|
I've been to casino's many times over the years, mostly just to watch friends play poker. Sometimes to play as well. This got me thinking several years ago about how to beat the near 50/50 games. Ya i know it's 51/49 52/48 w/e. Also reading 21 got me thinking about this as well. I'm sure there is a more complex ways to increase and decrease bets on your wins and losses in smaller incriments to sit there for hours and walk away a winner and not have the casino be suspicious. To make things simple and short i'll use the following example.
Say I need to bring home $100 cash 5 days a week to make a living.
Go to casino and play and near 50/50 game 5 days a week.
bet #1 $100. If you win go home. You made your days pay in 30 seconds. If you lose proceed.
bet #2 $200. If you win go home. You made your days pay in 90 seconds. If you lose proceed.
bet #3 $400. If you win go home. You made your days pay in 150 seconds. If you lose proceed.
bet #4 $800 If you win go home. You made your days pay in 210 seconds. If you lose proceed.....................................
The only reason I can't see this working is that the casino's might catch on. And also that you need a fairly large bankroll to start something like this. Which I have right now. But the casino isn't the only way to place a near 50/50 bet either. The other problem I can see is people with no self control. Instead of following the full proof plan they become addicted to other games, the casino atmosphere, drugs etc etc.
But this just seems so obvious. If with each bet you lose if you increase your next bet with something similar shown above depending how much time you want to sit in a casino or placing bets elsewhere......there is just no way to lose if you follow the plan.
Also you can increase the betting amounts and play fewer days a week so things don't seem fishy etc etc.
Has anyone else ever had intrest in something like this?
  
|
Try it in real life and see what happens lol
|
I have but only in very small amounts. Starting with $10.
|
After you lose that 640k bet and they won't let you bet over a mill you're fucked. Doing this with roulette is a lot more effortless than blackjack :p
|
Also most games have betting minimums and maximums, so if you follow similar to the example, say you start min and hit max in 3 games it would screw over your system a little. Also there is nothing wrong with doing this the casino can't kick you out for using strategic betting.
|
I think you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that you actually need the money ahead of time to gamble, in order to attempt to win double each time. It's also gambler's fallacy to assume that you'll win the next time because you lost the previous time. There's no guarantee that you'll win.
|
with this method your chance to win is high, but the amount what you win is low.
In mathematics there is a thing called Expected value. Its basically how much you can expect to get, and in this case its always negative no matter what strategy you take.
Also there are other limitations, f.e. you need enough money to begin with.
There is a reason casinos make money.
|
What you're talking about is the so called Martingale Strategy.
While it's all neat in theory what's stopping it from being successful in practice are two things:
1) Limited capital. Done often enough, there will be a point where the stakes go so high that no person on this planet will have the funds to cover it. You will hit your own personal limit and lose money as soon as you do.
2) Maximum betting amounts. All casinos have limits on their maximum bets and they're very easy to hit with this strategy. You will hit the maximum betting amount and lose money as soon as you do.
Sorry, no way to get rich the easy way. =P
|
If you lose past bet #4 in my example and the game has a $1,000 mimum pick up your chips and move the the next table over that allows higher bets ei the high roller area. But how many times in a row are you going to lose a near 50/50 flip?
|
On August 18 2012 09:32 FullNatural wrote:
If you lose past bet #4 in my example and the game has a $1,000 mimum pick up your chips and move the the next table over that allows higher bets.
In any 50/50 situation there will be a point where you will hit the limits I outlined above. Whenever this happens you will lose the entire amount with no possible recovery. If you can't understand this, do the math for it. Start with a simple decision tree and 50:50 odds from each losing point. The amounts get pretty insane pretty fast.
Edit: But how many times in a row are you going to lose a near 50/50 flip?
Given a long enough time you will lose (and win) a 50:50 situation an infinite amount of time in a row. Assuming unlimited funds and no limits the whole thing would end with 0 profit. The limits are what turns it into a losing game for the player and into a winning game for the bank.
|
Ok, but my example was to be short and quick. I'm sure there are other systems like my OP says to increase and decrease bets in smaller amounts so the loss don't get so high for such a small gain.
|
Also I undertand what your saying as far as infinite bank rolll and limits. What I'm saying is when the player wins ONE time, they go home for the day a winner. Not keep playing.
Then start the next day at $100 again. Not doing this ALL on one day and going forever.
|
On August 18 2012 09:36 FullNatural wrote:
Ok, but my example was to be short and quick. I'm sure there are other systems like my OP says to increase and decrease bets in smaller amounts so the loss don't get so high for such a small gain.
There aren't. Do the math. We're talking about a zero sum game.
If you disagree I'd happily play that game with you till the end of your life as long as I can set the limits and you promise to keep betting till you win once per amount x of time and then we can start all over again.
|
On August 18 2012 09:38 FullNatural wrote:
Also I undertand what your saying as far as infinite bank rolll and limits. What I'm saying is when the player wins ONE time, they go home for the day a winner. Not keep playing.
It doesn't matter whether you do it once per day or once per minute. The outcome is exactly the same in the long run.
|
I don't udnerstand your math. If you increase your future bets enough to cover your previous loss each time with extra for profit. You only need to win 1 time to be a winner.
|
Let's assume we start with 1$, the max betting amount is 20$.
Your betting in case of losses goes 1->2->4->8->16. If you lose now you have no way of continuing the strategy and lose money right there. No matter how high it is any casino/person offering you these types of games will set some kind of limit. Add a minimum bet to that limit and you're pretty much screwed.
|
Like i said. Pick up your chips and move 5 feet to the next table with a higher limit. Continue where you left off or applicable limit at the next table. This part of your defense does not make any sense.
If you continue to lose contiinue to move to the next highest table that allows you to continue the betting pattering in a system that covers your last bet, and where your future win will gaurantee your a profit.
|
On August 18 2012 09:46 FullNatural wrote:
Like i said. Pick up your chips and move 5 feet to the next table with a higher limit. Continue where you left off or applicable limit at the next table. This part of your defense does not make any sense.
You will run out of higher limits/funds eventually.
Since you seem to be rather ignorant about it I'll just quote the wiki article directly:
Since a gambler with infinite wealth will, almost surely, eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who advocated it. Of course, none of the gamblers in fact possessed infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets would eventually bankrupt "unlucky" gamblers who chose to use the martingale. It is therefore a good example of a Taleb distribution – the gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain. The likelihood of catastrophic loss may not even be very small. The bet size rises exponentially. This, combined with the fact that strings of consecutive losses actually occur more often than common intuition suggests, can bankrupt a gambler quickly. Casino betting limits eliminate the effectiveness of using the martingale strategy.
...
The martingale strategy fails even with unbounded stopping time, as long as there is a limit on earnings or on the bets (which are also true in practice).[3] It is only with unbounded wealth, bets and time that the martingale becomes a winning strategy.
The math is right below that in the article.
|
Yes I see the article. That is what I was looking for. So are you telling me that someone with a million dollars starting at the $100 limit in my example is going to reach this limit and go broke in a short time span? and not make a profit?
|
On August 18 2012 09:46 FullNatural wrote:
Like i said. Pick up your chips and move 5 feet to the next table with a higher limit. Continue where you left off or applicable limit at the next table. This part of your defense does not make any sense.
So lets say you want to make $100 each day, so you start with $100. If you lose 10 games in a row, you would have to bet $100 * 2 ^ 10 = $102,400 the next game, if you lost an 11th, you're close to a quarter million, a 12th - close to half a million, a 13th - close to one million. if you play every day, you WILL hit a day where this happens. And this means you WILL hit the point at which you simply cannot bring up the money for your next bet anymore, and then you are left bankrupt = gg.
10 losses in a row isn't that unlikely if you play often enough (e.g. each work day for a month or even a year). I'm too lazy and too out of stochastic to give you an average number of days that you can play until it happens to you off the top of my head, even if you play an actual 50/50 game, but you could calculate that number. it's not going to be a very high number and if you play an only close to 50/50 game, it will be even lower. But given your strategy, the game's winning odds, your initial bet and the maximum bet you can afford, you can "easily" calculate the average number of days (the only work is figuring out the correct formula) until you are bankrupt. How do you think you get around that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
