August 3rd, 2014 at 7:47:25 PM
permalink

Quote:JyBrd0403Yes, but do you know of a formula that calculates the EV on the D'Alembert?

Yes: house edge = 2/38.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan

August 3rd, 2014 at 7:50:29 PM
permalink

Quote:WizardYes: house edge = 2/38.

I'll take that as a no. I don't get it, I've asked around and can't find any formula for it, weird.

August 3rd, 2014 at 8:57:40 PM
permalink

Quote:JyBrd0403Quote:24BingoBy that strategy, technically, the EV will be positive, but your expected time at the table will be infinite.

The time at the table would be finite, under those rules. You'd reach equal number of wins and losses well before infinity.

Two problems with that statement.

First, "well before infinity" is pretty much meaningless, given that infinity is very, very, very, veryveryvery, very, did I mention very, very large. "You'd reach equal number of wins and losses" may take years.

Second, you would also reach a loss limit well before infinity.

For limited plays, I can show that EV is zero. For example, if you stop after three plays, there are 8 possible results:

WWW: +3

WWL: +1

WLW: +2 (+1, -1, +2)

WLL: -2 (+1, -1, -2)

LWW: +2 (-1,+2, +1)

LWL: 0 (-1, +2, -1)

LLW: 0 (-1, -2, +3)

LLL: -6 (-1, -2, -3)

In a 50/50 game, each is equally likely, so the EV = 1/8 x (the sum of the 8 values) = 0.

I am trying to see if I can work out an EV given the conditions (win the first game or eventually reach wins = losses) over certain loss limits (as well as one with infinite bankroll and time), but there are quite a few states to consider. For example, if you lose your first 2 bets, you are at 2 more losses than wins and bankroll -3, but a win and loss (in either order) results in still having 2 more losses than wins but bankroll -2.

August 3rd, 2014 at 9:42:06 PM
permalink

Quote:ThatDonGuyQuote:JyBrd0403Quote:24BingoBy that strategy, technically, the EV will be positive, but your expected time at the table will be infinite.

The time at the table would be finite, under those rules. You'd reach equal number of wins and losses well before infinity.

Two problems with that statement.

First, "well before infinity" is pretty much meaningless, given that infinity is very, very, very, veryveryvery, very, did I mention very, very large. "You'd reach equal number of wins and losses" may take years.

Second, you would also reach a loss limit well before infinity.

For limited plays, I can show that EV is zero. For example, if you stop after three plays, there are 8 possible results:

WWW: +3

WWL: +1

WLW: +2 (+1, -1, +2)

WLL: -2 (+1, -1, -2)

LWW: +2 (-1,+2, +1)

LWL: 0 (-1, +2, -1)

LLW: 0 (-1, -2, +3)

LLL: -6 (-1, -2, -3)

In a 50/50 game, each is equally likely, so the EV = 1/8 x (the sum of the 8 values) = 0.

I am trying to see if I can work out an EV given the conditions (win the first game or eventually reach wins = losses) over certain loss limits (as well as one with infinite bankroll and time), but there are quite a few states to consider. For example, if you lose your first 2 bets, you are at 2 more losses than wins and bankroll -3, but a win and loss (in either order) results in still having 2 more losses than wins but bankroll -2.

Let me try to explain, what I'm trying to show, that may help. My only point, is that the D'alembert wins, if it takes years for it to win it take years, but I hope you also realize that after years of waiting, the payoff will be HUGE. You win 1 unit per win so after a million trials, you'd win 500,000 units. Point being, you'd end up making the same amount of money, whether it takes years to complete 1 sequence or you complete 100 sequences daily.

As for bankroll, that's always a question, even on a +HE game you have to worry about the bankroll. The thing with the D'Alembert is that you gain 1 unit for every win, so you're adding to your bankroll all the time. So, with the D'alembert the only thing that really hurts is sharp downturns, you need a bunch of trials or a sharp upturn to make up for the losses. In reality, though, if you know you will eventually win, you can always go back and put more money together if you lose your bankroll while playing. Just keep adding to the bankroll, if you know you will eventually win and turn a profit.

As you can probably tell, I try to do most of this in my head, so I just try to see the big picture (like you'll have equal wins/losses before reaching Infinity). Doing all the technical stuff is just not as easy for me.

August 3rd, 2014 at 10:09:14 PM
permalink

Quote:JyBrd0403Quote:24BingoBy that strategy, technically, the EV will be positive, but your expected time at the table will be infinite.

The time at the table would be finite, under those rules. You'd reach equal number of wins and losses well before infinity.

In one sense, that's true. In a 50/50 game (although NOT one with an edge), you have probability 1 of ultimately coming to that point. And, of course, hand #googolplex is just as long "before infinity" as the fourth.

However, just like the return of the St. Petersburg game, that doesn't mean the expected number of hands you'll need is finite.

First, the easy part: half of all progressions will be over in one hand, and another quarter will be over in two. If we were to keep a running total, it would be at 1 hand, but that doesn't really matter for reasons you'll soon see.

It makes sense to look at the remaining quarter of progressions as pairs of trials, with the first pair fixed at LL. So starting at -1, with each step bringing us up 1 (.25), down 1 (.25) or standing still, what's the expected number of steps it'll take us to get to 0? Let's call it x (so EV = (2x+2)/4 + 1).

To "answer" the question, we'll do a bit of recursion. If you drop down, the expected number of steps it'll take you to get back to where you were for the first time will be the same as the expected number of steps it'll take you to then get back up to the top. Likewise, if you stay where you are, the expected number of steps will increase by 1. So let x be the expected number of steps.

x = .25*1 + .5*(x+1) + .25*(x+x)

x = x + .75

In short, there can be no finite x.

I'm sure I could come up with a less hackish demonstration that x blows up, but it's 1 AM and I've been drinking.

In fact, it occurs to me that your expected winnings, if you could follow the strategy you describe, would be not only positive, but infinite. However, you can't follow such a strategy, because no matter how trusting your credit card company is, sooner or later you'll keel over, and whether it takes a hundred years, or a googol, or even 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years, that's still finite, and any finite limit of time or funds is -EV.

The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.

August 3rd, 2014 at 11:05:49 PM
permalink

I don't think you understand how math works, OP.

August 3rd, 2014 at 11:08:42 PM
permalink

Quote:RSI don't think you understand how math works, OP.

What are you questioning?

August 4th, 2014 at 12:26:17 AM
permalink

Your sanity.Quote:JyBrd0403What are you questioning?

I guess the real question is what game are you trying to beat and how? Perhaps someone will then show you how or why its not possible. Not that it would help you anyways but do you ave a game that's a true 50 /50?

I just don't know why people believe they are smarter then EVERYONE. Years and years of very intelligent people have been analyzing table games and systems.

Nothing works unless you have something more then just some betting system. IE card counting

♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪

August 4th, 2014 at 12:32:37 AM
permalink

Quote:JyBrd0403What are you questioning?

In a perfect world, the D'alem works perfectly. In a

real casino the pit smiles while they take your money.

Maybe they'll comp you a pack of smokes for

your trouble.

It does not suck to be me.

August 4th, 2014 at 12:36:40 AM
permalink

In a perfect world no one would be looking for easy money betting schemes.Quote:EvenBobIn a perfect world, the D'alem works perfectly. In a

real casino the pit smiles while they take your money.

Maybe they'll comp you a pack of smokes for

your trouble.

BOB did you see the new Episode of Heel on wheels yet? I started it but feel asleep .

♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪