d’Alembert was no idiot
Were they such idiots that they couldn’t see what our beloved Wizard teaches us at the front of this forum: «betting systems are worthless» ?
I don’t think so. d’Alembert was one of the leading mathematical minds of his time. He contributed to the solution of Bernoulli’s St-Petersbourg paradox, which can be seen as a variation of the ‘doubling’ martingale.
OK, I didn’t research it. Just my free thinking process. But why did such an outstanding connoisseur of the laws of probability produce a well-known betting system and incur the late wrathful condemnation of the Wizard of Odds (and all the sane players out here)?
My personal hypothetical explanation is the following.
What Wiz and others (and I) condemn is the idea that a betting system (understand: a bet size and bankroll management based on previous wins and losses) can transform a negative EV game into a positive EV experience. That is mathematically impossible.
But I’m convinced people like d’Alembert and other smart proponents of systems to the marquises of their time, did not intend to create a +EV situation. If you look into these systems, what they actually do is define rules for stopping a gambling session.
Marquises were not playing for winning. They were just asking for a thrill, a method to follow that would guarantee a pleasurably long evening around the tables.
So what d’Al and others were proposing is a history -dependent strategy that signaled when it was time to stop losing (or winning). It also made the game more interesting than just flat-betting.
What do you think?
Quote: kubikulannThey were just asking for a thrill, a method to follow that would guarantee a pleasurably long evening around the tables.
If you want a long time at the tables with minimal risk, then flat bet.
No. Very few people with their names in history books were idiots and likewise probably few were the geniuses we now consider them.Quote: kubikulannWere they such idiots
"While he made great strides in mathematics and physics, d'Alembert is also famously known for incorrectly arguing in Croix ou Pile that the probability of a coin landing heads increased for every time that it came up tails. "
he wasn't proposing a gambling system - he was speculating about probability
a detailed explanation of his misstep is documented in the 2 links:
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/classic-problems-of/9781118314333/chapter12.html
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/Probability/dAlembert.shtml
Yes, but this is rather boring and definitely not what a gentleman did when life consisted of gaming parties. What would you think of someone who showed up at a Spring Fling but told no jokes, played no trivia, toasted no one, but merely flat bet all night long?Quote: WizardIf you want a long time at the tables with minimal risk, then flat bet.
tell her you've got a sure winner and do a 5 step marty (if necessary) on Player at baccarat and you are very likely to win a hand in one of the steps and if she's not an experienced, knowledgeable gambler she might be impressed
then you can show her your etchings in your room
I was sent $150 match-play offer and some comps recently.Quote: lilredroosterIn Edward Thorp's classic "Beat the Dealer" he recommends the martingale but not as a winning system but to impress a hot babe
tell her you've got a sure winner and do a 5 step marty (if necessary) on Player at baccarat and you are very likely to win a hand in one of the steps and if she's not an experienced, knowledgeable gambler she might be impressed
then you can show her your etchings in your room
I just happened to walk up to a table with three attractive young women who are playing nickels. Of course, they have to stop the game and called The Pit Boss over ask for my card and whatnot. Now all the attention is on me and what I'm doing. Now that we got that all over with, I pop down the $150 and promptly receive a blackjack. A little excitement ensues among the ladies and some whispers, "how did he know".
+$450, of course, I'm chill, because I'm just that good 😉
Not directed at the situation or anyone in particular such as d'Alembert. I have seen some seemingly smart people become real stupid, especially when it comes to gambling and other things involving money.Quote: lilredroosterIn Edward Thorp's classic "Beat the Dealer" he recommends the martingale but not as a winning system but to impress a hot babe
tell her you've got a sure winner and do a 5 step marty (if necessary) on Player at baccarat and you are very likely to win a hand in one of the steps and if she's not an experienced, knowledgeable gambler she might be impressed
then you can show her your etchings in your room
You know, riding buses, scavenging through leftover food, horrible Investments, day trading, bad money management, roulette and Baccarat systems, thinking dice control actually works and the list goes on and on and on and on.
We want to get into all the sexual perversion stuff.
It happened to me as a young man. Since then I have become much more defiant. Or is it skeptical?Quote: AxelWolfNot directed at the situation or anyone in particular such as d'Alembert. I have seen some seemingly smart people become real stupid, especially when it comes to gambling and other things involving money. <…>
What if you want a long time but do not care about risk? Is it still the best advice?Quote: WizardIf you want a long time at the tables with minimal risk, then flat bet.
(Not that I’m concerned. I think of the belles marquises of d’Alembert’s time...
Quote: kubikulannWhat if you want a long time but do not care about risk? Is it still the best advice?
Then be a high roller or whale.
Quote: kubikulannWhat if you want a long time but do not care about risk? Is it still the best advice?
(Not that I’m concerned. I think of the belles marquises of d’Alembert’s time...
I would still stand behind flat betting.
Let's say you have 10 units and want it to last as long as possible before going bust. Your best choice is to flat bet.
Let's say you have 10 units and want it to last as long as possible before going bust. Your best choice is to flat bet."
gAMBLERS GAMBLE TO MAKE A PROFIT NOT TO LAST FOR AS MANY ORGASMS AS THE LADY ASKS...
"D’ALEMBERT WAS NO IDIOT... BUT WIZARD OF OX IS?"
Quote: weezrDASvegasgAMBLERS GAMBLE TO MAKE A PROFIT NOT TO LAST FOR AS MANY ORGASMS AS THE LADY ASKS...
I gamble because it's fun. I don't care about profit.
Quote: TigerWuI gamble because it's fun. I don't care about profit.
Not me. Gambling without winning
is totally boring.
Quote: AxelWolfNot directed at the situation or anyone in particular such as d'Alembert. I have seen some seemingly smart people become real stupid, especially when it comes to gambling and other things involving money.
You know, riding buses, scavenging through leftover food, horrible Investments, day trading, bad money management, roulette and Baccarat systems, thinking dice control actually works and the list goes on and on and on and on.
We want to get into all the sexual perversion stuff.
I think this is likely the winning answer.
Ain't nobody smarter than Newton. Newton believed in alchemy just as much as he believed physics.
As a broader proposition, we, especially those of us a bit smarter than the average bear, like to think that our minds, or human minds, are mechanisms for perceiving truth. In reality, they are mechanisms for survival and the passing on of genes. There is all kinds of kookiness going on in there, no matter how good you are at manipulating numbers or spinning words.
Gambling draws out irrational thinking like nothing else. I mean, if it didn't it wouldn't exist. You can actually put up an advertisement proudly declaring that you have a machine that takes your money, and then gives 99% of it back, and people will travel from around the world to use it. If I set up a shop where you could bring me your sandwich or burger and let me take a bite out of it, or let me make out with your wife a little, or stop by and have some of your gas siphoned, I suspect I'd get few customers. But somehow, people like giving away their money gambling.
Those of us who understand gamblin' have all had many experiences of trying to explain something to reasonably intelligent people and hitting a brick wall.
I'm still kind of amazed when I listen to random people in a sportsbook talking. Or at the beliefs held by many who work in casinos. Many of them are far more successful than I am, but they sound like primitive tribesman talking about the god of the river when discussing gambling.
Quote: WizardIf you want a long time at the tables with minimal risk, then flat bet.
If you want a pretty much guaranteed loss over time, flat bet.
Quote: weezrDASvegas"I would still stand behind flat betting.
Let's say you have 10 units and want it to last as long as possible before going bust. Your best choice is to flat bet."
gAMBLERS GAMBLE TO MAKE A PROFIT NOT TO LAST FOR AS MANY ORGASMS AS THE LADY ASKS...
"D’ALEMBERT WAS NO IDIOT... BUT WIZARD OF OX IS?"
Personal insult. 3 days.
Quote: RigondeauxI
Those of us who understand gamblin' have all had many experiences of trying to explain something to reasonably intelligent people and hitting a brick wall.
Gave that up years ago. They look
at you like you have a fat dog turd
stuck to the bottom of your shoe
and you're offending them.
Quote: RigondeauxI think this is likely the winning answer.
Ain't nobody smarter than Newton. Newton believed in alchemy just as much as he believed physics.
As a broader proposition, we, especially those of us a bit smarter than the average bear, like to think that our minds, or human minds, are mechanisms for perceiving truth. In reality, they are mechanisms for survival and the passing on of genes. There is all kinds of kookiness going on in there, no matter how good you are at manipulating numbers or spinning words.
Gambling draws out irrational thinking like nothing else. I mean, if it didn't it wouldn't exist. You can actually put up an advertisement proudly declaring that you have a machine that takes your money, and then gives 99% of it back, and people will travel from around the world to use it. If I set up a shop where you could bring me your sandwich or burger and let me take a bite out of it, or let me make out with your wife a little, or stop by and have some of your gas siphoned, I suspect I'd get few customers. But somehow, people like giving away their money gambling.
Those of us who understand gamblin' have all had many experiences of trying to explain something to reasonably intelligent people and hitting a brick wall.
I'm still kind of amazed when I listen to random people in a sportsbook talking. Or at the beliefs held by many who work in casinos. Many of them are far more successful than I am, but they sound like primitive tribesman talking about the god of the river when discussing gambling.
Great post. I truly think this site has a majority, yes a majority of the gamblers in the world who have common world sense. Some may complain about the word “gambler”, but it’s semantics.
As Rig says, amazing how many “smart” successful people in life are willing to throw hard earned money away in the name of entertainment. And worse, how many think they have an edge or have it figured out.
Quote: BozGreat post. I truly think this site has a majority, yes a majority of the gamblers in the world who have common world sense. Some may complain about the word “gambler”, but it’s semantics.
As Rig says, amazing how many “smart” successful people in life are willing to throw hard earned money away in the name of entertainment. And worse, how many think they have an edge or have it figured out.
The weirdest thing is that the entertainment IS the process of losing money.
It's not like you're giving your money away for a chemical intoxication, or to look at a hot woman taking off her clothes. You are giving your money away to give your money away.
Quote: RigondeauxThe weirdest thing is that the entertainment IS the process of losing money.
It's not like you're giving your money away for a chemical intoxication, or to look at a hot woman taking off her clothes. You are giving your money away to give your money away.
You're giving your money away to play a game.
EDIT: And also to get some booze. I probably drank $100 worth of cognac "for free" last time I was in Vegas.
Quote: TigerWuYou're giving your money away to play a game.
EDIT: And also to get some booze. I probably drank $100 worth of cognac "for free" last time I was in Vegas.
All of the games can be played for free. And few people play at the lowest possible denoms, which is what you do if you just want to play.
If an arcade gave you the option of playing the same game for a quarter or a dollar, nobody would pick the dollar.
Quote: RigondeauxYou are giving your money away to give your money away.
yes, that is one way to look at it
but there is another way to look at it - the gambler is paying a tax for the chance to double his money
if you have $1K and you want to double it so you have $2K if you put your $1K bet on Player at baccarat the tax on the bet (expected dollar loss) is $12.40
the $1K is not enough - you need $2k for some reason
what chance does a person have to double his money in 20 seconds if he doesn't do something like this?...........................there is no other way to do it that I know about
but the vast majority of gamblers are not coldly logical like this - most are driven by a compulsion and are generally foggy about what they're doing
Quote: RigondeauxAll of the games can be played for free. And few people play at the lowest possible denoms, which is what you do if you just want to play.
Nobody I know wants to play Pai Gow or Baccarat with me, so there's at least one service that casinos provide. And I can look at naked women for free.
Quote:If an arcade gave you the option of playing the same game for a quarter or a dollar, nobody would pick the dollar.
People with high amounts of discretionary income would, especially if it involved greater benefits than playing at the quarter level.
Quote: lilredroosteryes, that is one way to look at it
but there is another way to look at it - the gambler is paying a tax for the chance to double his money
if you have $1K and you want to double it so you have $2K if you put your $1K bet on Player at baccarat the tax on the bet (expected dollar loss) is $12.40
what chance does a person have to double his money in 20 seconds if he doesn't do something like this?...........................there is no other way to do it that I know about
but the vast majority of gamblers are not coldly logical like this - most are driven by a compulsion and are generally foggy about what they're doing
Yeah, I think addictions of all types are driven by the highs and lows. The exhilaration of being miserable, then being euphoric. Maybe because in our 21st century 1st world lives, everything is too easy.
I experience this as a +ev gambler. Getting beat up all night, then getting all back feels good. When you're running good, it feels good to dream on stacking it up to the moon.
However, I'm not a gambler by nature so, on the whole, I don't like this process. If I could just get a check for my ev everyday I would take it.
I also think -ev gamblers are very often into losing. There are a lot of theories on this. Some report feeling "clean" after they lose. Maye they feel like they deserve to lose, or don't deserve to have money.
A lot of them seem to be really into the idea that they are fated to have bad luck. I think all or most of us have some version of this. Trying your very best to achieve something in fair circumstances and failing because you weren't good enough is very hard to cope with. So there are a lot of responses. One is to never try, and so you can leave open the possibility that you would have succeeded. Another is to cling to real or percieved unfairnesses.
I think a lot of people enter and stay in the world of -ev gambling for this reason. They are destined to lose and they find this liberating. It can never be their fault. Again, I have spent 1000s of hours listening to these people talk to each other and this is a favorite subject of many: how they had a bad beat, how the casino is crooked, how they can never seem to win, etc. Basically, how they always lose but it's never really their fault.
Having worked in a casino, regular gamblers are about as screwed up a group of people as exists.
This quote is amazing. Thanks.Quote: RigondeauxIf an arcade gave you the option of playing the same game for a quarter or a dollar, nobody would pick the dollar.
Quote: TigerWuNobody I know wants to play Pai Gow or Baccarat with me, so there's at least one service that casinos provide. And I can look at naked women for free.
People with high amounts of discretionary income would, especially if it involved greater benefits than playing at the quarter level.
no they wouldn't. You're telling me if you could play Donkey Kong for a quarter or a dollar on the same machine in the same venue, rich people would choose the dollar? No way.
If there were greater benefits... there are no greater benifits to playing gambling games for more money, outside of gambling for more money. You are saying that you just want to play the game itself. In that case, you'd want to play as cheaply as possible.
Nobody wants to play PG or bac with you because the point of those games is gambling. People who like to play bridge, D&D, board games, magic, Call of Duty, etc. etc. can all easily find partners.
There isn't some unique property that just happens to apply to every casino game, where nobody wants to play it except for money. The point of the games is gambling. People go to casinos to gamble. They might enjoy the games too, but that is secondary 99% of the time.
Plus... look, you are saying people like to play slots or PGP or whatever SO SO SOOOOOO much that they are willining to lose 1000s of dollars on them just for the joy of the game, when they could play bridge or facebook slots, or checkers online, or words with friends, or any one of a million other games for free. But, at the same time, nobody is willing to play the casino games for free. So you just have to go pay a ton of money to play them.
That don't make no sense.
Nobody seems to have something to say about the idea that Labouchère or d’Alembert or other systems are in fact designed to provide a stopping rule.
Quote: kubikulannThe thread derailed.
Nobody seems to have something to say about the idea that Labouchère or d’Alembert or other systems are in fact designed to provide a stopping rule.
But when you start again are you are a guaranteed winner?
#stopwhenyouareahead
Quote: Rigondeaux
I think a lot of people enter and stay in the world of -ev gambling for this reason. They are destined to lose and they find this liberating.
A friend of mine called it 'cathartic'.
Yeah, right. He was a chaser, down
$300 on the slots, he'd get $700
more on credit cards from the ATM
to get the $300 back. I quit going with
him because he wouldn't leave till
he couldn't get any more money.
Sick stuff.
He finally quit when he retired and
his wife found the CC invoices and
saw he'd spent $6000 in 3 months.
She told him at that rate on his
retirement income they would lose
their house. So he quit going.
Quote: EvenBobA friend of mine called it 'cathartic'.
Yeah, right. He was a chaser, down
$300 on the slots, he'd get $700
more on credit cards from the ATM
to get the $300 back. I quit going with
him because he wouldn't leave till
he couldn't get any more money.
Sick stuff.
He finally quit when he retired and
his wife found the CC invoices and
saw he'd spent $6000 in 3 months.
She told him at that rate on his
retirement income they would lose
their house. So he quit going.
I call Bull Shit. Someone as degenerate as him would never quit down only $6000.
Either they had their house paid off at that point as most people who fell for the 30 year mortgage scam did, or he was a lifelong sucker/ degenerate.
So did the wife sign off on multiple refinance deals, knowing he was a piece of shit?
Otherwise he was a good guy paying every month for years and now fell to the gambling “bug” late in life.
In any legitimate situation she knew he was a degenerate POS and she accepted it or they F’ed up in life to a point where 6K mattered. Either way, this story makes no sense.
Quote: TigerWuAll of those betting systems work in theory, but casinos have maximum limits and people have maximum bankrolls. That's what's keeping them from working in the real world.
Even with infinite bankroll and infinite table limits, all betting systems on negative games of independent trials are still -EV even in theory. Of course, in practice, with infinite limits and infinite credit, you could devise a system with an arbitrarily small probability of ever booking a loss in a lifetime of gambling. However, given infinite funds there would be far better investment opportunities --- disregarding the idea that with infinite funds any win you book doesn't increase your bankroll.
Quote: BozI call Bull Shit. Someone as degenerate as him would never quit down only $6000.
That was just the previous 3 months, he
was down far more than that for previous
year. Degenerate, hardly. Genius IQ, very
successful business owner. They had a
huge house that still had 10 years of
payments when he retired. He realized
he was playing like he still had the big
income, so he just quit going. He really
was only tempted when he was in a
casino.
He had an impulsive behavior problem.
If he bought a 2 pound box of chocolates,
he'd eat the whole box in one sitting. Really
smart guy, but like many geniuses he had
a lot of quirks.
Quote: BozI call Bull Shit.
Warning -- profanity.
After seeing this warning and seeing Maxpen get the ban hammer. I think we're going to have to have an early warning system in place when the sheriff is back in town looking for someone to Lynch.Quote: WizardWarning -- profanity.
Quote: AxelWolfAfter seeing this warning and seeing Maxpen get the ban hammer. I think we're going to have to have an early warning system in place when the sheriff is back in town looking for someone to Lynch.
A "supper triangle".
Oh man, I just wanted to have a Wizard Warning System Alert. I didn't want to cause a PokerGrinder/GWAE stampede.Quote: bobbartopA "supper triangle".
Imagine an infinite bankroll.Quote: sodawaterQuote: TigerWuAll of those betting systems work in theory, but casinos have maximum limits and people have maximum bankrolls. That's what's keeping them from working in the real world.
Even with infinite bankroll and infinite table limits, all betting systems on negative games of independent trials are still -EV even in theory. Of course, in practice, with infinite limits and infinite credit, you could devise a system with an arbitrarily small probability of ever booking a loss in a lifetime of gambling. However, given infinite funds there would be far better investment opportunities --- disregarding the idea that with infinite funds any win you book doesn't increase your bankroll.
What use is a martingale or other betting system ?
Any loss isn’t actually a loss, it does not reduce your BR. The same for wins.
If (but for what reason?) the guy wants to end a session positive, there is no reason to just double the wager. Since any wager, no matter how big, has the same zero net value to him, he can freely triple, quintuple, decuple it...
Buy the casino... even that represents no cost. Buy the entire world!
To cut it short: in the case of infinite bankroll, +EV and -EV lose all meaning.
I believe the reason people keep claiming it will work with an infinite bank-roll and infinite limits is because to them they believe if that's the case it's technically a winning system and should be treated as one thinking that will work on a smaller scale.Quote: kubikulannImagine an infinite bankroll.Quote: sodawaterQuote: TigerWuAll of those betting systems work in theory, but casinos have maximum limits and people have maximum bankrolls. That's what's keeping them from working in the real world.
Even with infinite bankroll and infinite table limits, all betting systems on negative games of independent trials are still -EV even in theory. Of course, in practice, with infinite limits and infinite credit, you could devise a system with an arbitrarily small probability of ever booking a loss in a lifetime of gambling. However, given infinite funds there would be far better investment opportunities --- disregarding the idea that with infinite funds any win you book doesn't increase your bankroll.
What use is a martingale or other betting system ?
Any loss isn’t actually a loss, it does not reduce your BR. The same for wins.
If (but for what reason?) the guy wants to end a session positive, there is no reason to just double the wager. Since any wager, no matter how big, has the same zero net value to him, he can freely triple, quintuple, decuple it...
Buy the casino... even that represents no cost. Buy the entire world!
To cut it short: in the case of infinite bankroll, +EV and -EV lose all meaning.
Quote: TigerWuYou're giving your money away to play a game.
EDIT: And also to get some booze. I probably drank $100 worth of cognac "for free" last time I was in Vegas.
Yes its a game but the allure is the money or to be more precise the 'winnings' which we are certain will be our fate while the ordinary chumps face that dreaded negative expectation.
if you had an infinite bankroll and you won money would you then have more?...............................assuming there are others that have some money you could win from
how could you have more since you already had an infinite amount?
is there such a thing as infinity plus one?
Even more interesting:Quote: lilredroosteran interesting question (to me)
if you had an infinite bankroll and you won money would you then have more?
If Carlos Slim or Warren Buffett wins $1000, do they really have ‘more’? What in the world can they do now that they couldn’t before?
Quote: kubikulannEven more interesting:
If Carlos Slim or Warren Buffett wins $1000, do they really have ‘more’? What in the world can they do now that they couldn’t before?
I agree in theory.
And yet super rich seem to always be extremely stingy, entitled people (rich get more free stuff and pampering than any people collecting welfare) and are constantly looking for ways to raise profits and lower their personal taxes.
Not the actions of people unconcerned about their finances
Quote: Rigondeauxno they wouldn't. You're telling me if you could play Donkey Kong for a quarter or a dollar on the same machine in the same venue, rich people would choose the dollar? No way.
Yes. Otherwise rich people would never buy fancy cars or yachts or fly first class or private jets or buy huge homes, because they can accomplish all of those goals (i.e., transportation and shelter) for way cheaper. That's what rich people do - they spend more money because they can. They're going to spend a dollar playing Donkey Kong because THEY can, and YOU can't, because they're rich and we're just peasants.
Quote:If there were greater benefits... there are no greater benifits to playing gambling games for more money, outside of gambling for more money.
Comps. The more money you risk, the more you get comped.
Quote:You are saying that you just want to play the game itself. In that case, you'd want to play as cheaply as possible.
I like how you're trying to tell me how I enjoy playing my games.
Quote:Nobody wants to play PG or bac with you because the point of those games is gambling.
And gambling is fun.
Quote:There isn't some unique property that just happens to apply to every casino game, where nobody wants to play it except for money. The point of the games is gambling. People go to casinos to gamble. They might enjoy the games too, but that is secondary 99% of the time.
Yeah, they go to gamble, but also for the atmosphere. If I wanted to "just gamble," I don't need to go to Vegas. I can stay in Oklahoma and play in the local Indian casinos. Hell, I don't even need to leave my house. I could just invite friends over to gamble, or play at an online casino.
Quote:Plus... look, you are saying people like to play slots or PGP or whatever SO SO SOOOOOO much that they are willining to lose 1000s of dollars on them just for the joy of the game, when they could play bridge or facebook slots, or checkers online, or words with friends, or any one of a million other games for free.
You act like gambling games and non-gambling games are mutually exclusive. Plenty of people play both. Plenty of people willingly lose money at gambling games because it's fun, and they play non-gambling games because those interactions are fun, too.
Quote:But, at the same time, nobody is willing to play the casino games for free.
Says who? I do it all the time.
Quote:So you just have to go pay a ton of money to play them.
...and I do that, too, because it's fun, and a totally different experience.
Quote:That don't make no sense.
Okay, well, if you don't "get it," we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're trying to make this into way too much of a black and white issue.
