Ye Olde Martingale
April 20th, 2012 at 12:20:19 PM
permalink
I know Martingale is a fallacy but I always had pondered this question (which is perhaps best answered by the mathematically inclined mind of the WIZARD)
What I normally see or hear is people saying this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10 if lose bet 20 if lose bet 40...although this "sounds" right, I do not believe it is...
I think the actual progression would be this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10, if lose bet 15 (to account for the first 5 you lost), if lose bet 30, if lose bet 60...
I know it only makes a slight difference but that's how I see it...
What I normally see or hear is people saying this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10 if lose bet 20 if lose bet 40...although this "sounds" right, I do not believe it is...
I think the actual progression would be this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10, if lose bet 15 (to account for the first 5 you lost), if lose bet 30, if lose bet 60...
I know it only makes a slight difference but that's how I see it...
April 20th, 2012 at 12:29:57 PM
permalink
Putting aside the two big dangers of the Martingale (that you'll continue to lose until you can't cover the next level, either because you ran out of money, or because of the table limits), you are right that the difference is slight.
The difference is this:
With the normal Martingale, when you eventually win all your losses back, you're ahead $5 (or whatever the starting unit was).
With your method, you only win back the losses.
I.E. With your method, you HAVE to have at least two wins in a row to ever come out ahead.
The difference is this:
With the normal Martingale, when you eventually win all your losses back, you're ahead $5 (or whatever the starting unit was).
With your method, you only win back the losses.
I.E. With your method, you HAVE to have at least two wins in a row to ever come out ahead.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
April 20th, 2012 at 12:33:39 PM
permalink
was it here that someone produced a good question to ask a Martingaler?
anyway it goes like this: take a chess board and place a penny on the first square, then keep doubling it, 2c, 4c, 8c, 16c, blah blah anyone can see you soon get to dollars. So the question is, once you reach the last square, what is the correct answer?
*most people would have the money to place there, or
*only Bill Gates or his equal would have the money to place there, or
*no one in the world would have enough money to place there
anyway it goes like this: take a chess board and place a penny on the first square, then keep doubling it, 2c, 4c, 8c, 16c, blah blah anyone can see you soon get to dollars. So the question is, once you reach the last square, what is the correct answer?
*most people would have the money to place there, or
*only Bill Gates or his equal would have the money to place there, or
*no one in the world would have enough money to place there
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
April 20th, 2012 at 12:37:32 PM
permalink
I think the answer to this riddle is D. Only Bill Gates, plus several of his friends, combined, might have enough money to cover it.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
April 20th, 2012 at 12:39:51 PM
permalink
Kinda unrelated, but has anyone ever tried anti-martingale (assuming you're not already down)? Of course, no betting system works in the long-run and all that, but at least you don't go broke with this one. Then again, "house money" is, in truth, "your money", but we all know that most people don't think that way.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:42:19 PM
permalink
Quote: aceofspades
I think the actual progression would be this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10, if lose bet 15
Thats a D'alambert progression.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 20th, 2012 at 12:47:51 PM
permalink
The martinstinkle people need to consider that you cant keep wagering 100 to win 5 or whatever it ends up. you always risk way more than you win. The risk reward is wacked in these systems.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:51:16 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanThe martinstinkle people need to consider that you cant keep wagering 100 to win 5 or whatever it ends up. you always risk way more than you win. The risk reward is wacked in these systems.
But...but...you're only really "risking" the money if you can't make the next bet following a loss! Otherwise you can just sell a kidney or two and re-double down on the next bet!
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
April 20th, 2012 at 12:56:13 PM
permalink
Quote: aceofspadesI know Martingale is a fallacy but I always had pondered this question (which is perhaps best answered by the mathematically inclined mind of the WIZARD)
What I normally see or hear is people saying this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10 if lose bet 20 if lose bet 40...although this "sounds" right, I do not believe it is...
It is. This process means you win a net of 5 anytime you win Net Win is if the bet wins, net loss is if it doesn't.
| Bet | Total Loss so far | Net Win | Net Loss |
| 5 | 0 | 5 | -5 |
| 10 | -5 | 5 | -15 |
| 20 | -15 | 5 | -35 |
| 40 | -35 | 5 | -75 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Quote:
I think the actual progression would be this:
Bet 5, if lose bet 10, if lose bet 15 (to account for the first 5 you lost), if lose bet 30, if lose bet 60...
I know it only makes a slight difference but that's how I see it...
This scheme doesn't make a profit on every win.
| Bet | Total Loss so far | Net Win | Net Loss |
| 5 | 0 | 5 | -5 |
| 10 | -5 | 5 | -15 |
| 15 | -15 | 0 | -30 |
| 30 | -30 | 0 | -60 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 20th, 2012 at 12:58:58 PM
permalink
LOL! or you reach the table max there is a reason for the min max relationship. I think ill keep both kidneys :)
April 20th, 2012 at 1:16:19 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearI think the answer to this riddle is D. Only Bill Gates, plus several of his friends, combined, might have enough money to cover it.
About 92 quadrillion bucks? I don't think so :)
If you had this amount of money in $100 bills, stacked one on top of the other, the height of the stack would be about 100 million kilometers (about 2/3 of a distance from Earth to Sun).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
April 20th, 2012 at 1:29:46 PM
permalink
When LimeWire was sued for approximately all of the money on earth, it was much less than this amount, so I'm going to go with door #3 (nobody).
April 20th, 2012 at 1:41:55 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitIt is. This process means you win a net of 5 anytime you win Net Win is if the bet wins, net loss is if it doesn't.
Bet Total Loss so far Net Win Net Loss 5 0 5 -5 10 -5 5 -15 20 -15 5 -35 40 -35 5 -75 ... ... ... ...
This scheme doesn't make a profit on every win.
Bet Total Loss so far Net Win Net Loss 5 0 5 -5 10 -5 5 -15 15 -15 0 -30 30 -30 0 -60 ... ... ... ...
I suppose I misunderstood Martingale - I thought the goal of Martingale was always get back to even to begin starting over again - now that I know I will come out ahead $5 I am going to call Bill Gates and tell him the EV on a Martingale is in our favor (maybe he will let me keep $2.50)
April 20th, 2012 at 1:45:47 PM
permalink
Quote: aceofspades
I suppose I misunderstood Martingale - I thought the goal of Martingale was always get back to even to begin starting over again - now that I know I will come out ahead $5 I am going to call Bill Gates and tell him the EV on a Martingale is in our favor (maybe he will let me keep $2.50)
I don't know how the second clause follows. The EV on a Martingale is never in your favour if each individual bet is not in your favour.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 20th, 2012 at 1:49:18 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI don't know how the second clause follows. The EV on a Martingale is never in your favour if each individual bet is not in your favour.
I was being sarcastic...
April 20th, 2012 at 1:50:51 PM
permalink
Oh. I must have slipped a digit or two. I was thinking around $10 trillion.Quote: weaselmanQuote: DJTeddyBearI think the answer to this riddle is D. Only Bill Gates, plus several of his friends, combined, might have enough money to cover it.
About 92 quadrillion bucks? I don't think so :)
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
April 20th, 2012 at 2:30:21 PM
permalink
Quote: aceofspadesI was being sarcastic...
Sorry, flew straight over my head....
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
April 20th, 2012 at 2:58:46 PM
permalink
instead of a penny, you can use anything, even something without value, then start doubling and ask would anyone have the money to buy it.
Certainly even if the "mill" was resurrected as currency and that was your starting point, no one.... not even any nation on earth... could come up with the money.
Certainly even if the "mill" was resurrected as currency and that was your starting point, no one.... not even any nation on earth... could come up with the money.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
April 20th, 2012 at 3:54:54 PM
permalink
Quote: FourFiveFaceKinda unrelated, but has anyone ever tried anti-martingale (assuming you're not already down)? Of course, no betting system works in the long-run and all that, but at least you don't go broke with this one. Then again, "house money" is, in truth, "your money", but we all know that most people don't think that way.
Some betting systems can be good in the SHORT run. I don't care if they won't work in the long run, I'm just trying to win a little bit right now. Just last night I was playing Blackjack, which I NEVER do, but I was ahead from craps. I bought in for $80, starting with $10 bet, pressing five after each win, pressing by $10 after the $30 bet. In one shoe I won $115, tipped 10 and walked away..
A little later in the night I started with $55, was all in with $15, won that hand, and won a few more, eventually hit a $40 blackjack, then got up to $75. Had 16 against 10, so surrendered. Walked away with $150, $95 ahead.
April 20th, 2012 at 4:46:12 PM
permalink
Pressing should occur in the following situations:
Positive count or trying to cool down heat by putting up a dumb bet.
Positive count or trying to cool down heat by putting up a dumb bet.
