quiz question-was that Martingale or Anti-Martingale? did it work? how much would i have made if i gone Martingale?
Originally Posted by pxmcc
Ok sure I'll give a serious response why not.
It's a trick question. The answer is it was
neither a Martingale nor an Anti-Martingale, 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 subject