Ok sure I'll give a serious response why not.everything u said is correct spice. but i would argue (and i might be wrong) that when i had my crazy dice roll at the cortez, i did anti-martingale betting. as i hit numbers, i increased my bet sizes. it is important to increase bet sizes slowly, however. what i see people do all the time is to put their wins, lock stock and barrel, back into action. essentially, they are pocketing nothing. every roll, good, bad or ugly, ends with a 7. so the goal is to pocket as much money as possible before that happens. with a patient anti-martingale, you can take advantage of a hot roll.
It's a trick question. The answer is neither, the rest of your questions are based upon that false premise. Martingales in probability theory only apply to a "fair game", i.e. one in which the Expectation Value=0 (odds of a win*amount won)
This doesn't really exist in a casino due to house edge but is fairly close enough to 50% on things like blackjack, red/black Roulete, or pass/don't pass craps bets for gambler's (flawed) purposes.
All your bets on everything else are not "fair games" do not fall into the Martingale Central Limit Theorem in which, over large numbers of repetitions in a fair game, the EV over time=0 and are normally distributed.
Either way, belief in betting systems is for suckers who are prone to committing Gambler's Fallacies and misunderstand probability theory, specifically the Law of Large Numbers. Every repetition's outcome is independent of the last, there is no such thing as hot/not hot only the natural result of variance causing "streaks". The result of the next repetition is not affected by the last. You're just as statistically likely to flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, HHHHHHHHHH as you are to get HTTTHTHTHT yet people seem to believe that 10 heads in a row is much less likely or that if you get 9 heads in a row you're "due for a tail"
There is a large body of work out there mathematically disproving every progression betting system (modifying the next bet based upon the outcome of the last) in existence.
It looks like in part3 when playing red/black Roulette bets you butted up against the fundamental problem with the practical application of the Martingale betting system as opposed to how it looks on paper. It only has an EV=0 if you have an infinite risk tolerance, bank roll, and time...and no table limits. Lacking any of these causes eventual failure every time and exposure to very high risk vs reward the whole time.
If you sit down at a table to flip coins you have roughly a 1/256 chance of losing 8 flips in a row. Following the Martingale system and starting at a $25 bet you'd be risking $6400 on your 9th coin flip. It's not that improbable and even if you won your next coin flip you're only back to being up $25. I can't remember exactly but in Blackjack (which used to be my game a long time ago) I believe in something like every 15 hours of play at a full table you're statistically likely to experience a run of 10 losses in a row, playing solo or with only a couple of other people speeds that up significantly as the hands/hour increases dramatically. I used to play marathon sessions over long weekends where I'd easily play for 15 hours often at less than full tables. It seems improbable but it isn't really when you understand the odds and how they actually work against you.
Anti-martingale systems seem safer but really you still lose money at the same rate just with less negative and positive swings. As soon as you lose once you're back to where you started minus any minimum bets made. They will both win sometimes, but lose most times, and all will lose over the long run same as every other betting system.
Hey don't feel bad though, every casino newbie eventually hears about and tries a betting system. They seem logical, but aren't... the only people making money over any length of time on a betting system are the one's selling books on the subjectOriginally Posted by SpiceItUp
the house advantage on roulette is about 5%, the same as a bet called the field bet on craps. i call the field bet a slow bleed, cause that's what it does to your bankroll. after my bad run on roulette, i never played roulette again except just to goof off. it is an unwinnable game, IMO.
finding any game in the casino with a positive expectation value is very hard. (notice i didn't say impossible.) the MIT guys did it on blackjack by counting cards. generally speaking, dice has a negative expectation value. however, based on several years of playing dice, i believe that skilled shooters can influence the dice. dice control-ish. what happened in the middle chapters was i won enough playing dice to buy a full size regulation dice table. then i made practicing shooting my hobby. what happened next was straight out of Pulp Fiction. i would write the middle chapters now but i'd probably get banned for an inadvertent mistake or for insulting Wakeup or Space. lol. so based on several years of playing dice, it is my opinion that skilled shooters can turn a game with a negative expectation value into one with a positive expectation value. what i won on the dice game after buying the regulation dice table would support that contention. however, no amount of good shooting can protect a gambler from catastrophic losses when applying a Martingale betting system. a single catastrophic loss at the dice tables i experienced would support that contention. that's because by definition, martingale style bets start to get really high at the worst possible time: when your shooting is totally off. so much for any positive expectation value. essentially, you are pressing the gas pedal when you are headed straight for a wall. not pretty.
if i had followed a martingale betting system during my hot roll, i never would have advanced past the table minimums, because every time you hit in a martingale, you go back to the table mins. instead of winning like 3700 on my crazy roll, i probably would have won around 400, if that.
Originally Posted by oilfieldscum
