|
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 = $102,400 the next game, if you lost an 11th, you're close to a quarter million, a 12th - close to half a million, a 13th - close to one million. if you play every day, you WILL hit a day where this happens. And this means you WILL hit the point at which you simply cannot bring up the money for your next bet anymore, and then you are left bankrupt = gg.
10 losses in a row isn't that unlikely if you play often enough (e.g. each work day for a month or even a year). I'm too lazy and too out of stochastic to give you an average number of days that you can play until it happens to you off the top of my head, even if you play an actual 50/50 game, but you could calculate that number. it's not going to be a very high number and if you play an only close to 50/50 game, it will be even lower. But given your strategy, the game's winning odds, your initial bet and the maximum bet you can afford, you can "easily" calculate the average number of days (the only work is figuring out the correct formula) until you are bankrupt. How do you think you get around that?
|
Besides the fact that someone with one million dollars could just try and invest it in a way that he gets a 5% return per year would have 4k$+ per month to live off...
The question isn't if he will go broke. The question is when. No one, not him, not the casino and not the pope will know when. But he will go broke eventually. It can be today or it can be in a week. Apart from that it's still likely that he'll hit his head against min/max bets before he hits his bankroll limit. =P
|
On August 18 2012 09:57 FullNatural wrote:
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 $100 limit in my example is going to reach this limit and go broke in a short time span? and not make a profit?
Think about it this way. What does he have to gain vs. lose? He's only playing for 100 dollars. By the rules we've set out he will stop after he wins once. However, if he is unlucky, he has the potential to lose EVERYTHING depending on the limit. It really does not matter how small that chance is for the casino. Maybe this millionaire wins his 100 dollars for the day and he never comes back again. Great. But what about the next millionaire, and the next, and the next? It's the same thing that happens when you're betting on a clear favorite in a sporting event. The odds of you winning are high, but you don't win very much while on the other hand you might get upset and lose a ton of money.
With the bet ceiling in place you cannot win in the long run using this strategy.
|
A simple way to think about this is the following.
The house has MUCH more money than you do.It can support you having a win streak,but eventually you will loose with this system.Even when the odds are 50/50 over a period of time the clear winner will ofc be the one that has the bigger pool of money,the house.
The point is with this system the house can support a loss every single time,while you on the other hand,can loose only once and your out.
So actually this betting system is by far the worst because it guarantees the house to win and even if you can't go into negative because it's your initial 100$ you can't really pull any profit,unless you go on a crazy win streak and pull out.
|
On August 18 2012 10:07 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 09:57 FullNatural wrote:
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? Think about it this way. What does he have to gain vs. lose? He's only playing for 100 dollars. By the rules we've set out he will stop after he wins once. However, if he is unlucky, he has the potential to lose EVERYTHING depending on the limit. It really does not matter how small that chance is for the casino. It's the same thing that happens when you're betting on a clear favorite in a sporting event. The odds of you winning are high, but you don't win very much while on the other hand you might get upset and lose a ton of money. With the bet ceiling in place you cannot win in the long run using this strategy.
Uh, just to correct you here: It's actually possible to make money with sport bets. They aren't zero sum games and since the odds are - basically - set by which side has more irrational fanboys the odds given rarely represent the statistical outcome of the games.
In case you already knew this and that was the reason why you specifically mentioned betting on the favorite as something bad (because it should be in most cases)... nevermind. =P
|
I wonder what those odds of losing 10 in a row are with my example in the OP. As in when it would happen. As far as a long term strategy my example in the OP does not seem valid. However, I wonder if there are more complex systems out there. I'm sure there are people in the world making money off stuff like this.
|
FullNatural no, there is no betting system that turns losing bets into a profitable proposition. It's not just martingale that doesn't work, nothing else can possibly work either.
This thread is amazing if u consider this isn't a gambling forum, everybody replied perfectly wtf u guys are geniuses
|
On August 18 2012 10:12 FullNatural wrote:
I wonder what those odds of losing 10 in a row are with my example in the OP. As far as a long term strategy my example in the OP does not seem valid. However, I wonder if there are more complex systems out there. I'm sure there are people in the world making money off stuff like this.
Do the math. It isn't complicated. Basically it's a decision tree with 2 possible outcomes at each branch.
As for whether there are people making money off stuff like this: Yes, the casinos. Besides the fact that there aren't any real zero sum games on casino tables the combination of betting limits+limited funds eliminate the possibility for anyone to make a profit against that system.
Black vs red in roulette e.g. (which people love to call a zero sum game) doesn't exist because of the green zero which completely screws you over, even without any limits.
Now, stuff like counting cards in e.g. Blackjack is a whole different story but that's pretty much only possible in places where only few decks are used at once and the deck isn't reshuffled after each hand. (Hint: Those aren't the places where lots of money is flowing around.)
|
just out of curiosity, is this taught in schools?
|
On August 18 2012 10:12 FullNatural wrote:
I wonder what those odds of losing 10 in a row are with my example in the OP. As far as a long term strategy my example in the OP does not seem valid. However, I wonder if there are more complex systems out there. I'm sure there are people in the world making money off stuff like this.
the odds to lose 10 times out of ten, if the odds to lose one game is 50% is 1/2^10 * 100 (the *100 are to get %) = 0,09765625%.
Have you read my other post? Your chance to win is very high but the amount you win is very low, compared to what you lose IF you lose.
|
On August 18 2012 10:18 GroT wrote:
just out of curiosity, is this taught in schools?
I don't know about others but probability and statistics is a part of Math 3 course at my college.
I'm guessing a small part is thought in high school maybe,I don't remember.
|
On August 18 2012 10:18 GroT wrote:
just out of curiosity, is this taught in schools?
Funnily we learned the math necessary to calculate it but we never applied it to a problem like this (which resulted in pretty much everyone not caring about it and therefor not learning it properly =P). We did it on like dice rolls and stuff but not on gambling.
We had one teacher however who tried to make us like statistics more by introducing the Monty Hall Problem. Now THAT shit hooked every single one in my class back then. I'm still fascinated by it today to be honest and love to use it to completely screw with someones brain. That situation shows way more than any other as to how badly our brains screw up when it comes to our "intuition" about statistics. <3
Edit for fun for those who want to have a go at it before clicking the wiki link:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1 [but the door is not opened], and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
|
So were you specifically taught betting systems like this (that people always intuitively get wrong) and why they don't work? That's nice, it seems really useful
|
On August 18 2012 10:23 r.Evo wrote:
That situation shows way more than any other as to how badly our brains screw up when it comes to our "intuition" about statistics. <3
Yes it's sick just how badly our intuition gets it wrong and basicly why I feel it's unethical for casinos to rape uneducated ppl who follow that intuition
edit: oh that's what monty hall means, definitely recommended for people who haven't heard of it (and don't feel bad if u get it wrong, so does everyone else)
|
On August 18 2012 10:17 GroT wrote:
FullNatural no, there is no betting system that turns losing bets into a profitable proposition. It's not just martingale that doesn't work, nothing else can possibly work either.
This thread is amazing if u consider this isn't a gambling forum, everybody replied perfectly wtf u guys are geniuses
Not anything like a betting system mentioned in this thread, but I'm pretty sure you can win money off of perfectly played blackjack without card counting. But poker is the best I think if you have the skill.
|
On August 18 2012 10:26 GroT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:23 r.Evo wrote:
That situation shows way more than any other as to how badly our brains screw up when it comes to our "intuition" about statistics. <3 Yes it's sick just how badly our intuition gets it wrong and basicly why I feel it's unethical for casinos to rape uneducated ppl who follow that intuition edit: oh that's what monty hall means, definitely recommended for people who haven't heard of it (and don't feel bad if u get it wrong, so does everyone else)
To quote rounders: "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."
It's harsh, but if I buy a rolex off a random dude on the streets for 1000$ I shouldn't be surprised if it wasn't real. If I enter a building which makes its living out of the people who go there and lose money while having fun doing so I deserve to lose money.
But, yeah. I understand that it gets tricky rather quickly once you add all the addicting factors and their results in.
Edit:
On August 18 2012 10:33 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:17 GroT wrote:
FullNatural no, there is no betting system that turns losing bets into a profitable proposition. It's not just martingale that doesn't work, nothing else can possibly work either.
This thread is amazing if u consider this isn't a gambling forum, everybody replied perfectly wtf u guys are geniuses Not anything like a betting system mentioned in this thread, but I'm pretty sure you can win money off of perfectly played blackjack without card counting. But poker is the best I think if you have the skill.
Source please. I'd love to know about it if it exists but I highly doubt it does.
|
On August 18 2012 10:33 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:26 GroT wrote:On August 18 2012 10:23 r.Evo wrote:
That situation shows way more than any other as to how badly our brains screw up when it comes to our "intuition" about statistics. <3 Yes it's sick just how badly our intuition gets it wrong and basicly why I feel it's unethical for casinos to rape uneducated ppl who follow that intuition edit: oh that's what monty hall means, definitely recommended for people who haven't heard of it (and don't feel bad if u get it wrong, so does everyone else) To quote rounders: "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money." It's harsh, but if I buy a rolex off a random dude on the streets for 1000$ I shouldn't be surprised if it wasn't real. If I enter a building which makes its living out of the people who go there and lose money while having fun doing so I deserve to lose money. But, yeah. I understand that it gets tricky rather quickly once you add all the addicting factors and their results in. Edit: Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:33 Itsmedudeman wrote:On August 18 2012 10:17 GroT wrote:
FullNatural no, there is no betting system that turns losing bets into a profitable proposition. It's not just martingale that doesn't work, nothing else can possibly work either.
This thread is amazing if u consider this isn't a gambling forum, everybody replied perfectly wtf u guys are geniuses Not anything like a betting system mentioned in this thread, but I'm pretty sure you can win money off of perfectly played blackjack without card counting. But poker is the best I think if you have the skill. Source please. I'd love to know about it if it exists but I highly doubt it does.
Actually i was wrong, you can't profit without card counting against the dealer, but you can get it really close to 50/50 (not in your favor still of course) without card counting. I guess it should be obvious by now that a casino would never run a game that could gain you the edge legally.
|
There is none.Poker is the only way to actually make money off gambling and that's because at a poker table some factors come into play that don't appear at the for instance black jack table.
You also don't have a infinitely richer opponent sitting next to you.
There is a reason Phil Ivey plays poker and not black jack for a living.
|
I think I read once that playing perfect basic strategy (no card counting) merely makes you lose more slowly. It's not enough to make you a winner.
The edge you end up having if you master blackjack is so small anyway, and then you just get kicked out once they figure out you play well which they're experts at doing. If you want to make money without doing anything useful, you should target other players (by playing a game like poker) instead of going up against the casino by playing a game like blackjack
|
On August 18 2012 10:39 TheKefka wrote:
There is none.Poker is the only way to actually make money off gambling and that's because at a poker table some factors come into play that don't appear at the for instance black jack table.
You also don't have a infinitely richer opponent sitting next to you.
There is a reason Phil Ivey plays poker and not black jack for a living.
Well, you play versus other people and not against the house. In fact, the more you play the better you are for the house (assuming you don't drive other customers away). If you can beat the players harder than the rake beats you, you make a profit. Also the house has no interest of getting rid of you if you are winning.
Afaik especially Blackjack was famous for getting people banned from games before the whole automatic shuffle stuff came up and card counting stopped working at all.
Edit on Blackjack odds from wiki:
Estimates of the house edge for blackjack games quoted by casinos and gaming regulators are generally based on the assumption that the players follow basic strategy and do not systematically change their bet size. Most blackjack games have a house edge of between 0.5% and 1%, placing blackjack among the cheapest casino table games. Casino promotions such as complimentary matchplay vouchers or 2:1 blackjack payouts allow the player to acquire an advantage without deviating from basic strategy.
Comparing that to e.g. roulette or, worse, slots that house edge is really incredibly small.
|
Or you could figure out the mathematical formula for scratch lotto tickets and win the jackpot 3 times in 5 years =P
|
On August 18 2012 10:43 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 10:39 TheKefka wrote:
There is none.Poker is the only way to actually make money off gambling and that's because at a poker table some factors come into play that don't appear at the for instance black jack table.
You also don't have a infinitely richer opponent sitting next to you.
There is a reason Phil Ivey plays poker and not black jack for a living. Well, you play versus other people and not against the house. In fact, the more you play the better you are for the house (assuming you don't drive other customers away). If you can beat the players harder than the rake beats you, you make a profit. Also the house has no interest of getting rid of you if you are winning. .
Pretty much this,poker is the only game as far as I know in which the house actually has interest in someone else winning other than them.
|
The only way to win at blackjack is to count cards and bet big when the odds are in your favor. See Rain Man, The Hangover, 21, et al.
|
Here's the edge of the spectrum. Say you bring $100,000 to potentially bet on insuring you make $100 every day, and the casino happens to have a $100,000 max bet on a 50/50 odds game. You are essentially looking at 36.5% interest with a very large risk involved. Such a large risk that for every 3 people that make their 36.5k over the course of a year, 1 person loses all of their $100,000. And this is all assuming 50/50 odds, which is rather unrealistic. Natural intuition may lead people to simply want to try this for say, 10 days. Easy $1,000! Well, you now have 1 out of a 100 chance of losing 100k, and while your chance of losing 100k has shrunk from 1/3 to 1/100, your potential winnings have also shrunk respectively. Doing this tactic on anything less then 50/50 odds is basically saying, "lets put $100,000 up to chance! We are putting $100,000 into a negative average interest plan, but lets do it anyway!"
|
|
|
On August 18 2012 10:12 FullNatural wrote:
I wonder what those odds of losing 10 in a row are with my example in the OP. As in when it would happen. As far as a long term strategy my example in the OP does not seem valid. However, I wonder if there are more complex systems out there. I'm sure there are people in the world making money off stuff like this.
The odds of losing 10 in a row is 2^10, which is 1/1024.
The amount you will lose if such thing happens is 102400$.
Essentially, it's like betting 102400$ for a 1023/1024 chance you will win.
There really aren't ways to twist stuff like this around :/
Most of them, like this, are fallacies
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
