Just a quick question. Mathematically, if you were to play a D'Alembert to a 5 stop (stopping if you lose a 5 unit bet, and starting over at 1), would you lose the same amount as if you were to add 1 unit after each loss and start over again at 1 unit if you win one time, or if you lose 5 in a row (the same as a 5 step Martingale, except only going up 1 unit at a time).

So, if playing a game where you win 47% of the time, mathematically, will these two games lose the exact same amount or not.

If you can show the math saying they both lose the same amount or not, that would be great.

Edit: If the above was confusing, the 2 games would look like this. D'alembert - 1-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-1-2-3-2-1 The other game 1-2-3-4-1-1-2-3-1-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-1

Quote:JyBrd0403All this Marty and Monkey stuff, got me thinking about a question I've had for a while.

Just a quick question. Mathematically, if you were to play a D'Alembert to a 5 stop (stopping if you lose a 5 unit bet, and starting over at 1), would you lose the same amount as if you were to add 1 unit after each loss and start over again at 1 unit if you win one time, or if you lose 5 in a row (the same as a 5 step Martingale, except only going up 1 unit at a time).

So, if playing a game where you win 47% of the time, mathematically, will these two games lose the exact same amount or not.

If you can show the math saying they both lose the same amount or not, that would be great.

Edit: If the above was confusing, the 2 games would look like this. D'alembert - 1-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-1-2-3-2-1 The other game 1-2-3-4-1-1-2-3-1-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-1

Interesting question. However mathematically, both methods and every other method in the planet loses 2,7% of the money wagered. You see sometimes mathematics doesn't tell the whole story. Mathematically any way of betting, even thowing your chips on the table has the same average expectation in the long run.

End result is the sucker loses all his money if he plays it long enough.

Quote:rudeboyoiYoud lose less because your average bet would be less.

If that's true, then all these betting systems produce different results. If the different systems produce different results, maybe, we can get someone to "rank" the different betting systems. Since, some will produce better results than others, the math should be able to "rank" the different systems from Best to Worst. Right?

Quote:RSOK. Best betting system: flat betting table minimum. Worst is flat betting table max. A good system is increasing your bet by 1 unit after 10 straight losses. A bad system is when you parlay your winning bets every time until you hit the max.

Flat betting is not a method, I wonder why people present "flat-betting" as a betting system.

Quote:RSOK. Best betting system: flat betting table minimum. Worst is flat betting table max. A good system is increasing your bet by 1 unit after 10 straight losses. A bad system is when you parlay your winning bets every time until you hit the max.

Okay, and from my original post which system would "rank" higher? And why?

Quote:JyBrd0403Okay, and from my original post which system would "rank" higher? And why?

I don't know which one is better. But, it'd be the one with a lower average bet than the other. If you can calculate the average bet then you can calculate the expected loss.

There's no real difference. It's an individuals own personal preference.Quote:JyBrd0403Okay, and from my original post which system would "rank" higher? And why?

Someone would need to know your goals and risk tolerance.

If you want to have a higher percent chance you will make a small amount of money but risk going broke fast. There's always Marty with a high 90 percent chance you will make 1 unit.