If the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity. If you do not accept that there is a bigger number than infinity, you cannot logically accept that a player can have an infinite bankroll.Quote:WellbushI'm not following. Can you elaborate?

Quote:OnceDearIf the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity.

Not only that, but I counter infinite bankroll with infinite players. With infinite players, every possibility happens, no matter how far-fetched. That means one player will infinitely win and one will infinitely lose.

The one who infinitely wins will be winning one base unit every time. The one who infinitely loses keeps doubling his bets and losing again, or whatever amount.

When we get into metaphysics, I still win.

Equations actually don't work when infinity is a factor. That's not a failing of maths, just a part of its doctrine.Quote:Mission146Not only that, but I counter infinite bankroll with infinite players. With infinite players, every possibility happens, no matter how far-fetched. That means one player will infinitely win and one will infinitely lose.

The one who infinitely wins will be winning one base unit every time. The one who infinitely loses keeps doubling his bets and losing again, or whatever amount.

Quote:OnceDearWhy must it? What is it?

This may be a good juncture, OD, to take note of why we've differed till now? I suspect that if I were to ask you this question:

Do you think it's possible that when a player plays a game at a casino, that he will lose ad infinitum?

That this question may open your mind to why the mathematical models you think apply to gambling, do not necessarily cover the real life scenarios.

Quote:OnceDearEquations actually don't work when infinity is a factor. That's not a failing of maths, just a part of its doctrine.

I agree, but we're into metaphysics now. If we're going to make, "Infinite Bankroll," arguments, then we've already left anything that is real.

Yes, if things that are not real happen, then the system could theoretically be expected to work.

I'd create a better thing that is not real, if it were me. When I close my eyes, I have a meta-spiritual link to playing cards that enables me to see them as if face up. I have never lost a hand.

He only has to either run out of bankroll, or die of old age. And he only has to do it once.Quote:WellbushThis may be a good juncture, OD, to take note of why we've differed till now? I suspect that if I were to ask you this question:

Do you think it's possible that when a player plays a game at a casino, that he will lose ad infinitum?

That this question may open your mind to why the mathematical models you think apply to gambling, do not necessarily cover the real life scenarios.

Quote:OnceDearIf the player has infinite bankroll, he can never increase his bankroll by even one unit. If he could, then you would have to accept that there is a bigger number than infinity. If you do not accept that there is a bigger number than infinity, you cannot logically accept that a player can have an infinite bankroll.

The I'm not following. Can you elaborate? post, was in reply to 146's post, OD. Not yours.

Like I care!Quote:WellbushThe I'm not following. Can you elaborate? post, was in reply to 146's post, OD. Not yours.

Quote:OnceDearHe only has to either run out of bankroll, or die of old age. And he only has to do it once.

This is getting a little interesting, OD.

So, for example, a whale goes to the casino, and uses a slower negative progression strategy, such as an even slower one than Fibonacci. Even though he's a whale, he starts betting on the lowest bet table he can find, say $5. Not only that, but the whale takes breaks away from the table each time he experiences 5 losses in a row. But when the whale returns to the table, he continues along the negative progression strategy from where he left off, before he took the break.

Do you think the whale could still experience enough losses in a row, to bankrupt himself, if he has say $100 billion to bet with?