cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
April 20th, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM permalink
Deleted
Last edited by: cwazy on Apr 20, 2016
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 2596
April 20th, 2016 at 10:21:57 AM permalink
Quote: cwazy

I 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?

Your first sentence answered the last. No series of negative expectation bets will make a positive effect.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 20th, 2016 at 10:54:21 AM permalink
Quote: cwazy

I know that in the end, all systems have to come crashing down in flames. But consider this: martingale is a winning system

No it's not.

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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
April 20th, 2016 at 11:57:47 AM permalink
Deleted
Last edited by: cwazy on Apr 20, 2016
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
April 20th, 2016 at 11:59:19 AM permalink
Deleted
Last edited by: cwazy on Apr 20, 2016
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
April 20th, 2016 at 12:00:21 PM permalink
In order to beat the house, you must first be "guaranteed" to win at least one bet, which naturally there is no guarantee.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
April 20th, 2016 at 12:04:19 PM permalink
Deleted
Last edited by: cwazy on Apr 20, 2016
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 20th, 2016 at 12:11:38 PM permalink
Quote: cwazy

Since 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.

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.

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?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
cwazy
cwazy
Joined: Mar 18, 2016
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 178
April 20th, 2016 at 12:23:42 PM permalink
Deleted
Last edited by: cwazy on Apr 20, 2016
rushdl
rushdl
Joined: Jan 15, 2016
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 177
April 20th, 2016 at 12:35:04 PM permalink
Quote: cwazy

I 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!

  • Jump to: