Anti martingale with stop

*Disclaimer: this is only to make interesting discussion*. Lets say you want to win a fixed amount, like $25,000 and never gamble again (which is the key). If you do an anti martingale (double after win) from any starting bet, but we’ll say $25 for example, and you stop the day you hit $25k PROFIT (not a $25k recovery win from being down but $25k above your starting bankroll). I don’t know how to do the math but wouldn’t it be virtually mathematically guaranteed ‘one day’? I understand you might find yourself down a huge amount (even millions) before it happens but in mathematical theory wouldn’t there always be ‘that day’ that comes when you find yourself up $25k profit above starting bankroll? Before even saying table limits…you can hop tables and hop games. You can bet from .10 online all through the brick and mortar limits all the way up to betting millions on sports across many books if needed so I don’t know why table limits is always used as an argument against betting systems. You simply change tables and games as needed. Thoughts?

This has been discussed before. Even if you assume a 50/50 game, you have to take into account the possibility that (a) you won't have enough money at some point to make that next bet - in fact, it would take millions of players making the same bet simultaneously to do it - and (b) the amount of time it might take to get to that "eventual" point is more than the Sun's expected lifespan. And that's just for a 50/50 game; I have yet to run a simulation on a game with a negative player advantage that didn't reach a point where it just wasn't going to get back to the zero point.

Three simple words- Table Limits.

Quote: billryan

Three simple words- Table Limits.
link to original post

The OP gets around these by having multiple people make simultaneous bets on sporting events, presumably worldwide.

I just did a run on a 50/50 game where, twice, it required over 64 billion rounds of betting to win. Even at 1 second per round, 24 hours per day, it would take over 2000 years. (By "rounds," this includes situations where, to be able to bet what you need to bet, you spread the bets over more than one person.)
Also note that you would have to bet 17 billion times your original bet at some point.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: billryan

Three simple words- Table Limits.
link to original post

The OP gets around these by having multiple people make simultaneous bets on sporting events, presumably worldwide.

I just did a run on a 50/50 game where, twice, it required over 64 billion rounds of betting to win. Even at 1 second per round, 24 hours per day, it would take over 2000 years. (By "rounds," this includes situations where, to be able to bet what you need to bet, you spread the bets over more than one person.)
Also note that you would have to bet 17 billion times your original bet at some point.
link to original post

So it can be done!

Quote: ThatDonGuy

I just did a run on a 50/50 game where, twice, it required over 64 billion rounds of betting to win. Even at 1 second per round, 24 hours per day, it would take over 2000 years. (By "rounds," this includes situations where, to be able to bet what you need to bet, you spread the bets over more than one person.)
Also note that you would have to bet 17 billion times your original bet at some point.
link to original post

Update: a run took 184 billion rounds (about 6000 years at 1 round per second), with a maximum bet of over 68.7 billion credits - and that's just to win 5000.

Applying the Ace2 conjecture to a somewhat similar scenario:

If your goal is to turn $25 into $25000, then flat betting a fair even-money game one million times will give you a 31.74 % chance (double the z-score of -1) of ever being up that much over the course of one million bets. You have the same chance of being down $25,000 or more during the million bets

Thank you Don. I was hoping to get mathematical answers like this. Again this is just for interesting discussion and curiosity of the actual math (and simulations) vs just the usual ‘they don’t work.’ Hopefully this will actually dissuade people from trying these systems. Just fyi I am planning on a similar post on traditional martingale soon also. Basically I make a case or scenario and hope to get actual numbers or possible outcomes. I make my case more drastic (like the loophole on ‘table limits’) than most posts on systems. It sounds like the answer to this one is yes ‘that day’ will come eventually in mathematical theory if you have thousands or millions of days lol. But in an actual lifetime not likely to happen for most people.

Hey Don (or anybody else), so to expand on your simulation results…if 1000 people tried this, how many would get their 25k and stop forever before busting at various bankrolls? We can use 5k, 25k, and 100k bankrolls for example purposes. I have seen where the chance of doubling a bankroll with anti martingale is something like 35%ish depending on the game. I was also wondering what would happen if you start and a lower denomination like $1. The main reasons my discussion on this is different than usual are #1 extreme bet spreads (in reality you can actually go from .10 all the way to millions even without a syndicate) #2 a stopping point in which you never gamble again

With Pass Line Craps, here are the expected number of $25,000 winners out of 10,000 players for various starting bankrolls (with a $25 initial bet):
$10,000: 895
$25,000: 3472 - yes, it is "something like 35%ish," isn't it?
$100,000: 6173
$250,000: 9336