling bets, and you have the bankroll to make the bets.
Say we are flipping a coin and betting even money. 1 pays 1.
My question is, what are the chances of losing 50 times in a row?
And will you come out ahead if you make 1 bet every second.
Let us put this in perspective.
The current M2 money supply in the US is a little over $11 trillion.
And you are asking, what if a casino allowed you to spread bets between $1 and $1126 trillion?
Quote: beachbumbabsStarting with $1, after 12 losses, you've already lost $4095, and it gets astronomically ugly from there. I don't think there are enough digits on my calculator to give the long number for the last bet, let alone enough money in the world to make it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceLet us put this in perspective.
The current M2 money supply in the US is a little over $11 trillion.
And you are asking, what if a casino allowed you to spread bets between $1 and $1126 trillion?
Since were talking perspective, the unit im discussing is worth .0019 cent. You are allowed to bet between .00000001 units and 5,000,000 units. This is not a casino this is an online gambling.
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't know what time has to do with a doubling sequence. Are you assuming a 50-50 chance of winning with no commission or house edge on your game, like a coin flip? The HE and whether there's commission make a difference on whether you "come out ahead", I would think. So, for a specific answer, you probably have to be specific about those things.
Im asking, will you have enough time in your lifetime to see the losing sequence of your martingale sequences.
I don't want to be a Debbie downer here and yes I freely admit I don't have the mathematical skills to answer your question but I'm not sure your question parameters make sense when we are talking such large numbers here.....
Sorry
Quote: tehepidemickSince were talking perspective, the unit im discussing is worth .0019 cent. You are allowed to bet between .00000001 units and 5,000,000 units. This is not a casino this is an online gambling.
So you're doing all this to win $0.0019? *facepalm*
Quote: TomspurI don't care what the answer to the problem is (no offence OP) because it is completely and utterly unrealistic. If you started with $1 and doubled your bet 40 times then you would have to have a bankroll of 549,755,813,888.............
I don't want to be a Debbie downer here and yes I freely admit I don't have the mathematical skills to answer your question but I'm not sure your question parameters make sense when we are talking such large numbers here.....
Sorry
Your assuming to many factors.
My betting unit is not based on dollars. I am betting an item worth .0019 cents. The spread is .00000001 items to 5,000,000 items. This equates to a maximum bet of $9500
Quote: tehepidemickSince were talking perspective, the unit im discussing is worth .0019 cent. You are allowed to bet between .00000001 units and 5,000,000 units. This is not a casino this is an online gambling.
Ok then let's approach from the other angle.
Forget martingale. If you won every single bet you made (at 1/second) you would earn 1 cent every 1700 years or so.
Quote: EvenBob50 blacks in a row? I think the longest string
ever recorded was 33 reds in a row in Brazil
in 1947. I saw 19 reds, a black, and 10 more
reds at the Rio in Vegas.
Chances of 33 reds in a row = 1 in 51.15 billion.
Gotta call bullshit on this one. Either the story is exaggerated, misremembered, or the wheel was broken. Much more likely the first two.
Quote: Beethoven9thSo you're doing all this to win $0.0019? *facepalm*
Yes. If you had the chance to win $0.0019 every second for the rest of your life with no effort involved whatsoever, would you do it?
*facepalm*
Quote: tehepidemickYes. If you had the chance to win $0.0019 every second for the rest of your life with no effort involved whatsoever, would you do it?
Make up your mind. Is it $0.0019 or 0.0019 cents?
And you are not making 1 unit per second if you are starting at the min bet. You are making 1 min bet every 2 seconds (on average, assuming a fair coin-flip game)
Quote: tehepidemickIm asking, will you have enough time in your lifetime to see the losing sequence of your martingale sequences.
Almost certainly not.
Quote: tehepidemickYes. If you had the chance to win $0.0019 every second for the rest of your life with no effort involved whatsoever, would you do it?
*facepalm*
Nope. That's only about $165 per day, and who knows how long it would continue? No internet casino is going to keep paying you that amount for the rest of your life. Duh
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMake up your mind. Is it $0.0019 or 0.0019 cents?
And you are not making 1 unit per second if you are starting at the min bet. You are making 1 min bet every 2 seconds (on average, assuming a fair coin-flip game)
its not a coinflip. to make it easier to comprehend i used a coinflip comparison. Its an automated computer program making 1 bet every .2 seconds.
I didnt do the math correctly and typed that to quickly. You will win .00000001 units every .2 seconds. However it could be .00001 units(whatever i bet) every .2 seconds, depending on the math behind the odds of losing x number of times in a row.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceMake up your mind. Is it $0.0019 or 0.0019 cents?
Ah, good catch!
0.0019 cents.....even lamer.
Quote: Beethoven9thNope. That's only about $165 per day, and who knows how long it would continue? No internet casino is going to keep paying you that amount for the rest of your life. Duh
Considering it will take me all of 1 hour to setup, im prepared to only let it run a few days.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAlmost certainly not.
See, this is what i wanted to see. Now at what unit can I start at to "almost certainly not" see the losing sequence. If i start at .01 units and go to 5,000,000 units that is 26 bets until i reach the table maximum. Would that be sufficient to not see the losing sequence?
Quote: tehepidemickSee, this is what i wanted to see. Now at what unit can I start at to "almost certainly not" see the losing sequence. If i start at .01 units and go to 5,000,000 units that is 26 bets until i reach the table maximum. Would that be sufficient to not see the losing sequence?
Here is the bottom line:
If there is a house edge, you will do worse than a fair bet. So, if you want to risk $1000, it is more likely that you will go broke than that you win $1000, no matter how you structure your bet. If you only want to try to win $500 with that $1000 then you have worse than a 2/3 chance of succeeding.
No matter how you structure it, you are risking too much to win too little.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHere is the bottom line:
If there is a house edge, you will do worse than a fair bet. So, if you want to risk $1000, it is more likely that you will go broke than that you win $1000, no matter how you structure your bet. If you only want to try to win $500 with that $1000 then you have worse than a 2/3 chance of succeeding.
No matter how you structure it, you are risking too much to win too little.
And why is that? Can you explain why martingale sequence would not work with no maximum bet limit?
Quote: tehepidemickAnd why is that? Can you explain why martingale sequence would not work with no maximum bet limit?
1) You don't have infinite money so you can't afford to play at a table with no maximum bet limit.
2) If you did have infinite money, you couldn't win any more.
Quote: tehepidemickAnd why is that? Can you explain why martingale sequence would not work with no maximum bet limit?
at some point the bet would be higher than all the money in the world.
chances of you running into that scenario? very small. but still big enough to make the system negative expectation.
Quote: tehepidemickAnd why is that? Can you explain why martingale sequence would not work with no maximum bet limit?
Again, and this may be a stupid question on my part....why discuss or hypothesize something that is impossible because there is no casino in the universe that will give you the ability to have no maximum bet.
Also all casino games have a HE built in. How can you get around that fact with any betting system even in the real of impossibilities that you have given us?
I'm not a mathematician just logical so could you explain to me again what your goal is with this simulation?
Quote: MathExtremist1) You don't have infinite money so you can't afford to play at a table with no maximum bet limit.
2) If you did have infinite money, you couldn't win any more.
1) True. However I think 50 sequences is sufficient.
the 50th bet would essentially be close to $9,000.
That is why systems don't work in negative games. The table limits are just there to smooth out business for the house. Even with a house edge, it would cost the casino too much to train, staff, supply, and supervise a table where you could spread a million to 1.
Quote: TomspurAgain, and this may be a stupid question on my part....why discuss or hypothesize something that is impossible because there is no casino in the universe that will give you the ability to have no maximum bet.
Also all casino games have a HE built in. How can you get around that fact with any betting system even in the real of impossibilities that you have given us?
I'm not a mathematician just logical so could you explain to me again what your goal is with this simulation?
Did you read any or the posts? Its not impossible.
My goal.
To make roughly $30 a day with absolutely no effort.
Quote: tehepidemickAnd why is that?
Because the expectation of a finite sequence of variables is the sum of the expectations of all the variables in the sequence. And, if you add up a bunch of negative numbers, you get a negative number.
Quote:Can you explain why martingale sequence would not work with no maximum bet limit?
There is no such thing as "no maximum bet limit".
Practically, there is a finite amount of money that exists, and it makes no sense to bet more than that.
Theoretically, you can use arbitrary numbers, so that problem goes away. But, now your expectation is the sum of an infinite, non-convergent sum, which is undefined. It simply doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to say that "martingale works with no bet limit". The statement is just not well-defined. At any point during the experiment, your total expectation from the time that you started is negative. The expectation of the entire experiment is undefined.
Quote: sodawaterBottom line is that the house edge affects every bet, every time, big or small, win or lose. Eventually you will lose an amount very close to the house edge * all the money you ever wagered.
That is why systems don't work in negative games. The table limits are just there to smooth out business for the house. Even with a house edge, it would cost the casino too much to train, staff, supply, and supervise a table where you could spread a million to 1.
So with a 49.5% chance of winning even money, using the martingale system and being able to double 50 times is a -EV.
Can you explain why.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBecause the expectation of a finite sequence of variables is the sum of the expectations of all the variables in the sequence. And, if you add up a bunch of negative numbers, you get a negative number.
There is no such thing as "no maximum bet limit".
Practically, there is a finite amount of money that exists, and it makes no sense to bet more than that.
Theoretically, you can use arbitrary numbers, so that problem goes away. But, now your expectation is the sum of an infinite, non-convergent sum, which is undefined. It simply doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to say that "martingale works with no bet limit". The statement is just not well-defined. At any point during the experiment, your total expectation from the time that you started is negative. The expectation of the entire experiment is undefined.
Thank for for the well defined answer. However this does not address my core question.
Im not sure why all this conversation has sprang from one question.
My original, and only, question is.
What are the odds of Flipping a coin 50 times and getting Heads 50 times in a row.
In regards to your responses.
1)im not convinced that the negative values outweigh the positive ones,
2)I dont have an arbitrary made up number, I was using smaller numbers to make the math easier. Let me rephrase I guess.
Does the martingale betting theory work when the table maxiumum allows for 50 doubling bets instead of the more widely seen 12 bets.
Quote: tehepidemickDid you read any or the posts? Its not impossible.
My goal.
To make roughly $30 a day with absolutely no effort.
It seems as if every day someone invents the martingale and thinks it's infallible.
Given a sufficiently large bankroll, yes, you could make $30 a day almost every single day. But eventually you will hit a loser so big, it will wipe out all of your prior gains. You could hit that loser at any time.
The house edge makes the martingale and every other system not worth it in a risk vs reward sense.
In single 0 roulette, if you bet red, you have 18 winners and 19 losers. But if you bet 18 units, they only pay you 18 units if you win. They short you that 19th unit. That's why every bet you make on red is NOT WORTH THE RISK because the REWARD IS NOT BIG ENOUGH.
Quote: tehepidemickSo with a 49.5% chance of winning even money, using the martingale system and being able to double 50 times is a -EV.
Can you explain why.
Because you have a very small chance of losing a very large amount of money, and that offsets your big chance of winning a small amount of money.
Say you had $1,000,000. Say you could risk it all to win another dollar, but your chances of losing were 1 in 900,000.
That is similar. Risking a lot of money to win a little, and not quite getting fair odds for it.
That fact that you do it as a sequence instead of as a single bet is irrelevant -- it just makes it take longer.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBecause you have a very small chance of losing a very large amount of money, and that offsets your big chance of winning a small amount of money.
Say you had $1,000,000. Say you could risk it all to win another dollar, but your chances of losing were 1 in 900,000.
That is similar. Risking a lot of money to win a little, and not quite getting fair odds for it.
That fact that you do it as a sequence instead of as a single bet is irrelevant -- it just makes it take longer.
My hypothesis is that I will reach that point once every 38 million years.
Also what if your chances of losing are not 1 in 900,000 but are 1 in 1,000,000,000.
Quote: sodawaterIt seems as if every day someone invents the martingale and thinks it's infallible.
Given a sufficiently large bankroll, yes, you could make $30 a day almost every single day. But eventually you will hit a loser so big, it will wipe out all of your prior gains. You could hit that loser at any time.
The house edge makes the martingale and every other system not worth it in a risk vs reward sense.
In single 0 roulette, if you bet red, you have 18 winners and 19 losers. But if you bet 18 units, they only pay you 18 units if you win. They short you that 19th unit. That's why every bet you make on red is NOT WORTH THE RISK because the REWARD IS NOT BIG ENOUGH.
What are the chances of that loser occurring. For that loser to occur I have to lose a 49.5% chance of winning 50 times in a row. How often does that happen
Quote: tehepidemickMy hypothesis is that I will reach that point once every 38 million years.
In that case you will need a very large bankroll that you are risking compared to your tiny gain.
Quote: tehepidemickDid you read any or the posts? Its not impossible.
My goal.
To make roughly $30 a day with absolutely no effort.
Ok now I'm done with this conversation. I was trying to be civil but you need an answer to a question that has absolutely no hope of succeeding in this or any other parallel universe.
It doesn't matter how many times you bet on either red or black, you still are faced with the H/E which you mathematically CANNOT overcome unless you cheat.
Now your questions doesn't seem to hinge on you doing anything illegal so I have to revert one more time.
I don't care what the odds are of hitting 50 losers in a row, your system does not work......
Thanks
No casino would allow that. The table limits exist to keep someone from getting so lucky they can walk away with the casino's money. 50 bets is like advertizing 100x odds at Craps. Its a publicity stunt.Quote: tehepidemick
Essentially martingale doesn't work to to the maximum table bet limits. This is never disputed. However what if the table limit is set to allow for a series of 50 doubling bets, and you have the bankroll to make the bets.
Quote: FleaStiffNo casino would allow that. The table limits exist to keep someone from getting so lucky they can walk away with the casino's money. 50 bets is like advertizing 100x odds at Craps. Its a publicity stunt.
can we please assume i know a casino that does allow it, because i really do.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIn that case you will need a very large bankroll that you are risking compared to your tiny gain.
I do not think I would be risking much of the bankroll. If an even happens once every 38million years the chances of it occuring in my lifetime are slim. So the most likely number of doubling bets is probably around 30-35
Quote: tehepidemickI do not think I would be risking much of the bankroll. If an even happens once every 38million years the chances of it occuring in my lifetime are slim. So the most likely number of doubling bets is probably around 30-35
Have you considered just putting your money into CDs or something?
Even if you only get a 1% return per year, that's guaranteed, and this system of yours can't get more than a 1% return UNLESS you have more than a 1% risk of going broke every year.
Quote: TomspurOk now I'm done with this conversation. I was trying to be civil but you need an answer to a question that has absolutely no hope of succeeding in this or any other parallel universe.
It doesn't matter how many times you bet on either red or black, you still are faced with the H/E which you mathematically CANNOT overcome unless you cheat.
Now your questions doesn't seem to hinge on you doing anything illegal so I have to revert one more time.
I don't care what the odds are of hitting 50 losers in a row, your system does not work......
Thanks
I can tell you im being civil. Your points were addressed. Ill do so again.
For you to say that it is impossible to figure out the answer to "what are the chances a coin flip land on heads 50 times in a row." can not be answered in this or any other universe is very odd to say the least.
Im not betting red-black, its a 49.5% chance of winning bet.
u dont care what the odds are but the system doesnt work, can you explain why?
Sorry if i seemed uncivil
on a side note, in the current economic state, CDs are a bad investment.(in my opinion)
Quote: tehepidemickI wouldnt consider losing 2,000 going broke. It started as just an idea hat I was curious of the outcome, but now I am curious if it would work or not.
on a side note, in the current economic state, CDs are a bad investment.(in my opinion)
Oh, yeah, they suck. But they are still way better than what you are proposing.
