A Thought On Systems
Your first sentence answered the last. No series of negative expectation bets will make a positive effect.Quote: cwazyI know that in the end, all systems have to come crashing down in flames.
Has anyone actually looked into more subtle forms of Martingale, or has it been instantly dismissed by anyone even remotely mathematically inclined?
No it's not.Quote: cwazyI know that in the end, all systems have to come crashing down in flames. But consider this: martingale is a winning system
Don't trot out the old "it would win if you had an unlimited bankroll" fallacy. You can't win anything if you have an unlimited bankroll.
No it wouldn't, unless your definition of "beat" means something other than "has a positive expectation for the player." The bankrolls involved are irrelevant. What you're doing is falling into the trap of attempting to use infinity (unlimited bankroll, unlimited credit, etc.) to prove a premise that doesn't exist in that realm. You can't bet an infinite amount of money, you can only bet a finite amount, and all wagers that have a house edge maintain that house edge regardless of what finite amount you wager on them.Quote: cwazySince we're now dealing in semantics, let's say you do not have an unlimited bankroll, but have an unlimited credit line at the casino. Can you win anything then? My point was that it is a) a money management system, and that b) given no limits on either credit line or maximum bet, it would beat the house.
Here's a thought experiment for you: take your betting system with multiple wager amounts and divvy up each wager amount to a different person. If it's $1, Andy makes the bet. If it's $2, Bob makes the bet. If it's $3, Carol makes the bet, etc. So Andy only ever makes $1 bets, Bob only ever makes $2 bets, and so forth. You'll need a lot of people if your system is complicated, but at the end of the day each one is making a wager of a given amount when you tell them to.
Which one has the edge over the casino? If none of them do, how does combining all their bets together change anything?
Quote: cwazyI know that in the end, all systems have to come crashing down in flames. But consider this: martingale is a winning system that suffers from a lack of real-world feasibility. However, it would in fact win given an unlimited bankroll and betting limits. Are there other, more subtle and feasible systems that may at least allow players to win for long stretches of time unless and until they run into some incredibly statistically unlikely loss? I think that such a system would be valuable to casual Vegas visitors that just want to be able to tell their friends they won on most of their trips, even if it means nothing to AP's, and even if they lose overall.
Has anyone actually looked into more subtle forms of Martingale, or has it been instantly dismissed by anyone even remotely mathematically inclined?
No they don't all crash and burn. Some fizzle. Some work.
It can also win with limited BR and betting limits like 10X. Big BR sure, unlimited? Get real!
There are no actual subtle/feasible systems. "Most" Everyone is very greedy on that front. So the systems only work with "precision strike" methods to get a bunch of money quick, if it works. But after it fails you lose a LOT of money quick, faster than it ever came in.
Such a slight system you seek IS incredibly valuable to anyone who knows it.
I have looked into all forms of Martingale and developed one such winning system that I do not want to share.
So I told you all of that so you can find one yourself since the math has not changed nor have I changed the math.
Good Luck!
I also have a betting system. I don't like to refer to it as a Martingale. Tis progressive at times, and regressive at others. It does not overcome the House edge. But I swear, it is a ton of fun to play!Quote: rushdlNo they don't all crash and burn. Some fizzle. Some work.
It can also win with limited BR and betting limits like 10X. Big BR sure, unlimited? Get real!
There are no actual subtle/feasible systems. "Most" Everyone is very greedy on that front. So the systems only work with "precision strike" methods to get a bunch of money quick, if it works. But after it fails you lose a LOT of money quick, faster than it ever came in.
Such a slight system you seek IS incredibly valuable to anyone who knows it.
I have looked into all forms of Martingale and developed one such winning system that I do not want to share.
So I told you all of that so you can find one yourself since the math has not changed nor have I changed the math.
Good Luck!
(Legal fine print. You are on your own, you better bring lots and lots of money with you. You may win, you may not, for session after session, after session. Eventually you will lose all that money. But it's better than sex (almost).
There's a reason we call them "proofs." Once you prove something, you don't need to keep looking for counterexamples because you know there aren't any.Quote: cwazyUgg. No more replies please. I either get voodoo practitioners or math professors that believe that everything that can be invented has been. I would delete this thread but I can't.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI also have a betting system. I don't like to refer to it as a Martingale. Tis progressive at times, and regressive at others. It does not overcome the House edge. But I swear, it is a ton of fun to play!
(Legal fine print. You are on your own, you better bring lots and lots of money with you. You may win, you may not, for session after session, after session. Eventually you will lose all that money. But it's better than sex (almost).
We should talk. Are you playing pass-line?
Quote: MathExtremistThere's a reason we call them "proofs." Once you prove something, you don't need to keep looking for counterexamples because you know there aren't any.
cwazy 9 posts and gone. New record for MathEx?
If we're going for records, I want it noted that I only replied to his system twice. :)Quote: rushdlcwazy 9 posts and gone. New record for MathEx?
Quote: MathExtremistIf we're going for records, I want it noted that I only replied to his system twice. :)
When I posted I didn't think things had gone too far south. Then, (like Louie CK) erase erase erase...
And rushdi....I don't even know where to start with you.
If you're replying to me, you posited that the Martingale "worked" if you had an infinite bankroll. That's wrong for several reasons, two of which I attempted to explain, but rather than reading those explanations you jumped to the conclusion that everyone here was either a voodoo practitioner or a closed-minded math professor. And you just directly insulted another member by calling him (or her) a moron. I know for a fact that the owners strongly discourage that type of participation directly, and don't blame me when your name turns red for a few days.Quote: cwazyYou may consider it a badge of honor when you discourage participation in these forums, but the owners probably don't. For the record, I didn't post a system, and since you are saying I did, you clearly you didn't even read the post. I posed a question, to which you responded with the ridiculous notion that even if your bankroll increases and has no chance of decreasing, you haven't actually won because you didn't turn the odds of the game in your favor.
And rushdi, you're a moron.
If you choose to stick around, you might learn something. But not if you're going to show up, post a question based on an invalid premise, and then berate the people who point out that your premise is, in fact, invalid. The right question is "why doesn't the Martingale work" rather than "The Martingale works, so..."
No, that's still wrong. If you're going to rely on theory, you have to rely on it properly. The addition and equality concepts that you're relying on and that you learned about in grade school do not apply to infinities in the same way as they do to finite numbers. If A and B are finite and greater than zero, A + B > A. However if A is infinite instead, A + B = A. In other words, you cannot "add one" to infinity.Quote: cwazyGiven an unlimited bankroll and no betting limits (a situation that would never happen, but we're only discussing theory here anyway), the only possible result of Martingale is to increase their winnings by exactly 1 base unit for each hand/trial won.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, that's still wrong. If you're going to rely on theory, you have to rely on it properly. The addition and equality concepts that you're relying on and that you learned about in grade school do not apply to infinities in the same way as they do to finite numbers. If A and B are finite and greater than zero, A + B > A. However if A is infinite instead, A + B = A. In other words, you cannot "add one" to infinity.
Once again, let's call it an unlimited credit line instead of an unlimited bankroll. Let's say you walk into a casino and have unlimited marker signing privileges, and a table with no limits. Provided that you do not lose every single bet you make - which again is a test that no system, including all of those that this community has embraced as being mathematically sound, would pass - you will have a net gain after each win of exactly 1 base unit. I don't know why it is so incredibly difficult for you to acknowledge that.
Will your question work if instead of using unlimited or infinite it is replaced with 13 trillion dollars?Quote: cwazyOnce again, let's call it an unlimited credit line instead of an unlimited bankroll.
For all intents, having 13 trillion would seem unlimited, it is enough money to buy all the casino's in Vegas several times over.Quote:Let's say you walk into a casino and have unlimited marker signing privileges, and a table with no limits.
From what I understand about Marty, when you win, you start out at the bottom tier again. You may recapture what you lost, but you don't win. What else you got?Quote:... you will have a net gain after each win of exactly 1 base unit.
Quote: petroglyph
From what I understand about Marty, when you win, you start out at the bottom tier again. You may recapture what you lost, but you don't win. What else you got?
You misunderstand "Marty" then. If you had an unlimited credit line and no table limit and started with a $100 bet, the next bet would be $200. If you won, you would have a net profit of $100 for that one win. This carries all the way through...100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc....notice that the final bet is the sum of all the previous bets, plus $100.
Again, for each win, you would have a net gain of $100.
If the player cannot change the odds, then predictions are as good as random. And with the payouts being the same, the expectation is the same, which is losing.
So for any gambling system to work, it must increase the accuracy of predictions to change the odds.
Systems like the Martingale have no chance of changing the odds. All the Martingale does is change the amount that is wagered on each spin.
It's not unlike thinking 10 reds in a row on roulette means that black is more likely to spin next. The odds just haven't changed, and neither has the payout.
I still don't understand why some players don't understand the simple concepts.
The exception is with roulette computers, because you can clearly see the effectiveness and edge of a roulette computer in as few as 50 or so spins. This is because computers can predict the rotor strike point, and when you see it is accurate to within five also numbers on almost every spin, you can plainly see such accuracy is statistically relevant, even over relatively few spins.
But the typical roulette system like bet red after 10 blacks needs a lot of testing, because number crunching is the only information you have
Quote: RoulettePhysicsIt's really simple: the player cannot change payouts. But in some cases, they can change the odds. For example, with roulette wheel bias.
If the player cannot change the odds, then predictions are as good as random. And with the payouts being the same, the expectation is the same, which is losing.
So for any gambling system to work, it must increase the accuracy of predictions to change the odds.
Systems like the Martingale have no chance of changing the odds. All the Martingale does is change the amount that is wagered on each spin.
It's not unlike thinking 10 reds in a row on roulette means that black is more likely to spin next. The odds just haven't changed, and neither has the payout.
I still don't understand why some players don't understand the simple concepts.
And I don't understand how some math geniuses can't understand that if you're always betting more when you win than when you lose, then you'll come out ahead.
I hope the "math genius" thing wasnt directed at me. Because I do agree with your point. And ultimately, whether you realize it or not, you also agree with my point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)Quote: cwazyYou misunderstand "Marty" then.
" In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers increase bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses."
Here is a Marty thread; https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/17869-the-improved-martingale-betting-system/
So, what is your system? Constant press, Fibonacci, press one take one? Parlay, that's my fave, parlay. Me and Capt. Jack Sparrow.
Quote: DeMangodeleted
Last edited by: petroglyph on Apr 21, 2016
Quote: petroglyphhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
" In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers increase bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses."
Here is a Marty thread; https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/17869-the-improved-martingale-betting-system/
So, what is your system? Constant press, Fibonacci, press one take one? Parlay, that's my fave, parlay. Me and Capt. Jack Sparrow.
The original point of this thread wasn't to praise Martingale. It devolved into that because I made the statement that Martingale is a winning system, albeit one that isn't feasible in the real world. I then went on to ask if there might be more subtle systems that, while overall they may lose, might be attractive to casual (losing) players. Somehow that turned into whatever this thread has become. I tried to delete it by removing my own posts but the replies keep on coming.
Man, you Cwazy ;-)
No, I'm not Cwazy, he's Cwazy.
I'm 2F.
I contributed to forum here about 5 plius years ago and was impressed by the contributors and the situation I'm now in has me believing a good mathematical gambling mind could devise a strategy to make money.
I've come across a friend who I'd regard as a wizard of racehorse form - he lives and breathes it as an interest, he has all the gadgets around sectional times, replays, data.....and his strike rate has me staggered.
He selects only a few races nationally to bet on.
His mates are making modest profits over 6 months of properly trialling what he selects and we have good data.
What I believe is missing is a cash plan/betting strategy that could really capitalise on his current read of the form.
Would anyone be interested in analysing with me? I only want to work with one person.
As someone already mentioned, welcome to the forum.Quote: cwazyThe original point of this thread wasn't to praise Martingale. It devolved into that because I made the statement that Martingale is a winning system, albeit one that isn't feasible in the real world. I then went on to ask if there might be more subtle systems that, while overall they may lose, might be attractive to casual (losing) players. Somehow that turned into whatever this thread has become. I tried to delete it by removing my own posts but the replies keep on coming.
I was trying to help you find what you were looking for, without knowing exactly what that is?
Did you peruse the link, here at the wov board re systems, with several variant approaches to Marty strategy's?
There is also an entire section here devoted to just systems in general. Good luck.
Try the search function at the top right of your page.
Because there is absolutely no conceivable way to be able to guarantee or even assert that one is ALWAYS betting more when you win than when you lose. If you don't have a limit of any sort on your funds, please state so here.Quote: cwazyAnd I don't understand how some math geniuses can't understand that if you're always betting more when you win than when you lose, then you'll come out ahead.
Quote: GibsonStepsHi, I'm reaching out via this website for some advice and maybe someone to link up with to trial a betting system.
I contributed to forum here about 5 plius years ago and was impressed by the contributors and the situation I'm now in has me believing a good mathematical gambling mind could devise a strategy to make money.
I've come across a friend who I'd regard as a wizard of racehorse form - he lives and breathes it as an interest, he has all the gadgets around sectional times, replays, data.....and his strike rate has me staggered.
He selects only a few races nationally to bet on.
His mates are making modest profits over 6 months of properly trialling what he selects and we have good data.
What I believe is missing is a cash plan/betting strategy that could really capitalise on his current read of the form.
Would anyone be interested in analysing with me? I only want to work with one person.
You might try reaching out to Drawing Dead on here. Can't speak for him, but if I were looking for what you're looking for, that's who I'd ask first.
Quote: cwazyThe original point of this thread wasn't to praise Martingale. It devolved into that because I made the statement that Martingale is a winning system, albeit one that isn't feasible in the real world. I then went on to ask if there might be more subtle systems that, while overall they may lose, might be attractive to casual (losing) players. Somehow that turned into whatever this thread has become. I tried to delete it by removing my own posts but the replies keep on coming.
What I don't understand is why you changed your forum name. May I suggest you go back to the other one, with the long membership; you might get a better discussion started. In fact, if you don't, I'll be forced by the rules to do something about it.
I think it's a worthwhile discussion, better than just being dismissed out of hand. However, while the longer discussion might be illuminating, I think it's going to end up in the same place. If it's a -EV bet, doing it more or less often, doing it in conjunction with other -EV bets, or doing it for more or less money, is kind of self-defeating. But getting there can help other people clarify their own plans and thoughts, so that's worth something. :)
Quote: GibsonStepsHi, I'm reaching out via this website for some advice and maybe someone to link up with to trial a betting system.
I contributed to forum here about 5 plius years ago and was impressed by the contributors and the situation I'm now in has me believing a good mathematical gambling mind could devise a strategy to make money.
I've come across a friend who I'd regard as a wizard of racehorse form - he lives and breathes it as an interest, he has all the gadgets around sectional times, replays, data.....and his strike rate has me staggered.
He selects only a few races nationally to bet on.
His mates are making modest profits over 6 months of properly trialling what he selects and we have good data.
What I believe is missing is a cash plan/betting strategy that could really capitalise on his current read of the form.
Would anyone be interested in analysing with me? I only want to work with one person.
Your screen name is fairly new to have contributed 5 years ago - just saying
If you dont change the odds, then each bet is as good as random bet selection with a different stake.
It's the same thing, and it's still wrong -- how do you pay back any part of an infinite credit limit? You pay back a million dollars, they check the credit balance, it's still infinite...Quote: cwazyOnce again, let's call it an unlimited credit line instead of an unlimited bankroll. Let's say you walk into a casino and have unlimited marker signing privileges, and a table with no limits. Provided that you do not lose every single bet you make - which again is a test that no system, including all of those that this community has embraced as being mathematically sound, would pass - you will have a net gain after each win of exactly 1 base unit. I don't know why it is so incredibly difficult for you to acknowledge that.
The Martingale is not a "winning" system under any reality. You're still invoking infinity, whether it's in money or time, and neither of those actually exist in the physical world. You want to chalk it up to "theory" or "mathematical soundness" but that's not correct either. There's a difference between a theoretical construct and an impossible one. The idea of "betting for an infinite number of hands" is impossible -- you can't do it under any circumstances. Arguing from an impossible premise means your conclusions are irrelevant. Here's another impossible premise: every time I play the Martingale in roulette and bet on number 7, the entire wheel magically changes so all the pockets say 7 and I always win. Therefore, can't I say that "in theory," the Martingale is a winning system? Well of course not. There's no difference at all between the impossibility of the wheel changing numbers and the impossibility of betting for an infinite timeframe. Neither can occur.
The reality is that, given the finite nature of both your lifespan and the global money supply, the theoretical maximum number of bets anyone can actually make in their lifetime have a non-zero probability of being all losers. (And here, "theoretical" is used properly.) It's that miniscule but non-zero probability that refutes your pseudo-theoretical construct that a series of bets will always end with a winner. In the finite reality you and I inhabit, the Martingale on roulette is not a "winning system" by any legitimate definition. It is just a very skewed finite distribution with a negative mean. It has the same mean, by the way, as a single roulette bet.
As an aside, this silliness about infinite money becomes obviously ridiculous if you pull the blinders off, stop focusing on get-rich-quick gambling schemes, and look at the larger economic meaning of money. Infinite money is valueless as a medium of exchange and therefore can't be the consideration for a wager. Only scarcity provides value, and anything that is scarce is, by definition, not infinite. But if you don't believe me, try paying for your next restaurant meal with a handful of air.
Quote: cwazyAnd I don't understand how some math geniuses can't understand that if you're always betting more when you win than when you lose, then you'll come out ahead.
To quote The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means" - "it" in this case means "when you win."
True, if you bet more on winning bets than on losing bets, you will come out ahead - but if you know in advance when you will have winning bets, then why bother betting at all on the losing ones?
