Twist on Martingale system - trying to figure out the math here...

Quote: clarkacal

They are however widely accepted to be feminine.

Because all inanimate objects are always female or because they answer "no" to your requests?

Quote: RaleighCraps

Perhaps I am naive, but I believe he really was looking for an idea of what the HE would be on his variation. He may even realize it is not a winning play. Perhaps he just wants to be an informed gambler, and this site has plenty of people who have the ability, and the inclination, to tell us what that HE is. I have asked for comment on more than one hair-brained craps schemes, and a few members have taken their time to explain to me what the HE would be. This forum also pointed me to WinCraps ,and that has allowed me to try different things and see the results. Does any of this make me a better gambler? Not really. However, I am a more informed gambler now.

I agree that he was looking for some hard numbers on the HE using this system and was asking this forum because he felt it was a likely place to find the answer. As has been said before, anyone who plays craps, blackjack, roulette or any other table game (assuming no hole carding, counting, collusion or other forms of cheating/rule bending) is at a mathematically quantifiable disadvantage. We (forum members) often talk about how we like to play certain games in certain ways to increase our enjoyment or keep our bankroll a little longer. The Wizard himself just said that he plays craps. He knows it is a -EV game but he said he might play the pass or don't pass depending on his mood. Others have explained their methods (systems) and said what works best for them. I don't see the same bashing of these comments as what I saw mkl do to this brand new member.

mkl, if you've played any -EV game you are a fool. You can't win so why would you even put your money on the layout? Do you think you have some special talent that no one else has or are you too stupid to realize that every time you place a $10 wager on craps you're giving the house 11.4 cents (or BJ or whatever the last table was that you played)?

There, how does that feel? That is exactly what you did in response to this poster's questions. Have you ever played a table with with a -EV? If so then I'd say you're no wiser than the OP for doing so. He may not be as informed as you but it's unfortunate that when he asked a question that might give him some insight into the maths of the game that you slammed him. You were just as uninformed at one point and either someone told you about how the odds work, you asked questions or you looked it up. That's what this guy was doing and I say again that you were nothing less than nasty to him for no good reason other than to attempt to show your superior knowledge to him and others. All you showed was your penchant to be a nasty person.

As you always must get in the last word, I'll let you do that now. I've said my piece and I'm done with it.

Quote: Wizard

If there is one thing I have learned in my 14 years as a gambling writer, system believers are hopeless. The odds that logic will convince them of their folly are about the same as those of their systems working long term. Did 98steps ever show the slightest doubt in his system, despite hundreds of posts trying to enlighten him? The only way for system players to possibly see the light is via their wallets. After trying and losing with several systems, or more, the seeds of doubt might take root and grow.

I admire the effort to save them, but I think it is a wasted effort.

I have to disagree. I came up with the Martingale shortly after my first visit to the casino about 8 years ago. Then I figured, what if I wait for 2 or 3 spins before starting the Martingale.

Then I did the calculations and figured out that it would usually work, but when it didn't work, I would be in some trouble.

I could definitely picture me 8 years ago being on this forum and asking the question.

Now I know it doesn't work. And it wasn't because I lost $1000 playing roulette.

I guess my point is that if someone is intelligent, they can be "saved"

Side Note: I know the Wizard disagrees with me, but I still think that with an unlimited bankroll and no maximums, that the Martingale works. But that's a complex mathematical argument, and I'm always going to lose those.

I'm very glad we have mid-readers, telepaths and fortune tellers on this site.

Frankly, if every response to a "system" is going to be derision, then it's another reason for me to spend less time on here, and I'll let the intellectual elite mock other people as soon as they enter.

Quite frankly, I think it's -apalling- to treat a new poster this way.

Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. He asked a sensible question for someone exploring a Martingale. The replies from some posters were clearly designed to try and show the intellectual "knowledge" and to be snotty. No-one knows on that initial post if someone will or won't understand the math, and too pretend with any evidence to the contrary that they won't is snotty, elitist and not an environment that should be fostered. This is of course "my opinion". I'm entitled to it as well.

Now, if the Wizard wants to encourage mockery and abuse on anyone asking naive questions, so be it. I am sure people will be here to respond that way. Good luck to you all. I'm not sure what you'll gain out of it though... mild erections and feeling of self worth?

Well I do agree with you that in theory, if you had unlimited money and there was no such thing as a table maximum, martingale should work in theory, as long as people can put aside the idea of betting an unspeakable amount of money to win $1

Quote: thecesspit

I'm very glad we have mid-readers, telepaths and fortune tellers on this site.

Frankly, if every response to a "system" is going to be derision, then it's another reason for me to spend less time on here, and I'll let the intellectual elite mock other people as soon as they enter.

Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

But gambling systems constructed to beat a -EV game shouldn't be given "the benefit of the doubt." And consenting to do a rigorous mathematical analysis of such a system sends the wrong message. Look at the amount of time and effort wasted in the 98craps thread. And in the end, was he one bit convinced? No.

So treating the OP as if his system could POSSIBLY have some validity would have been counterproductive, for us AND for him. System believers, pretty much by definition, are immune to logic--and mathematics IS logical. I know he asked for the math, but what difference would it have made to him? Zero. He wanted us to waste our time proving the trivially obvious, and then he would have rejected the conclusion, just like the last several hundred such people who've paraded through this forum trying to get us to validate their systems.

Quote: bruski

Thanks for being a complete xxxhole. Glad you feel so superior on a chat board. I was looking for some math for the entire strategy, not a xxxxheaded response.

Wow, lasted one day, a record.

Quote: TheNightfly

mkl, if you've played any -EV game you are a fool.

Nope. If I believe that I can beat any -EV game, then I am a fool. If I believe that it's possible if I can just find the Holy Hand Grenade, then I'm a fool.

Please don't revert to your earlier habit of putting words in someone's mouth and then arguing against those words. It's a seventh grade debate tactic.

Quote: mkl654321

But gambling systems constructed to beat a -EV game shouldn't be given "the benefit of the doubt." And consenting to do a rigorous mathematical analysis of such a system sends the wrong message. Look at the amount of time and effort wasted in the 98craps thread. And in the end, was he one bit convinced? No.

So treating the OP as if his system could POSSIBLY have some validity would have been counterproductive, for us AND for him. System believers, pretty much by definition, are immune to logic--and mathematics IS logical. I know he asked for the math, but what difference would it have made to him? Zero. He wanted us to waste our time proving the trivially obvious, and then he would have rejected the conclusion, just like the last several hundred such people who've paraded through this forum trying to get us to validate their systems.

As I said, I'm glad there are telepaths, fortune tellers and mind readers on this site.

Let me clarify my last post. By "system believers" I was referring to those who already had their minds made up that by staggering bets and looking for patterns in games of chance like roulette they can find an advantage. There are also many who are in doubt. I think it is a worthy cause to try to reach the undecided before they succumb to somebody promising a way to make $1,000/day off of roulette or craps for $99.

Maybe bruski was one of those undecided people. I think he should have been afforded the same kind of respect given to 98steps until it was not reciprocated. Personally, I've written a lot about systems on my Odds site, and don't have much more to add. So forgive me if I usually don't participate in threads about betting systems.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Well I do agree with you that in theory, if you had unlimited money and there was no such thing as a table maximum, martingale should work in theory, as long as people can put aside the idea of betting an unspeakable amount of money to win $1

I disagree. I claim that even with an infinite amount of money that the Martingale does not guarantee a profit. Let's make a separate thread if anyone wishes to take this further. However, I warn you that it will boil down to paradoxical nature of infinity.

As I said before, I think bruski was asking a reasonable question, and P90 answered it beautifully. Actually, P90 added quite a bit of knowledge that I didn't think about. If you do martingale, it's pretty easy to come up with the odds of losing n hands in a row. It's just the same odds of winning one hand to the nth power. But I didn't think about a martingaling "session". For example, in 1000 hands, what are the odds of losing 9 in a row. 1,000 hands would represent about 17 hours of blackjack play or about 6 3 hour sessions. It was interesting to see how probable it was.

What wasn't pointed out is that in martingaling blackjack, you lose out on the power of the double and split which goes with basic strategy. As well, you lose many more hands than you win and you make up for those on blackjacks, doubles, and splits.

Quote: boymimbo

What wasn't pointed out is that in martingaling blackjack, you lose out on the power of the double and split which goes with basic strategy. As well, you lose many more hands than you win and you make up for those on blackjacks, doubles, and splits.

I think bruski had said that he would have a seperate bankroll of $1000 to cover the cost of these occurences.

EDIT

Quote: bruski

Bankroll: Main stack ($1,960); Extra wager stack ($1000)...making total at table $2,960.

Quote: thecesspit

As I said, I'm glad there are telepaths, fortune tellers and mind readers on this site.

No need for any of those devices. The OP's original post clearly showed that he didn't subscribe to all that mathy stuff. And yes, I'm speculating on what his ultimate reaction would have been. But nobody who's dragged a "system" onto this site has reacted any differently.

If he was going to be convinced by the math, then he should have been convinced of the much simpler math that says you can't beat a -EV game. If he didn't believe the latter, what makes you think he would have believed the former? (It didn't work for 98steps, for instance.)

Quote: mkl654321

But why should anyone bother to do the math? It's like resorting to a detailed explication of physics and chemistry to show someone why their scheme to turn cotton balls into plutonium won't work.

It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, "It won't work." If you explain the math, and by some miracle that person understands that math and agrees with the conclusion, they'll just go back to their basement and cook up some different system in the forlorn hope that the math will validate that new one.

I think the odds of the math convincing the OP that Martingales don't work were about 40,000,000 to one. I respect the various quixotic tries to do so, though.

Imagine having a school teacher who uses this method of teaching. He has taught 7th (9th, 11th, 3rd... pick a number) grade math (English, science, History... pick a subject) for years and eventually decides that he's tired of students who don't already know the subject he teaches. Every year it's the same thing... ignorant students come to his class and ask dumb questions and he has to give the same answers over and over... EVERY YEAR! Then he decides, "It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, 'It won't work.'" Why bother opening a book that they probably won't even read or understand? Just tell them the facts and they can either figure out the "why" of it for themselves or remain ignorant. Stupid kids. Why can't they all just be smart like me?

Quote: TheNightfly

Imagine having a school teacher who uses this method of teaching. He has taught 7th (9th, 11th, 3rd... pick a number) grade math (English, science, History... pick a subject) for years and eventually decides that he's tired of students who don't already know the subject he teaches. Every year it's the same thing... ignorant students come to his class and ask dumb questions and he has to give the same answers over and over... EVERY YEAR! Then he decides, "It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, 'It won't work.'" Why bother opening a book that they probably won't even read or understand? Just tell them the facts and they can either figure out the "why" of it for themselves or remain ignorant. Stupid kids. Why can't they all just be smart like me?

Your sarcasm aside, I'll address your point.

You do indeed often tell children that something is true or false without giving a detailed explanation why, and sometimes, with no explanation at all. Do you school your child in how electricity works, and the effect that 110 volts AC will have on the human nervous system, rather than simply telling him not to stick his finger in an empty light socket? Which do you do first?

If a person wants to know why a perpetual motion machine won't work, that's fine, but the way to educate him is NOT "let's see the plans for your perpetual motion machine"--it's "take a look at this high school physics textbook". The OP wanted us to test the perpetual motion machine that he'd built.

Quote: mkl654321

The OP wanted us to test the perpetual motion machine that he'd built.

I disagree. Reading his post again, I think that he wanted to know what effect the strategy would have on house edge, not if he could overcome the negative expectation.

I think its a valid question, even if the thoughts behind it may or may not be misguided.

EDIT - The question to me is no different to asking what happens to the HE if I stay on hard 16 as opposed to hitting. It might not be the best thing to do, but I want to know how it changes things.

Quote: Wizard

Let me clarify my last post. By "system believers" I was referring to those who already had their minds made up that by staggering bets and looking for patterns in games of chance like roulette they can find an advantage. There are also many who are in doubt. I think it is a worthy cause to try to reach the undecided before they succumb to somebody promising a way to make $1,000/day off of roulette or craps for $99.

Maybe bruski was one of those undecided people. I think he should have been afforded the same kind of respect given to 98steps until it was not reciprocated. Personally, I've written a lot about systems on my Odds site, and don't have much more to add. So forgive me if I usually don't participate in threads about betting systems.



I disagree. I claim that even with an infinite amount of money that the Martingale does not guarantee a profit. Let's make a separate thread if anyone wishes to take this further. However, I warn you that it will boil down to paradoxical nature of infinity.

Well Mike you are correct, Martingale does not guarantee a profit since it is possible for an infinite amount of loss in a negative expectation game, the lightbulb finally clicked, I always dismissed Martingale in the past as the house limit would stop it even if someone had unlimited bankroll.

Maybe The Wizard needs to evaluate whether this forum is what it's intended. I enter on the "Forums" page. I therefore don't differentiate topics by systems, etc. I also don't mess around with the math much, accepting the established numbers with regards to playing craps. Craps is all I play.

That said, this seems to be a pretty hostile place to new posters. The Wizard's view of gambling systems is well known here, and mathematically established. But if someone Googles anything having to do with a gambling system, I bet this site places pretty high.

Seems either there needs to be a FAQ section (mentioned earlier) or the Wizard needs to decide how to handle these queries. That is, will there be an effort to ease these questioners into "mathematically sound" gaming, or will they simply be deemed unworthy dolts that should be stomped and shunned?

/sigh. A respectful 'boo' to the naysayers. I consider myself 'bright enough', yet never had the patience, or maybe capacity, to understand Big Math. While I never had an opinion strong enough to label it a 'belief', I, too, assumed that after 49 consecutive coin flips of Tails, the 50th just HAD to be heads. It just SEEMS to be common sense. Same would apply, then, to Red vs Black, Player vs Banker, etc and so forth. It wasn't until visiting this site that my error in thought pointed out and my mind sent in another direction, i.e. probability doesn't work backwards. Thankfully I remained silent and simply lurked for a long time before bringing any thoughts to bear, and thus (hopefully) have made it this far without saying anything exceedingly stupid. But had I posted too early and been lambasted as some have been on occasion, I would have missed an incredible learning experience, which I hope someday to pay back and be a part of. So don't give up on the ignorant just yet, we aint all lost on gettin learned from them thar readin' books!

Quote: Wizard

Maybe bruski was one of those undecided people. I think he should have been afforded the same kind of respect given to 98steps until it was not reciprocated. Personally, I've written a lot about systems on my Odds site, and don't have much more to add. So forgive me if I usually don't participate in threads about betting systems.

I think that's the underlying point here and the replies from P90 and TheNightFly would have been more appropriate to an initial poster. If Bruski had continued, for several posts, in the same vein, then a reply similar to mkl's would have been more in order.

Wizard states that he does not usually participate in systems threads and that's the choice that we all have. I also think that P90's post was very good and clearly addressed the poster's question.

I consider myself an experienced and knowledgeable blackjack player, with a reasonable amount of intelligence. However, if I was to suddenly find an interest in poetry then I would likely head to a poetry forum. I would be rather offended and disappointed, if, for example, I was to ask a question about Wordsworth, only to receive replies stating that the answer was obvious.

Even Face, who feels he has learned a lot from this site by lurking, states that he was glad that he didn't post a "Stupid" question at the start.

Should we make posters feel like that? - particularly in the initial stages?

Bruski may have stayed on and picked up the wealth of valuable knowledge that is contained in this forum. I don't think that he got a 'fair deal' although I also feel that he overreacted a little too quickly and his 'hot collar' prevented him from seeing P90's post in time - which may have cooled him/her down a little.

Or maybe, he's a poet looking to broaden his knowledge? :-)

Quote: mkl654321

But gambling systems constructed to beat a -EV game shouldn't be given "the benefit of the doubt." And consenting to do a rigorous mathematical analysis of such a system sends the wrong message. Look at the amount of time and effort wasted in the 98craps thread. And in the end, was he one bit convinced? No.

So treating the OP as if his system could POSSIBLY have some validity would have been counterproductive, for us AND for him. System believers, pretty much by definition, are immune to logic--and mathematics IS logical. I know he asked for the math, but what difference would it have made to him? Zero. He wanted us to waste our time proving the trivially obvious, and then he would have rejected the conclusion, just like the last several hundred such people who've paraded through this forum trying to get us to validate their systems.

If you consider responding to be a waste of time, THEN DON'T FREAKING RESPOND TO THAT POST! Let someone else answer it.

P90 took the time to do a great response. Would that have convinced bruski? Who knows, and frankly, who cares. There are hundreds of lurkers here, and maybe one of them followed P90's response and now understands why the martingale would be a bad idea.
Last year we analyzed the iron cross for craps. As sure as night follows day, someone is going to bring it up again. Is it a waste of time to talk about it again? Didn't the forum already do it before? Should we tell the poster to search the forum? Should we tell the OP how stupid the system is, and they are a fool for considering it? All of these responses are valid, but they certainly aren't conducive to growing the forum. And as much as I love reading all of your posts, I occasionally like to read posts from people other than the top 5 posters on this board. That won't happen if we manage to drive them all away on their first post.