newb gambling question
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
the 0 and 00 do not matter, though. all that does is change the % chance a streak of x losers will occur. you could do what i'm saying with 50% win rate, 49% win rate, 40% win rate, or whatever.
here's what i mean:
with 50% win rate, there is a .78% chance of a losing streak of 7.
with 49% win rate, there is a .9% chance of a losing streak of 7.
with 40% win rate, there is a 2.8% chance of a losing streak of 7.
whatever the win rate is, just prepare for whatever # of streak you are willing to accept. for example, if you have a 40% win rate, and you want to only have a 1% chance of losing, prepare to increase size 9 times instead of 7.
You are describing various versions of the martingale system which adds to bets every time you lose. But no matter what system you use, mathematically its IMPOSSIBLE to turn a negative expectancy random chance game(as is all casino games) into a profitable one using ANY betting method. (blackjack being the one exception.) This can be proven mathematically but I'm no expert in that.
On the bright side though, it sure is fun to think about all that money that you could take from the casinos if something like this works.
On the bright side though, it sure is fun to think about all that money that you could take from the casinos if something like this works.
i do agree if the expectancy is negative, it will lose money over the long run. but what if you plan on just doing this 5x in your life?
also, what about applying the increasing size on losing trades concept to a positive expectancy trading system? as i said here:
if that idea is good, then there's probably an optimum increase increment (i used .05 as an example).
also, i would bet most people who do that, don't do it correctly. many people probably bet more and more as they lose, but do they START with the right bet according to how much money they have and the win rate of the gamble?? most people who increase size after they lose probably start too big and don't increase bet size correctly. what i mean is, they bet so big, they don't have enough money left to increase size enough times to outlast a streak that only occurs 1% of the time.
say there is 49% win rate and the payoff is 1:1.
if you want a 99% chance you will make $100, you will need $6400.
play #, $ bet
1, 100
2, 200
3, 400
4, 800
5, 1600
6, 3200
7, 6400
bet those sizes and quit when you make $100.
if you want a 99% chance you will make $100, you will need $6400.
play #, $ bet
1, 100
2, 200
3, 400
4, 800
5, 1600
6, 3200
7, 6400
bet those sizes and quit when you make $100.
if you want a 93.23% chance of making $200, you will need $1600.
play #, $ bet
1, 200
2, 400
3, 800
4, 1600
bet those sizes and quit when you make $200.
Ok, before someone jumps down my throat, I admit I'm no expert on this stuff. But isn't this the famous gambler's paradox? In reality the odds on play number 7 are not 99.25% or whatever, but 50%. The likelihood of red or black is 50/50 each time, as the table does not have a memory. Ok, some tables might have a memory but hopefully you're not playing there. So you're risking 6400 to clear 100 on a 50/50 play. Not smart.