Betting Systems?

CiaranC

dougal-maguire wrote: »

This might be more helpful,it explains what's being explained,only better and without the sarcasm.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Thats been posted on thread more than once

OutlawPete

CiaranC wrote: »

Can you explain why it would be laughable to take 21/1 on a true 21/1 shot then please, because you have totally lost me.

Sure.

From a pool of 22 boxes, that person has already picked the box 3 times in row!

I would have offered 25/1 on them doing it the 2nd time and 35/1 on them doing it a 3rd.

This is not a skill we are talking about here.

This is a random event with odds of 21/1 on on each Player to pick the £250,000 box from the 22 available.

The next day you would think that 21/1 on the same player picking the £250,000 box yet again - is a good bet?

In other ones, you think the mathematical odds still reflect the 'likelihood' (for want of a better word ) of that player picking the box again?

CiaranC wrote: »

Its not "yet another" twenty blacks in a row. The preceding 20 spins have no bearing on the outcome of the next.

Never said they did.

CiaranC wrote: »

The chances of twenty blacks in a row is ALWAYS THE SAME, REGARDLESS TO WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY.

Is is far less 'likely' that there will be another sequence of 20 Blacks than a mix of Blacks and Reds, sequence experiments show us this time and time again.

CiaranC wrote: »

I suggest you get off this thread and apply these new laws to making yourself a billionaire. Why havent you done this already btw?

Read the thread and you wouldn't feel the need ask such nonsensical question like that:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I use the martingale system from time to time, it is foolproof - that is a fact.

Only flaw is, you have to be rich in the first place to make it work.

I use it on Blackjack and am well up, but I know if I kept using it and upped my stakes, I'd lose fast.

Where it gets dangerous is if you keep doubling and don't have the stakes to keep going.

OutlawPete

5starpool wrote: »

If I was arguing something, and EVERYONE else was arguing against me, there would probably come a time fairly quickly where I would concede that I was likely wrong. Are you even prepared to think you may be wrong about this OutlawPete?

Wrong about what exactly?

That the Martingale is mathematically sound?

That the Laws of Averages / Large Numbers can be incorporated into a gambling strategy?

OutlawPete wrote: »

The martingale system has many flaws, the main ones being that:

I know, I have pointed many of them out in this thread.

OutlawPete wrote: »

The only way to make significant money from this is when you win a spin after say 5 losses to put your winnings from the last spin/toss on the next spin/toss which is totally against the principle of the system afaik,

I myself don't use the system on Roulette, as I said earlier - I use it in Blackjack. I have used it a few times on Roulette in twenty years and each time bar one, I showed a profit - but I did have a cut and loss point and so was more luck than anything.

My Blackjack game is not all Martingale and I would not recommenced it as a system despite some of the comments directed at me that are almost suggestive of me recommending the system as some road to riches.

My very FIRST post in this thread talked about needing to be a millionaire to make it work, perhaps even a multi millionaire but that does not negate the fact that the Martingale system is mathematically foolproof and sound.

CiaranC

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sure.

From a pool of 22 boxes, that person has already picked the box 3 times in row!

I would have offered 25/1 on them doing it the 2nd time and 35/1 on them doing it a 3rd.

This is not a skill we are talking about here.

This is a random event with odds of 21/1 on on each Player to pick the £250,000 box from the 22 available.

The next day you would think that 21/1 on the same player picking the £250,000 box yet again - is a good bet?

In other ones, you think the mathematical odds still reflect the 'likelihood' (for want of a better word ) of that player picking the box again?

YES

coughlan08

i accept both sides of the argument but to be honest you have way to much time on your hands Outlawpete to be debating your side as long as you have,especially the deep,long and quiet frankly at this stage boring posts..

people have different opinions on this subject so leave it at that..:rolleyes:

5starpool

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sure.

From a pool of 22 boxes, that person has already picked the box 3 times in row!

I would have offered 25/1 on them doing it the 2nd time and 35/1 on them doing it a 3rd.

This is not a skill we are talking about here.

This is a random event with odds of 21/1 on on each Player to pick the £250,000 box from the 22 available.

The next day you would think that 21/1 on the same player picking the £250,000 box yet again - is a good bet?

In other ones, you think the mathematical odds still reflect the 'likelihood' (for want of a better word ) of that player picking the box again?

You really honestly believe that? Honestly?

Wow.

You are not going to get a statistically meaningful sample from the real world of Deal or no Deal, never mind the fact that the person that chooses it doesn't play again, but if you have 22 boxes that you choose from multiple times (with all the boxes shuffled each time) at random, you are 21/1 EACH time to pick it.

just_visiting

coughlan08 wrote: »

i accept both sides of the argument but to be honest you have way to much time on your hands Outlawpete to be debating your side as long as you have,especially the deep,long and quiet frankly at this stage boring posts..

people have different opinions on this subject so leave it at that..:rolleyes:

There are not differing valid opinions on this. OutlawPete is 100% wrong, and it isn't a matter of opinion at all. He believes that his intuition about random processes is right and mathematical facts are wrong. His belief in the Gambler's Fallacy is not that unusual. But he is a bit unusual in trying to back up his belief with a completely wrong understanding of the of the Law of Large Numbers.

He should either research these topics and attempt to understand them in order to not continue to look foolish, or just stop posting.

gondorff

OutlawPete wrote: »

The next day you would think that 21/1 on the same player picking the £250,000 box yet again - is a good bet?

Those odds are fair. In fact they are fairer than the 18/37 you get from backing a colour on the (European) roulette wheel.

neeeel

OutlawPete wrote: »

The odds of those numbers coming out, according to mathematics are the same as any other six, because the past does not predict future draws.

So even though, there is always the same mathematical probability / odds of any six numbers coming out of any draw, conditions being identical - it rarely ever happens.

So rare that one mathematician put it at a one in 10,000 year chance or Four Trillion to One.

That is my point, all other perms were 14 Million to One (or thereabouts) and that one was Four Trillion to one - yet according to some, there is the same chance for all perms coming out because the balls have no memory.

Ok, this is where u are going wrong. U are calculating the possibility of the same numbers coming out 2 weeks in a row as (14 million to 1) * (14 million to 1). Correct so far. But then you are comparing it to the odds of any other combination of numbers coming out for the 2nd week only, 14 million to 1.

The odds of 1,2,3,4,5,6 coming out 1 week and 1,2,3,4,5,6 the 2nd week are 1/(14million * 14 million)

the odds of 1,2,3,4,5,6, coming out 1 week and 10,17,20,25,33,40( or any other combination) coming out the 2nd week are 1/(14 million * 14 million)

All other perms are not 14 million to 1, when u are talking about perms over a 2 week period. they are the 1/(14million * 14 million)

BQQ

just want to say, though i disagree with outlawpete, the crap he's been getting is out of order.
If you have a point, make it and keep the smart comments to yourself.

Anyway, about this:

OutlawPete wrote: »

So, if I see a sequence of 10 Tails and I think it a good point to employ the Martingale system, as it is inevitable that Heads will be on it's way very very soon.

I don't play roulette much. hardly at all, in fact.
However, i did see a sequence of 23 blacks. sequence was broken by a green 0 which was followed by another 2 blacks and finally a red.

If i'd been using the martingale system here after the first 10 blacks, i would have to bet over 65,000 euro to win one euro.

in hindsight, NOT a good time to employ the system.

Then again, it's never a good time to employ the system imo.

gondorff

BQQ wrote: »

If i'd been using the martingale system here after the first 10 blacks, i would have to bet over 65,000 exactly 1024 euro to win one euro.

fyp

OutlawPete wrote: »

So rare that one mathematician put it at a one in 10,000 year chance or Four Trillion to One.

[Embedded Image Removed] This guy?:D

I wonder what probability he would assign to 133 people all choosing the 6 winning lottery numbers in one week? (It happened in the UK national lottery some time in the nineties.

jeepers101

OutlawPete please answer me this one.

Go back to the Martingale system and trying to use it to profit from a 50/50 situation. Lets assume the 50/50 situation is a coin flip.

What you are saying is that after, say, 10 heads in a row, one would be wise to start betting on tails as the chance of a run of more than 10 in a row is lower with every head.

The thing is, you are right in what you are saying but herein lies the flaw.

Assume, for arguments sake, that every (on average) 100 tosses of the coin, you will get at least ten in a row.

You start betting when these opportunities arise and the system appears to work.

What I believe you are missing, however, is that every 100 times you get 10 heads in a row, you are going to get another 10 heads in a row, essentially bankrupting you.

You cannot make any more money doing it your way than just betting every toss of the coin. With your way you are only winning once every, say, 100 tosses of the coin but you will lose after, on average, 100 bets. The same outcome for the person betting every toss except it took you longer to lose your money.

mdwexford

BQQ wrote: »

just want to say, though i disagree with outlawpete, the crap he's been getting is out of order.
If you have a point, make it and keep the smart comments to yourself.

Funnily enough i think the opposite.

People have mostly been very patient in trying to explain why he is completely and utterly wrong yet he still fails to grasp that it might actually be him that is wrong and the rest of the world right.

BQQ

gondorff wrote: »

fyp

are you sure ??

16 consecutive losers
1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384-32768

17th bet - 65536 is a winner

gondorff

BQQ wrote: »

are you sure ??

Yup:

BQQ wrote: »

If i'd been using the martingale system here after the first 10 blacks, i would have to bet over 65,000 euro to win one euro.

After the first ten blacks, you would have to bet €1024 to win €1 (you are winning back €1023 already wagered plus €1).:P

BQQ

I meant that you start to bet after the first 10 blacks have come up.

which means 65536 to win 1


but i think you already know that :rolleyes:

gondorff

BQQ wrote: »

I meant that you start to bet after the first 10 blacks have come up.

which means 65536 to win 1


but i think you already know that :rolleyes:

Was reading you wrong. My mistake.

I've spent a lot of time in casinos and as far as I can see the only way of winning at roulette is to get your money on after the ball has landed.

You'd have to be quick though!

Mellor

OutlawPete wrote: »

No, they don't as the law of averages is not based on a single event and so neither is the Martingale.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Or how based on that, the Martingale system of progressive betting could still fail to show a profit.

OutlawPete wrote: »

To do so, you will need to show that the law of averages is wrong when applied here and that regularly, Coin tosses and Roulette Wheel spins have sequences of of 40 or more.

I can't understand why you think that we need 40 in a row to prove or disprove anything? It couldn't happen regularly as it is so rare.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Are you saying that after a sequence of 20 blacks, there is the same 'possibility' 'liklihood' 'chance' - of yet another 20 blacks in a row??

That is ludicrous and if it happened, it would so rare as to not make a shred of difference anyway.

Yes there is exactly the same chance.

At any given time, for example the first spin. There is a million to one shot of 20 in a row. Pretty rare I think we'll all agree.

It does occasionally happen of course. And if it did, there is now a million to one chance that another 20 will come out (bringing it up to 40 in a row). Because the initial 20 is so rare, we rarely get an opportunity to attempt this. Which is why is may never happen. 1,000,000,000,000 would be the chance of it happening.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Is is far less 'likely' that there will be another sequence of 20 Blacks than a mix of Blacks and Reds, sequence experiments show us this time and time again.

Of course there is????

Another 20 to one is 1 in a million
A mix, ie any other combo, is 999,999 in a million




The law of averages don't ever kick in. There are just constantly there.

Consider this example (i'll ignore the green zero to keep it simple), you have a bankroll at the casino of say $310. And you want to bet $10.

If you start betting on red after a string of 5 blacks. It will take another 5 to bust you. A sting of another 5 in a row is just as likely now, as the initial 5 was to happen at all. Which it now has.

There is a 1 in 32 chance of this happening.
Lets imaigine you did this 32 times.

One would expect to win $10 at some point before you bust for 31/32 time. A net profit of $310. And when the 1 in 32 time that the streak comes hits, you'd have a net loss of $310. Exactly the same.

It, ironically, is the law of averages that tells us that repeating this 32 times we could expect to break even. Of course we have no way of knowing if the one time that we hit 5 and lose it all will happen early or late. So in practise, we either win a small bit, or lose a lot.

Once you consider the green zero the system is no longer breakeven, but now a losing system. Betting mins and maxes also speed up the rate at which is becomes a losing system (due to reaching a point where you can't continue even if your bankrolll allowed.

just_visiting

To be clear, there is no such mathematical principle as a "law of averages". That's just another word for the gambler's fallacy. It is not a synonym for the law of large numbers, which is real. And the law of large numbers has absolutely nothing to do with any of the examples discussed in this thread. Bernoulli's law pertains to truly *large* numbers, not dozens or even hundreds of trials. It's totally irrelevant at that scale.

There is absolutely no tendency for a series of independent events to "even out" to their expectation. If we flip heads 20 times in a row, giving us 10 more heads than expected, then our future expectation is to remain 10 heads over expectation forever. Yes, forever.

In fact, if we look at the records of multiple flippers over time, then the average absolute offset from expectation will get larger over time, not smaller, even if we flip forever.

The clearest way to look at independent events in gambling, is that every flip or roll should be treated as if it were the very first one for purposes of odds or probability or "chance".


Oh, and Martingale must always lose in the long run. It's mathematically certain.

Mellor

just_visiting wrote: »

The clearest way to look at independent events in gambling, is that every flip or roll should be treated as if it were the very first one for purposes of odds or probability or "chance".

That's been pointed out a few times and he still doesn't grasp it.


The simple fact is there is nothing you can do to improve your chances of winning at roulette. Every single bet is a bad bet. Every bet has an expected value of a 2.7% loss

You can gain an edge in blackjack, but not via a martingale

x PyRo

I think it's better if we just close this, it has been fun despite constantly going around and around and around.

Thread Closed.