Nickels_n_Bullets said:Ray is right on many points. One can not automatically simulate a progression with strict money management. And yes, essentially the house retains its advantage. However, to study the effects of a particular ramp, or series of bets, it can be educational. For example recently I posted and published the effects of the first two terms in any progression, and how frequent they occur. I did not know it was such a high % until I simulated a 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 term series. The jump between the first two terms must be small, because so few times the player wins 2-in-a-row. The findings indicate that a 4 term progression of 25-30-40-50 and 25-50-75-75 are vastly different... although in the house advantage is essentially the same. Its the first two terms that make the difference. One puts back $20 into the bank, the other nothing...yets the odds are the same for either to win 2-in-a-row.
a armored truck full of money
QFIT said:Ray said "In an individuals lifetime, we can have positive results from a martingale
provided we have unlimited cash and no table limits. That's all I'm saying
and I believe that to be a reasonable/true statement."
Ray, yes I know that is what you are saying and I know that is what you believe. But, it is incorrect. This is a century old fallacy. I already explained why. If you want a second reason, name any number of bets from 1 to infinity. I can prove that your expectation is negative for that number of bets. If you want a third method, use limit theory. EV can be calculated as a limit as hands approach infinity. If you want a fourth method, it can also be proved with proof by induction. For an understanding of induction proof see http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/AlgorithmsProject/ProofMethods/Induction/ProofByInduction.html
I have listed four mathematic methods that show that a martingale system has a negative expectation and it has nothing to do with bankroll or table limits.
jmpoehler said:Alex - It would be easy to prove your theory wrong:
10 million hands played
Results:
0 wins
10,000,000 loses
Final analysis = negative expectaction
Is the above set possible, YES (practical no)!! So you can't possibly ALWAYS WIN!
Ray and I was not arguing against the mathematics QFIT talks about, we just tried to extend the math into a "real" world application and the practicality of it!
Ray said:Hello Alex...I remember when that device was first available. All the
engineers and programmers had to have one. Hex was the latest
way of looking at binary numbers and I had to give in to the children.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!