With a system like martingale, it is quite simple to figure out you're not going to make money over the long haul. For instance, say your win goal is $1, after every loss you double your previous bet, up to 10 bets (ie: $1 + $2 +$4 +$8... = $1027). On a game like roulette, betting on black, you have an 18/38 chance of winning, or 20/38 chance of losing. Chance of losing two in a row is (20/38)^2...chance of losing 3 in a row is (20/38)^3....chance of losing 10 in a row is (20/38)^10.

Prob to lose 10 in a row:

(20/38)^10 = 0.00163103766 = 0.163103766% = 1 in 613.

Out of 613 trials, 612 times you'll win $1 (for a net profit of $612)...and 1 of those times you'll lose $1,027. Overall, you'll lose $415.

You can do this for however many bets you'd be willing to lose. You can do it for 15 bets, 25 bets, 50 bets...or however many you wanna do. The math is easy and always shows the same thing, you'll end up a loser. (Plus, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to have enough money to make 50 bets in a row...well....at 20 straight losses, you'd be down over 1 million dollars).

Quote:RSTL;DR: A betting system is when you change your bets based on wins or losses. Since you're playing against a house advantage, your bets are on average made at a disadvantage,

It is possible to turn multiple -EV bets into +EV with nothing else other than changing bet sizes.

Quote:RSsince your previous wins or losses do not correlate with the current advantage.

This is what you need to overcome. Of course as soon as you do that, somehow it is no longer a system, even though it fits the definition of one perfectly

Quote:TomGIt is possible to turn multiple -EV bets into +EV with nothing else other than changing bet sizes.

I don't see how that is possible. everything I have read says that two negatives in math (relating to HE) do not make a positive.

I know I looked into trying to see if I could find an advantage playing Craps/Sic Bo E-games. The idea was by betting on Sic Bo on the left table and Craps on the right, could I find a combination of bets between the two games that would give me an advantage.

I was unable to find any. I did play it that way for fun but it's a losing system over-all.

Quote:darkozI don't see how that is possible. everything I have read says that two negatives in math (relating to HE) do not make a positive.

The bets are correlated

Quote:TomGThe bets are correlated

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that's my understanding.

Math guys, wanna help me out here a little?

Quote:darkozI don't see how that is possible. everything I have read says that two negatives in math (relating to HE) do not make a positive.

I know I looked into trying to see if I could find an advantage playing Craps/Sic Bo E-games. The idea was by betting on Sic Bo on the left table and Craps on the right, could I find a combination of bets between the two games that would give me an advantage.

I was unable to find any. I did play it that way for fun but it's a losing system over-all.

You might want to check out Parrondo's Paradox. It's basic premise is as follows: There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately.

Any serious application of this to Game Theory gets complicated in a hurry. But, here is a simple example of the paradox: Consider two games, Game A and Game B. In Game A, you lose $1 every time you play. In Game B, you count how much money you have left in your starting bankroll. If it is an even number you win $3, and if it is an odd number you lose $5.

Each game is a loser by itself. But, if you play Game A when your bankroll is odd, alternating to Game B when your bankroll is even, you come out ahead.

Parrondo's Paradox is beginning to be used in finance, where loser investments that cycle up and down can be crafted into a portfolio that has a positive return over time. Other researchers are investigating ways to split bets in multiple games to turn a negative median return into one with a positive expectation.

I hope this is helpful. As I said, it's sort'a complicated, don'cher know?

Quote:LuckyPhowYou might want to check out Parrondo's Paradox. It's basic premise is as follows: There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately.

Any serious application of this to Game Theory gets complicated in a hurry. But, here is a simple example of the paradox: Consider two games, Game A and Game B. In Game A, you lose $1 every time you play. In Game B, you count how much money you have left in your starting bankroll. If it is an even number you win $3, and if it is an odd number you lose $5.

Each game is a loser by itself. But, if you play Game A when your bankroll is odd, alternating to Game B when your bankroll is even, you come out ahead.

Parrondo's Paradox is beginning to be used in finance, where loser investments that cycle up and down can be crafted into a portfolio that has a positive return over time. Other researchers are investigating ways to split bets in multiple games to turn a negative median return into one with a positive expectation.

I hope this is helpful. As I said, it's sort'a complicated, don'cher know?

Thank you. I am fully aware of Parrondo's paradox and wrote about it in one of my book reviews here http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/24574-god-doesnt-shoot-craps-btp-3/

Parrondo himself claims that his paradox does not work when combining negative expectation games in gambling because the rules of those games do not permit the paradox to occur unlike in finance.