All mathmatical systems will beat any crap, roulette or other similar game
Quote: slackyhackyMathextemist
Rather than talk me into a logical corner, show me. Dazzle me with some extreme math. Actually, the math is easy so never mind about the extreme math, but show me nonetheless.
Starting with 1 million dollars, I have run the sim tons of times and never seen it go to zero - it always seems to end up around $17000 profit after 40,000 rolls.
Fix your spreadsheet formulas and you'll see for yourself.
Quote: DJTeddyBearPoint of clarification:
The formula works.
Martingale doesn't - and that's proved by the formula, and the frequency of complete ruin.
You are right, I bet 1$ twice, because a win on the second covers the loss. I only bet enough to cover the loss.
Quote: MathExtremistFix your spreadsheet formulas and you'll see for yourself.
riddle me this.
What is the world record in the history of roulette, of a color not coming up?
Quote: duckmankillaWhy is this all-powerful system not being employed in every casino in America? If it is so clear to you that your system is so dominant, why don't you put it into practice?
when did I ever say, hint, suggest, imply, or whatever...that martingale works in a casino? Or is practical?
One would be retarded to try to put martingale into practice.
Quote: slackyhackyriddle me this.
What is the world record in the history of roulette, of a color not coming up?
Riddle me this: why do you think it matters?
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe version I downloaded starts with 10 mil. And after running it a few more times, I'll adjust my statement slightly: I've never lost or won more than +/- 250,000 except for the times I've lost the entire 10 mil.Quote: slackyhackyQuote: DJTeddyBearIn the 100 times I hit F9, there were some net profits, and some net losses. Never more than +/- 150,000.
Except for the three times that I lost the entire 10 million!
If you lost 10 mil, you weren't looking in the right place. The roulette sim starts with 1mil, unless you put in your own starting value.
Mind you, I may have had higher wins or losses mid-stream. I'm only looking at the net profit, in cell X40141.
there are two sims. One for laying in craps, the one to the left is roulette where it should start with 1 mil. The lay one looses half the time about.
Quote: MathExtremistRiddle me this: why do you think it matters?
I'll tell you once we come up with the record.
Quote: slackyhackythere are two sims. One for laying in craps, the one to the left is roulette where it should start with 1 mil. The lay one looses half the time about.
So you have one spreadsheet on a craps lay bet that "looses half the time about", and another spreadsheet on an even-money roulette bet that never loses. Considering that the EV on the roulette bet is at least twice as high as the EV on the lay bet, don't you think there's something wrong somewhere?
Quote: rdw4potusI see what you're saying, but it still doesn't look quite right to me. Looking at row 4, there's a win, but no corresponding BR increase. I think it's not so much that there's no doubling after the first loss as it is that the rows are mis-aligned and the formula is mis-calculating as a result.
It may be wrong. I seems to follow for me though. Can you fix it and then we will see?
I still contend, despite the overwhelming persecution I am getting (sigh...) that no matter what your loss, a win is coming, and it ERASES you loss back to where you were when you were starting, and everytime a win happens more than one time in a row, you up your baseline.
If 1mill isn't enought, start with 10mil, if that isn't enough 100mil.
Quote: slackyhackythere are two sims. One for laying in craps, the one to the left is roulette where it should start with 1 mil. The lay one looses half the time about.
I had no idea there were multiple sims.
I DID see multiple tabs at the bottom of the workbook, but the other tabs were relatively blank.
It is only now with your comment that I look - make that struggle to see - that there are indeed two simulaitons running at the same time, on the same spreadsheet.
Man, you gotta do a better job of settting things up so that a person who is not as familiar with what you did can figure it out.
Quote: MathExtremistSo you have one spreadsheet on a craps lay bet that "looses half the time about", and another spreadsheet on an even-money roulette bet that never loses. Considering that the EV on the roulette bet is at least twice as high as the EV on the lay bet, don't you think there's something wrong somewhere?
In Slacky's defense, I was wrong about the even money thing. I should probably go back and edit my prior post, but I don't want to disrupt the chain.
Quote: slackyhackyAre you sure? Really sure?
I know that with a non-zero house edge, even a theoretical martingale with unlimited bankroll and unlimited betting limits won't work, so yes I'm sure there's a mistake somewhere in your spreadsheet, or the execution of it, or in your assumptions, or in your interpretation of the results.
So yes, I'm really sure.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
Man, you gotta do a better job of settting things up so that a person who is not as familiar with what you did can figure it out.
Tru dat.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI know that with a non-zero house edge, even a theoretical martingale with unlimited bankroll and unlimited betting limits won't work, so yes I'm sure there's a mistake somewhere in your spreadsheet, or the execution of it, or in your assumptions, or in your interpretation of the results.
So yes, I'm really sure.
Show me your spreadsheet then that demonstrates this.
Show me.
Quote: MathExtremistSo you have one spreadsheet on a craps lay bet that "looses half the time about", and another spreadsheet on an even-money roulette bet that never loses. Considering that the EV on the roulette bet is at least twice as high as the EV on the lay bet, don't you think there's something wrong somewhere?
Oh it looses plenty, and plenty big lots of times, but once a win hits, it completely erases the lose.
Quote: boymimbo
(2) Your roulette simulation allows ruin. That is, it allows a bet size up and over the $1,000,000 seed. And you're right. After 40,000 trials, you are almost always making a profit. You would need to calculate the odds that you would at your about 15th or greater loss in a row (betting 32768) on your 40,000th trial. The odds of that are (20/38)^n where n> 15 or about 7,191 to 1. So, every 7,000 trials or so, you would show a loss after trial 40,000. But in the 100 simulations that I ran, you bet more than 1,000,000 (your entire bankroll) about 8 times. Given the odds are that you will be betting over 1,000,000 on any given trial is about 178,000:1, this makes sense.
Martingales don't work, in real life (as the casino has limits and your bankroll is finite), or in theory either.
I didn't notice that before. I had it fixed on the lay side.
column I should read "=IF(I4<=0,0,IF(F5="win", I4+L4, I4-L4))" That fixes the problem.
a series of 20 losses will drain my starting of 1 mil. That will happen infrequently. Starting at 10mil, over MANY series, I saw it go to zero once. 100 mil, never saw it go to zero. Plus, the other thing, is that every time I hit F9, it is starting back at the beginning when it should start at where I left off (usually a profit around 8 to 9 thousand).
Quote: slackyhackyShow me your spreadsheet then that demonstrates this.
Show me.
I am not attempting to convince you, so I don't really feel inclined to spend the time on it. Maybe I will later today.
But really, I'm not trying to convince you...I know it to be true mathematically, that is enough for me.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI am not attempting to convince you, so I don't really feel inclined to spend the time on it. Maybe I will later today.
But really, I'm not trying to convince you...I know it to be true mathematically, that is enough for me.
I'm on board with this comment. I'm typically not a member of the grammar police, but seeing people use "loose" when they mean "lose" just bugs me. For the record, you aren't "loosing" bets unless you had a leash on them and are making it less tight, and even then it would be loosening. When a bet moves from you to the house, you "lose" the bet, not "loose" it.
Especially, the spelling fixes. That really helps.
Anyway, I have taken the critiques well and fixed the math as far as I can tell.
The truth is, it still may be wrong. I am no excel expert and last time I used it was in college many years ago and so quickly tried to figure out the IF statement to do that spreadsheet. The fixed one is below.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3eruTU5Xu_jZmFjNmFiOTgtN2YzYi00Mzk2LTg1ODAtMjRjYzJiMDA2MDVk
The betting on the roulette side goes as such, $1 bets, 1st loss bet 1$ again (it covers the loss), then $2, then $4, etc.
Interestingly enough, I changed the Lay bet part too so now that never loses (see, I'm teachable...) now as well. I had not been including the Vigorish in the next lay bet. That made a big difference when the lay bet was in the hundreds of thousands. Well, after 8 million rolls, it lost 1 time, with an overall net profit of 3 mil, so not really a loss. It makes about $65000 every 40K rolls.
Before continuing the discussion, perhaps it would be important to the opposers (all of you) to define my argument. What do you think I am arguing?
Second, I'm not so sold on this idea. I'm happy to concede. However, for me it is a hard pill to swallow to say that if I bet so that every time I win, it completely erases my losses, that this system won't work. So all I ask is show me. Make a spread sheet - or tell me how to modify mine, that proves this. Let's edify one another.
All I can say is that for me, following the math on mine, it seems to follow what I think should happen, and it comes out ahead.
Mr Mixed Martial Math Extremist - I am asking for your sincere help to look at my spreadsheet and tell me where it messes up.
Quote: slackyhackyIt may be wrong. I seems to follow for me though. Can you fix it and then we will see?
I still contend, despite the overwhelming persecution I am getting (sigh...) that no matter what your loss, a win is coming, and it ERASES you loss back to where you were when you were starting, and everytime a win happens more than one time in a row, you up your baseline.
If 1mill isn't enought, start with 10mil, if that isn't enough 100mil.
I wonder how many whales in the past have lost millions using martingale.
Quote: slackyhackyThanks for the help everyone.
Before continuing the discussion, perhaps it would be important to the opposers (all of you) to define my argument. What do you think I am arguing?
Second, I'm not so sold on this idea. I'm happy to concede. However, for me it is a hard pill to swallow to say that if I bet so that every time I win, it completely erases my losses, that this system won't work. So all I ask is show me. Make a spread sheet - or tell me how to modify mine, that proves this. Let's edify one another.
All I can say is that for me, following the math on mine, it seems to follow what I think should happen, and it comes out ahead.
Mr Mixed Martial Math Extremist - I am asking for your sincere help to look at my spreadsheet and tell me where it messes up.
i'm curious too........eventually, one does win a hand/spin/roll etc???? so how would it be that martingale (given the bankroll/maximums issues are removed) doesn't work?? that would be cool to understand.....
Quote: rdw4potusNo, it doesn't. It's really pretty easy: if you're equally likely to win and lose, you'll make $0 over infinite time by martingaling (or using any other cash management system). If you're more likely to lose than win, you'll lose infinite money over infinite time by martingaling (or using any other cash management system). If you're more likely to win than lose, there are better cash management systems to use to maximize your gains.
but if you are equally likely to win or lose, but your wins are worth more than your losses, then you win, don't you? and if your 1 win covers all of your previous losses then i really don't get how what slackyhacky is saying is wrong.... i don't know about the spreadsheet thing, but just in principle, the idea that you will never win a single hand, seems wrong.
'Quote: dwheatley
No. Also, Mark Twain was an author, not a statistician. It isn't even his quote. He was just grumpy about not being able to understand numbers.
I love wikipedia
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.
The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed.
How would one even go about finding that out if it weren't for the world wide web?
Good call by the way. I've always thought it 'twas Mr Twain.
Quote: jms9smithbut if you are equally likely to win or lose, but your wins are worth more than your losses, then you win, don't you? and if your 1 win covers all of your previous losses then i really don't get how what slackyhacky is saying is wrong.... i don't know about the spreadsheet thing, but just in principle, the idea that you will never win a single hand, seems wrong.
It is practically wrong. Black or red will eventually hit. There is probably a record of the longest streak at roulette somewhere. There have been LOTS of rolls of the wheel since its inception and they all hit the other color eventually.
There is a principle in quantum mechanics (I think Shrodinger's wave equation - it's been a long time since I solved that with one electron....) that all the molecules in your room have a probability of ending up in the corner of the room.
Nonetheless, that never happens, and never will happen - although the math describes it happening.
Oh, and download the spreadsheet and take a look. It's fun.
Quote: jms9smithbut if you are equally likely to win or lose, but your wins are worth more than your losses, then you win, don't you?
Yes. Unfortunately, no casino game offers these rules. Roulette certainly doesn't. For starters, you are *not* equally likely to win or lose. Losing is more likely.
The problem with "Martingale thinking" is that its proponents throw out the numbers -- they discard probabilities and just look at possibilities. The flawed logic inevitably goes like this: I'm bound to win sometime, and by doubling my prior losses my next win will make up for all of them, so I'll always come out ahead.
But that logic would apply equally to a game with a 50/50 chance of winning as a 1/99 chance of winning. That's the first clue that it's flawed. It implies that it doesn't matter how bad the game is, you can always "beat" it with a large enough bankroll. Unfortunately that's not true for any real-world situation. "Martingale thinking" ultimately boils down to the nonsensical requirement that you can always win "if you have an infinite amount of money". But that turns out to be wrong too -- it's impossible to win anything if you already have an infinite amount of money. Suppose you have an infinite amount of money and you win $1. Now what do you have?
Quote: jms9smithi'm curious too........eventually, one does win a hand/spin/roll etc???? so how would it be that martingale (given the bankroll/maximums issues are removed) doesn't work?? that would be cool to understand.....
If you remove the bankroll and maximums issue, there is still the problem of the non-zero probability of losing every single bet you ever make.
Quote: slackyhackyMr Mixed Martial Math Extremist - I am asking for your sincere help to look at my spreadsheet and tell me where it messes up.
I must respectfully decline. Other members of this forum are perfectly capable of assisting you with your query, should they choose to do so.
Quote: MathExtremistSuppose you have an infinite amount of money and you win $1. Now what do you have?
This made me smile. ^
MathExtremist is correct. Roulette is not a "50/50" game. And each roll of the ball is independent. Streaks don't matter. You will continue to go on a downhill trend in any real world casino roulette wheel. It is SET UP that way. Martingale, nor your modified Martingale can overcome the edge.
For slackyhacky to read: The Truth about Betting Systems compliments of our host.
Now you've said that using it in a real casino would be "retarded" See below quote:
Quote: slackyhackywhen did I ever say, hint, suggest, imply, or whatever...that martingale works in a casino? Or is practical?
One would be retarded to try to put martingale into practice.
So what are you trying to prove?? That with an infinite bankroll, and by infinite, we are talking mathematical infinity to its truest degree, that you can't run of out money using a negative progression betting strategy....Wow, I'm so impressed, because you have truly proven nothing.
Why?
Because I could just say hey, if I have infinite dollars, I can make up some wacky, off the wall, positive progression betting system and say, look, it works. Or it could be a negative progression system like Martingale, and say, hey it works, I never run out of money because eventually I will win.
Using infinity in your argument dilutes it, and makes everyone yawn, roll their eyes, and move on.
And also. You misspelled "Lose" again.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Because I could just say hey, if I have infinite dollars, I can make up some wacky, off the wall, positive progression betting system and say, look, it works. Or it could be a negative progression system like Martingale, and say, hey it works, I never run out of money because eventually I will win.
Using infinity in your argument dilutes it, and makes everyone yawn, roll their eyes, and move on.
I have an even better system for if you have infinite dollars:
1) Wire $5M to the casino cage as front money.
2) Play roulette, or your game of choice, for the table maximum.
3) Every time you lose, say "aw, shucks" and make another maximum bet.
4) Every time you win, toke the dealers the entire amount, keeping none for yourself.
5) Do this until the entire $5M is gone. It might take a while depending on the maximum.
After you're done losing and/or giving away your $5M, guess what? You still have infinite dollars.
That said, for someone who is going to gamble anyway (perhaps an addicted gambler), and tends to bet larger amounts, Martingale might be useful. Why? Because it will have a tendency to keep the average bet of that individual lower than they normally would bet, and as a result they will lose less overall. It also helps because this person will have far more winning sessions than losing sessions - the only get "stung" a small percentage of the time. For those that view gambling more as an experience than a mathematical exercise, Martingale is a perfectly valid and reasonable system to use.
Quote: thefish2010For those that view gambling more as an experience than a mathematical exercise, Martingale is a perfectly valid and reasonable system to use.
What if I think gambling is an experience AND a mathematical exercise?
Quote: YoDiceRoll11What if I think gambling is an experience AND a mathematical exercise?
Then don't use martingale :).
Quote: MathExtremistI must respectfully decline. Other members of this forum are perfectly capable of assisting you with your query, should they choose to do so.
How about this problem then?
Given a bankroll of 10 mil, no minimums, and assuming there are only two possibilities, a total loss, or a positive amount larger than starting bankroll, what is the probability of after 1 mil rolls that you will not lose?
Quote: YoDiceRoll11This made me smile. ^
MathExtremist is correct. Roulette is not a "50/50" game. And each roll of the ball is independent. Streaks don't matter. You will continue to go on a downhill trend in any real world casino roulette wheel. It is SET UP that way. Martingale, nor your modified Martingale can overcome the edge.
For slackyhacky to read: The Truth about Betting Systems compliments of our host.
Now you've said that using it in a real casino would be "retarded" See below quote:
So what are you trying to prove?? That with an infinite bankroll, and by infinite, we are talking mathematical infinity to its truest degree, that you can't run of out money using a negative progression betting strategy....Wow, I'm so impressed, because you have truly proven nothing.
Why?
Because I could just say hey, if I have infinite dollars, I can make up some wacky, off the wall, positive progression betting system and say, look, it works. Or it could be a negative progression system like Martingale, and say, hey it works, I never run out of money because eventually I will win.
Using infinity in your argument dilutes it, and makes everyone yawn, roll their eyes, and move on.
And also. You misspelled "Lose" again.
I read that article and many others of his long ago.
What am I trying to prove? No idea. :)
Actually, didn't think I was really trying to prove anything.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you remove the bankroll and maximums issue, there is still the problem of the non-zero probability of losing every single bet you ever make.
isn't non-zero probability a theoretical idea in this case though? the actual chance that a roulette wheel will never spin red is in practice impossible?
Quote: MathExtremistYes. Unfortunately, no casino game offers these rules. Roulette certainly doesn't. For starters, you are *not* equally likely to win or lose. Losing is more likely.
The problem with "Martingale thinking" is that its proponents throw out the numbers -- they discard probabilities and just look at possibilities. The flawed logic inevitably goes like this: I'm bound to win sometime, and by doubling my prior losses my next win will make up for all of them, so I'll always come out ahead.
But that logic would apply equally to a game with a 50/50 chance of winning as a 1/99 chance of winning. That's the first clue that it's flawed. It implies that it doesn't matter how bad the game is, you can always "beat" it with a large enough bankroll. Unfortunately that's not true for any real-world situation. "Martingale thinking" ultimately boils down to the nonsensical requirement that you can always win "if you have an infinite amount of money". But that turns out to be wrong too -- it's impossible to win anything if you already have an infinite amount of money. Suppose you have an infinite amount of money and you win $1. Now what do you have?
actually in a close to 50/50 game i think the idea that your describing is the exact opposite, that somehow you will not eventually win.......the infinite amount of money is only to ask the question mathematically i'm sure, and has no philosophical interest. yes someone with infinite money wouldn't bother but i think the fact of the game being close to 50/50 does suggest that eventually you must win, if in your case the argument is nonsensical in the reverse, to say that given any odds i will always lose, is equally as crazy???
with all respect and only in the pursuit of learning :)
Quote: jms9smithactually in a close to 50/50 game i think the idea that your describing is the exact opposite, that somehow you will not eventually win.......the infinite amount of money is only to ask the question mathematically i'm sure, and has no philosophical interest. yes someone with infinite money wouldn't bother but i think the fact of the game being close to 50/50 does suggest that eventually you must win, if in your case the argument is nonsensical in the reverse, to say that given any odds i will always lose, is equally as crazy???
with all respect and only in the pursuit of learning :)
In practice, you eventually you will win at least one bet at some point, that is true. However, in practice, you have no chance of not hitting the casino's table limit and/or your bankroll at some point. You don't believe this, but it's quite common to lose 10+ bets in a row, even in a true 50/50 game. At some point, you'll lose substantially more than that - e.g. 20 or 30 or more in a row. I was recently playing blackjack and the pit boss told me he had just come from the baccarat room where the banker bet had won 18 times in a row. Had you been betting martingale on the player side, in order to win that 19th bet, you would have had to bet 2^18 or 262,144 units, which the house wouldn't come close to letting you bet (for $25 units, thats a $6,553,600 bet). These things do happen, and when they do, you will wind up on the losing end.
Again, neither martingale or any other betting system is a long term winner when used on a negative expectation game that is subject to the law of independent trials. However, if you'd simply like to win more often than you lose, with the understanding that you will still lose overall and that on the relatively rare losing occasions your losses will be substantial, then go for it. Martingale will give you many more winning hours than losing hours. For some people, that's enough.
Quote: jms9smithisn't non-zero probability a theoretical idea in this case though? the actual chance that a roulette wheel will never spin red is in practice impossible?
If you're going to impose practical considerations, you should be consistent. In practice, you have neither an unlimited bankroll nor the ability to place an unlimited wager. Practically speaking the Martingale fails because the casino won't let you play it beyond 10 bets or so.
Once you remove those practical limits, yes, the theoretical aspects come into play -- all of them, including the fact that it is theoretically possible to lose for 30 spins in a row, putting you in the hole for over 2 billion dollars starting with a $1 wager. Practically speaking, you won't ever have a billion dollars to stake on roulette, and no casino would ever take that wager anyway, but it's still theoretically possible to lose 30 times in a row. It's also theoretically possible to lose 50 times in a row. That would put your required wager in the vicinity of 20x as much money as actually exists in the entire global economy. Just to win your dollar back.
If you had the bankroll to finance a (2^20)*5 (which is 19 losses in a row with a 5 dollar minimum)...that would be a 5 million dollar bankroll.
I'm sorry, but if you have 5 million dollars, there is a much better investment then a casino...
EOS
Quote: slackyhackyIt may be wrong. I seems to follow for me though. Can you fix it and then we will see?
I still contend, despite the overwhelming persecution I am getting (sigh...) that no matter what your loss, a win is coming, and it ERASES you loss back to where you were when you were starting, and everytime a win happens more than one time in a row, you up your baseline.
If 1mill isn't enought, start with 10mil, if that isn't enough 100mil.
"despite the overwhelming persecution I am getting" >>> You're at the Wizard/GG board, get comfortable.
Ken
Quote: MathExtremistIf you're going to impose practical considerations, you should be consistent. In practice, you have neither an unlimited bankroll nor the ability to place an unlimited wager. Practically speaking the Martingale fails because the casino won't let you play it beyond 10 bets or so.
Once you remove those practical limits, yes, the theoretical aspects come into play -- all of them, including the fact that it is theoretically possible to lose for 30 spins in a row, putting you in the hole for over 2 billion dollars starting with a $1 wager. Practically speaking, you won't ever have a billion dollars to stake on roulette, and no casino would ever take that wager anyway, but it's still theoretically possible to lose 30 times in a row. It's also theoretically possible to lose 50 times in a row. That would put your required wager in the vicinity of 20x as much money as actually exists in the entire global economy. Just to win your dollar back.
I've never mentioned infinity by the way. I am talking somewhere between casino reality, and infinity.
But seriously ME, can you help me solve this question?
What is the probability of loosing 10 million dollars if I double each loss on a roulette wheel over 1 million turns and I bet a single color.
I'll tell you what I know, and hopefully you will be so kind to finish the problem.
To lose 10 mil, I need to not hit my color 24 times in a row. (2^23 = 8.388 mil, but I don't double the 1rst loss, so that means 24 times).
The probability of that happening is (20/38)^24 = 0.000000204133169 - or 0.0000204133169 % . Theoretically I would need to play 4,898,763 times for this to happen once.
What I'm not smart enough to figure out next is how to figure the probability of this happening in 1 million rolls.
silly
Quote: slackyhackyThe probability of that happening is (20/38)^24 = 0.000000204133169 - or 0.0000204133169 % . Theoretically I would need to play 4,898,763 times for this to happen once.
Really, what you are looking for is streaks of AT least 24
So, (20/38)^n where n>=24 .... which is about 0.000000430984
This is the probability that this will happen AT the start of your trial.
The odds of this not happening at the start of your trial is (1-.000000430984)^(k-24) where k is the number of rolls = 1,000,000. That gets me .649899. So, the odds of you not having at least 24 losses in a row after 1,000,000 trials is 65.9899%
Anyway, that's what my math is thinking, but someone will me where I've gone wrong.
see pacomartin's thread for some math on streaks in n trials.Quote: boymimboThe odds of this not happening at the start of your trial is (1-.000000430984)^(k-24) where k is the number of rolls = 1,000,000. That gets me .649899. So, the odds of you not having at least 24 losses in a row after 1,000,000 trials is 65.9899%
Anyway, that's what my math is thinking, but someone will me where I've gone wrong.
Ask the Wizard correction
There are recursive solutions using spreadsheets, a Markov Chain approach and javascript calculator solutions.
Almost like a candy store.
Look, if you think this system works, go play it for a month or until you're homeless, whichever comes first, and let us know the results if you still have a computer or smartphone to post with by then. There isn't really much else to say. If you believe that this silly math stuff has no place in gambling, then go do it and prove that all the posts cautioning you about this are wrong.
Quote: thefish2010Doesn't matter anyway because the table limits are never anywhere near $10 million or even $1 million. Posted limits at a $100 minimum roulette table at Bellagio, which has the highest limits on the strip, are $20,000 for outside bets. That means at most you could withstand 7 losses in a row. An 8th loss would put you at $25,600 for your ninth bet.
Look, if you think this system works, go play it for a month or until you're homeless, whichever comes first, and let us know the results if you still have a coputer then. There isn't really much else to say. If this silly math stuff has no place in gambling, then go prove it.
There's no reason to do it all at one table. To actually do this in Vegas, a person could/would/should start at the cheapest possible table ($.25, I think, at Klondike Sunset). The player would essentially "pause" any string of losses that takes them over the table max there, and occasionally go elsewhere to resume those sessions at a table with a higher limit.
Obviously, there's a very substantial risk of ruin. And there are some very real questions about the validity of the method, and sanity of some of the bets. Starting at $.25 and starting the doubling after the second consecutive loss, 17 losses would fit under the table max at the Bellagio. The odds of losing 17 in a row on an outside bet in roulette are about 1:55,000. So the odds are not exactly infinitessimal that over the course of the month, you'll find yourself betting $16,384 to win $.25. On a spin with a 52.63% chance of failure.
Well, let's say you found a set of Roulette Tables and found a place that was willing to take your action from $1 all the way up to a million. So, you bankroll $1,048,576 and after the 21st loss in a row, you're broke. For a year's worth of action at 40 spins an hour you spend 1,000 hours to earn on average about 19K. According to the streak calculator the odds of you going broke is about 2.6%. For me, a 2.6% risk of losing $1,000,000 in order to win 19K is just plain dumb.
If you are sitting on $1,048,576, you would be much better off sticking the money in investments that yielded say 5 - 6% (like a money market, some stock that pays dividends, or some income fund), then take that $50 - 60K every year and play whatever your favorite game is.
And really, would anyone have the guts, after losing 20 bets in a row, to put that $524,188 on Red and say, "now's the time for black to show up!!!".
I just couldn't see dragging my ass to a casino with a $1,000,000 marker and starting out with $1 on Red, then $2, then $4, and then come home at the end of your 8 hour session and say, wow, I made $150 (but I risked a million). Chances are that if you have $1,000,000 sitting around, you don't really think about ways you can make $150 in 8 hours playing roulette martingaling using your million dollar bankroll. Chances are that you could make $160 just from working an hour or two. Of course the exception is inheritances.
Tell you what. If you are really wanting to make $20,000 a year, risk free, from your investments, send me the million. I'll send you a check right away for $20,000. Heck, I'm feeling generous, I'll send you $25,000, each and every year. In the meantime, I'll pay off my mortgage and all of my debts and invest the rest in order to give you that cash flow of $25,000. I'll even pay the taxes. When you want your million back, give me a call.
Martingales are for the foolish.
