

Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]  
NJJ Inner circle 6439 Posts 
Has anyone every heard of this? The math doesn't add up to me but smarter Café members might be able to nut this system out for me!
http://honestconman.blogspot.com/2008/03......ale.html 

splice Inner circle Canada 1248 Posts 
This runs into the same issues as the classic martingale.
On a table with $1000 limit and $1 minimum bet, you will be able to get in 7 rounds of betting. At that time the expected value of your bet is 0.74 (0.08% chance of losing all the $2186 you bet so far and 99.92% chance of winning $1). If you had no table limit then you could grind out your money as you please but it would be slow going. 

silverking Inner circle 4586 Posts 
Table limits and/or total available funds nuke this one.
I think folks who design these "NEW" systems sometimes forget that the houses job is to take your money, not make it easier for you to take the their money.......and they've got some real tried and true methods of preventing you from winning using systems like the Martingale.....like a table limit. A Martingale in any form remains a system for losers.......a minimum wage dishwashing job taking you further ahead that the Martingale ever will. 

JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1688 Posts 
I've always found it interesting that while most people that are knowledgeable about gambling systems correctly avoid systems like the Martingale, they usually don't understand why it fails to win money.
The table limits and personal bankroll limits are not the reason why the Martingale fails to win money in the long run. If you removed the table limits and allowed Bill Gates to play he still couldn't make any money with the Martingale in the long run. The only comprehensive description of why this is (that I can recall reading) is in Allan Wilson's Casino Gambler's Guide. Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. Bill Hicks


splice Inner circle Canada 1248 Posts 
That is certainly interesting, Jason.
I had assumed given no limit you would eventually profit by $1. Going further in my series seems to belie that however. On the 8th bet, you would put down two bets of 749*3 which is 2247, meaning 4494 on the table and 2186 wagered prior for a total of 6680. Losing on the 8th bet makes up for 0.0288% of all cases (a further 36.1% of the 0.08% cases that went to the 7th bet); 99.9722% win of $1 for EV of 0.999722 and 0.0288% loss of 6680 total for EV of 1.9238, for a total EV of 0.9241, which is a worse EV than 7 bets. The more you go on, the bleaker it gets, as you are wagering more and more to win the same amount of money as your first bet. Very interesting. 

Ron Conley Regular user 106 Posts 
There is no system that can make a negative expectation positive, regardless of limits. Someone with a fifty billion dollar bankroll will almost always win the dollar but will never be a fifty billion to one favorite to do so. The math is the math, is the math.
Ron 

splice Inner circle Canada 1248 Posts 
Very insightful, Ron. Much simpler and more elegant than my longwinded calculations.


matu New user 53 Posts 
I stopped reading the blog entry when it said that roulette was a 50/50 game. People seem to forget the 0 and 00


stoneunhinged Inner circle 3079 Posts 
Forget the OO? What's the OO?


NJJ Inner circle 6439 Posts 
Malu  The game is 50/50 in the sense that the player has two options red and black. Had you bothered to read on, you would have seen that the 00 and 0 are taken into account.


silverking Inner circle 4586 Posts 
As is often the case with "systems", I'm sure there's more than one, two, or even three things going on with the Martingale when viewed in the long run.
Table limits and limited bankroll may in fact not be the ONLY thing preventing folks from winning with a Martingale type system.......but they sure do a heck of a job of preventing it. At some point the houses ability to cover the "unlimited" player bankroll also comes into play, and the math gets complex rather quickly. Off the top though, what's stopping Uncle Jimmy and Aunt Gertrude from winning with the Martingale is the table limit, or their limited bankroll.......whichever comes first. I'll be digging that book up though Jason, I'm interested in how deep the Martingale formula goes. As a VERY young fellow interested in all things gambling, I became quite enamored of the Martingale and all its possibilities..........and then I started reading every John Scarne book I could find....which quickly woke me up. 

NJJ Inner circle 6439 Posts 
I find it too easy and tempting to dismiss every new variation of the martingale as having the same flaws as the previous incarnations. After all, they all fall apart at some point so why bother testing them?
However, the people who use these systems and swear by them are not swayed by my dismissive "it's all a bunch of crap" arguments, and tend to ignore my advice, wasting their money. Since a lot of people come to me for advice on these matters, I like to be able to explain the math behind the system. The martingale system is easy to explain the flaw. However, this one, which is more complicated, was much harder for me to nut out. Thanks to Splice and the anonymus commentor on the blog for helping out with the math. It's much harder to argue with the numbers. For the record, I am yet to see a betting system that provides any advantage to the gambler. 

The Great Marok New user 65 Posts 
Some people here seem to misunderstand some things about the martingale, while others are correct. So first of all, in theory as long as you know the exact odds of winning in a game, and the house payout structure, you can design a martingale system to win ANY amount of money, NO MATTER what the house edge is. This is simple to see, you just pick an amount that you want to win, and bet the corresponding amount that would give you this profit if you win. If you lose you just add the amount you lost to what you want to win, and the adjust your bet so that in the case you win you get the corresponding profit. You odds of winning and the house edge are irrelevant for the system to work, as longs as they are not both exactly zero.
As an example, let's say you want to win $1 million, and consider a game where a coin is tossed, you can only bet on heads, and the house has a coin that comes up heads only 1% of the time, and when it comes you only get paid 1% of your bet. I think everyone would agree that you have to be an idiot to play this game. But still you can win in theory. You just bet $100 million, and if you hit you get your $1 million. If you miss (99% chance), you now have to win $101 million, so you just bet $10.1 billion, and so on until you hit. Eventually you have to win because of the law of large numbers. So what's wrong with this? As a couple of people correctly pointed out, you run into the problem of finite funds and finite table limit. You also have the problem of finite time, but in real life it is the table limits and the funds that get you and not the time. The casino funds don't really matter, since they can always use the money you lost up to that point to pay you, so as long as they can cover your initial bet you're set. So if you had infinite funds, no table limits and infinite time, this would definitely work. But if you had infinite funds, why would you gamble in the first place? Quote:
On 20080328 14:26, JasonEngland wrote: The table limits and personal bankroll limits are in fact the downfall of martingale systems. Time would be another problem, but you can approximate that time is infinite, because you would run into either the table limit of personal bankroll limit on your first day probably. Note that even Bill Gates does not have infinite funds. I do not know who Allan Wilson is, or why is his opinion supposed to be authoritative, but if you can share an argument of why these are not the problem that would be great. Quote:
On 20080328 16:17, Ron Conley wrote: The expectation value is not actually important here, because when you win, you stop playing. If you had to keep playing even after you've won then this would be relevant. More properly you have to consider the conditional expectation value here, and that is positive, in fact even by definition of a martingale system it has to be positive. If anyone skips this whole thing and comes directly just to this line, my message is: don't use a martingale system  you will lose your money. 

kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1875 Posts 
For more info on betting paterns, check"fortunes formula", william poundstone. its about a system used in blackjack and wall street. I have to agree with the above post, however much I respect the other opinions shared here. table limits in the real world are the first thing that would hit you. even benny binion in his best day would stop the action after a couple big wins.
Kevin
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it" Sir Winston Churchill 

Mr. Z Special user Las Vegas, NV 826 Posts 
Quote:
On 20080329 03:37, kcg5 wrote: Got any evidence to backup this claim?
"...if you have to say you is, you ain't."Jimmy Hoffa


JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1688 Posts 
Quote:
The table limits and personal bankroll limits are in fact the downfall of martingale systems. Again, no they are not. There have been any number of computer simulations designed to play a simulated game using the Martingale system. Even without table limits and personal bankroll limits, the simulations don't show a longterm profit. The proof is complex, but I've provided a link here. You were warned. http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/progress/unfair.htm Jason PS: The more astute amongst you will realize that nowhere in the proof does it say "Oh, but this would work just fine if only the table limits weren't there."
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. Bill Hicks


stoneunhinged Inner circle 3079 Posts 
Jason, what you're missing buddy is...
THE WINNING STREAK! You see, once I have my Martingale in place, and when the gods begin to blow the wind in my favor and my streak starts, I'm gonna win...your mathematics be ***ed! So maybe next week I'll be reading this thread while on my yacht in the Med, looking at the lights of Monte Carlo, laughing at all you suckers and sissies who exude your negative energy and are not manly enough to take up the challenge instead of theorizing about stuff. I mean, I clicked the link and found it COMPLETELY uninformative. Just a bunch of numbers. Nothing about LUCK! Which I have lots of. (And I've got another advantage. I won't have the 00 to deal with! Put THAT in your computer simulation and smoke it!) I'm gonna get HOT, baby! I've just got to work up a large enough bankroll this weekend. Jeff 

stoneunhinged Inner circle 3079 Posts 
I forgot to ask: anyone here want to stake me?


silverking Inner circle 4586 Posts 
That stuff is denser than Keppler's laws of planetary motion!
I can't understand a single equation, but have no reason to doubt any of it I do however, still believe that INITIALLY, it's the dealer saying "$20.00 limit on this table sir" that kills off 99% of Martingale system types shortly after their arrival at a table. 

Mr. Mystoffelees Inner circle I haven't changed anyone's opinion in 3615 Posts 
Years ago I came up with this exact system while watching roulette. While I have not lost, the money I won was never enough to be standing at the table all night.
Also, on several occasions the bet got high enough to bring on arrythmias I don't think I could take the stress anymore. Worse, I taught it to a friend who did well with it until he ran into table limits with a run of 12 straight black. One odd thing I did (to give me the feeling of hedging the bet) was to wait for a red or black run of at least 3 straight before placing a bet on the opposite. I have a math background and I know this technically has no bearing, but I thought it helped. I found that table stakes and limits had to be taken into account, because they can interfere with the system. On the other hand, that can be a good thing, as the pull of knowing your color is coming on the next spin is almost irresistable, and as mentioned above, sometimes you can get a very long run against you.
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"


The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Triple or Thirds Martingale... (0 Likes)  
Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next] 
[ Top of Page ] 
All content & postings Copyright © 20012020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.17 seconds requiring 5 database queries. 
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 