awakefield1983
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
• Posts: 20
February 7th, 2012 at 1:59:24 PM permalink
I agree 100% that all betting systems are flawed when trying to beat the game in the long run and cannot avoid the house edge.

I am not a professional gambler, meaning, I don't make a living from gambling. However, I gamble quite well, I know optimal strategy for almost every basic casino game, have no superstitions, can easily quit when hitting my profit goal/stop loss limits etc.

This being said, for someone who only spends a few days out of the year at the casino and is not looking to make a profit in the "long-run", would applying a betting system to attempt to make profits in the "short-run" make sense?

When using a progressive betting system, it works the majority of the time. Admittedly, the losses are more substantial when they do occur. Therefore, when trying to make a marginal sum of money, while only playing a few hours out of the year, is the risk worth it? Under this scenario, I would argue yes.

What are you thoughts?

Just to reiterate - I am not mathematically challenged - I know that no betting system can work in the long run - I am simply laying our a hypothetical for marginal short-term wins.
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
• Posts: 7895
February 7th, 2012 at 2:45:28 PM permalink
Quote: awakefield1983

This being said, for someone who only spends a few days out of the year at the casino and is not looking to make a profit in the "long-run", would applying a betting system to attempt to make profits in the "short-run" make sense?

This sentiment is expressed a lot on websites. The "short-run" is never defined. It only makes sense if you realize that your betting system is not doing anything to improve your odds.

For example suppose you are playing martingale with the standard 6 times doubling with a base bet of \$10. Then you must have a bankroll of \$630 to cover losses up to 6 times in a row (the final bet is \$320).

Even leaving out a house advantage at 89 games you have a 50/50 probability of losing 6 in a row, and the expectation is that you will not get higher than 126 games. If you add in a House Advantage the numbers get worse.

If you play red/black in roulette the 50/50 will occur at 69 games, and the expected number is 104 games before losing 6 in a row.

So the question is how many sequences can you expect to win if you only play 69 spins of roulette. A sequence is defined as a series of spins until you get a win and are ahead \$10. Maybe 20 sequences. So that is \$200.

Now the odds are no different than you can get ahead \$200 in 69 games ahead by "flat betting" \$50 per game or playing "strict martingale". The betting system doesn't help (or hurt) you in the short run.