/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5994942]

So as long as your reserve funds are vast enough, Martingale is pretty much safe right?

Unless you get a run of say 10 losses, which the probability is what... (19/37)^10 right? Which is only 12% chance? And even then, like I say, if your reserve funds can handle it and you're not betting your last dollars, you're almost certain to bounce back.

For those who don't know, Martingale is where you place a bet on Red/Black or Odds/Evens and if you win, you switch to the other. If you lose, you stay and double your bet.

[Anonymous No.5994945]

Yes, martingale has positive expected utility if you ignore the fact that in real life you will go bankrupt very quickly.

[Anonymous No.5994950]

>>5994942
>Which is only 12% chance?

0.12% chance by my calculation.

[Anonymous No.5994952]

Say you are betting 1 token, and you have 2^n - 1 reserves (so n bets)

Then you will win 1/(2^n - 1) * 100 percent of your reserves (a pitiful amount if n is large)

So the martingale becomes more pointless as it becomes safer.

[Anonymous No.5994954]

>>5994945
Mostly, they'll just kick your ass out of the casino if they notice you double your bet a few times after losing.

I mean, this system is the most stupidly trivial one, everybody knows about it.

[Anonymous No.5994956]

>>5994954
It's pretty shitty that casinos will kick you out if you're doing well. The odds are already stacked against the patron in every game except maybe no-commission Baccarat which is 50:50

[Anonymous No.5994958]

>>5994952
>2^n - 1 reserves (so n bets)

Sorry where'd the 2 come from?

[Anonymous No.5994960]

>>5994958
>If you lose, you stay and double your bet.
>double

sci is full of retards

[Anonymous No.5994962]

>>5994956

Casinos are retarded. They actually tried to ban card counting. Well how the hell are you supposed to play blackjack, then? Hit randomly?

[Anonymous No.5994963]

>>5994962
Yeah... It just seems like chasing your losses is something they'd be happy with.

[Anonymous No.5994964]

>>5994956
If casinos played fair they'd go out of business.

[Anonymous No.5994966]

>>5994956
Nope. When you are doing well they want you to lose your money, so they encourage you to stay. haven't you seen Casino?

[Anonymous No.5994969]

>>5994966
Years ago.

Just playing with the simulator and got 6 black in a row while I was betting red. At $10 starting bid I had to go up to $320 to chase it. You can see how deep the reserves would need to go to play safely.

[Anonymous No.5994978]

>>5994969
Just got 8 reds in a row, betting on black.

Final bet before winning it back: $1280
Total spent to get there: $2550

Not sure I'd go into a casino with $2550 ready to go... And even then, each spin is independent.

Was fun to fool around with this.

[Anonymous No.5994979]

>>5994978
>Not sure I'd go into a casino with $2550
with the purpose of winning back your first 10 and so leaving with $2560

absolutely not

[Anonymous No.5995000]

First and foremost, you neglected to account for the table limit. Eventually the size of your bet will be restricted because it will require an amount that is larger than the casino is willing to take.

But for the sake of argument, suppose you have a casino that is willing to take any bet, no matter how large.

The bottom like is, you cannot even put a dent expectation, and this includes the Martingale.

On a long enough time line, your earnings will correlate precisely with the odds you were laid. Negative expectation, begets a net loss and positive expectation begets a net gain. Each roll of the dice or spin of the wheel is its own individual occurrence. Dice have no memory. In short, betting systems do not work.

To test it yourself, just make a simple computer program. Give yourself a 1% disadvantage, (which is far better than an American roulette wheel at approximately 5%) by having the program generate a random real number between 1 and 100.

If the number is less than or <= 49.5 you win.

Else, you lose.

If you lose you double the bet. Else, bet one unit.

Run the program and let the results speak for themselves.

Shouldn't take more than a minute or two to write that program.

[Anonymous No.5995086]

>>5995000

I was bored and had nothing better to do, so I wrote a program in JustBASIC that simulates a martingale betting system.

You can download the text file here http://dropcanvas.com/o8x03

Copy and paste the text into a just basic compiler (which you can download for free in the interwebs) and run the simulation to your hearts content.

I set the starting bankroll at $1000 and your minimum bankroll at $0 (you are broke) and max at $50,000.

However you can change these as you see fit.

Start with a billion dollars and bet in 1 dollar units if you wish.

The point is, even if Bill Gates played with pennies, on a long enough time line, he will go broke.

[Anonymous No.5995103]

>>5994942
I am disappointed no one has brought this up.
The problem with Martingale is the green 0 making your chances of winning slightly lower than 50%.

[Anonymous No.5995116]

>>5995103

OMG 4 REALL?

Thanks for the insight you fucking derelict.

[Anonymous No.5995119]

There is no betting system that works.

Martingale will lose you money in the long run.

But I think what most people here are forgetting is that the main point of the martingale system is to take advantage of variance. I don't think I saw anyone else in this thread point that out.

The whole point of Martingale is to extend you bankroll long enough so that you can hit a win streak and then walk off the table. It is not meant to be a "long term" strategy.

The reality is people have made a lot of money using Martingale. They've lost a lot too.

[Anonymous No.5995121]

>>5995103
>I am disappointed no one has brought this up.

>>5994942
>19/37

It was inherent in OP's calculation

[Anonymous No.5995122]

>>5995086
Awesome.

[Anonymous No.5995125]

http://roulette-simulator.info/simulator/index.php?mode=martingale

Place a bet and then Spin. It'll auto-spin 100 times (or whatever you set it to)

[Anonymous No.5995145]

If you buy a lottery tickety, you're risking a small amount of money for a small chance of winning a large amount of money. Most of the time, you lose your money, but occasionally the player gets rich.

If you use Martingale betting strategy, you're risking a large amount of money for a good chance of winning a small amount of money. Most of the time, you win something, but occasionally you lose everything you were willing to stake.

Martingale is a reverse lottery ticket. If you want to stake a hundred million dollars every week, you can probably go through your whole life winning a dollar every week. Yet if many people did this, the house would still come out on top with the occasional player going bankrupt.

If you want to win a non-insignificant fraction of your stake, playing regularly will inevitably result in you losing your stake.

[Anonymous No.5995155]

If you had infinite money, then yes, you would never actually have a betting set that was a net loss. But, that infinite part is the problem.

[Anonymous No.5995187]

>>5995119
This... the martingale system is not meant to be played like the simulations you guys are running.

When you are up, you take the money and run

[Anonymous No.5995190]

Last weekend went to the casino for the first time. Been 4 times total now, each time leaving with $250 profit using Martingale.

What I've been doing:

Have $200, which am happy to lose.
Using $5 initial bets, creep to $100 profit.
Then bump up to $10 initial bets, and leave after $250 profit.

After any 5 consecutive losses, I cut my loses and don't double up, so at that point I lose $155 (5+10+20+40+80) and restart with $5 initial bets, but that's only happened twice.

So far, it's worked and yeah, left with $250 profit 4 times.

I plan to keep playing a few nights a week until inevitably I lose the $200 I brought with me. Seeing as I'm on top at this point, I've already won.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.5995203]

>>5995187
But see: >>5995145

You are risking a large amount of money to win a small amount of money. It doesn't defeat the house edge, it's not a way to make gambling profitable.

Under special circumstances, it can be rational to gamble, even at casino odds. Let's say that you absolutely need $50,000 by tomorrow for some reason -- for the sake of argument let's say you owe money to an unreasonable criminal. You have nowhere to borrow or earn it, you have nothing you could sell, and having part of the money doesn't help you: if you bring $49,999, the criminal still shoots you.

If you start out with $49,000, and you're willing to risk losing it all, there is a very good chance that you can turn it into $50,000 in the casino. You start with a $1,000 bet, if that fails, you bet $2,000, etc. You'd have to lose at least 5 times in a row before things started getting messy and you can't walk away after one win, and there's better than a 96% chance that you'd win before that happened.

For this to be a good idea, having $50,000 has to be much better than having $49,000, and having $0 has to not be much worse than only having $49,000.

[Anonymous No.5995208]

>>5995203
Right. I wasn't trying to say gambling is smart.

But these Monte Carlo Simulations and examples that people in the thread are pointing to are not accurate examples of how the Martingale system is supposed to work.

[Anonymous No.5995210]

>>5995190
You were very unlucky. Random chance conspired to make you feel as if you had discovered a way to beat the casino, when you were actually doing something naive and foolish.

This is "beginner's luck". Beginner's luck happens at random, but happens to almost every problem gambler. People don't usually become problem gamblers unless they have a lucky streak when they're first starting.

So this is the worst thing that can happen to someone when they are first experimenting with gambling.

[Anonymous No.5995214]

Too much neckbeard, not enough real life experience in this thread & board...

Martingale is about changing the variance vs payout curve, and basically re-defining what 'losing' and 'winning' mean

Played forever it will average out to whatever table odds are, but in short, non-infinite play streaks, it reshapes the payout structure to capture streaks.

[Anonymous No.5995225]

>>5995214
>Don't bring your fancy-pants probability to this Science & Math board discussion, if you want to understand my brilliant scheme for beating the casino, you have to experience actually using it!
You re-define losing.

>>5995190
Why do I have this suspicion that you're going to the casino with $200, coming out with $250, and then bragging about your "$250 profit"?

Going to the casino with $200 and coming out with $250 four times in a row should happen in almost half of attempts.

Tell us some more about your brilliant coin-flipping system that you tried once and came up with heads.

[Anonymous No.5995236]

>>5995225

No. I'm going to the casino with $200, once I have $550 total I leave. I plan to keep playing until I have to leave with negative $0, at which point I will be done $200. But seeing as I am already up $1000, worst case is Martingale won me $800.

[Anonymous No.5995240]

>>5995236

By negative $0 I mean $0.

[Anonymous No.5995262]

>>5995225

Actually I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of fancy-pants probability than you do. And if you managed to subdue your neckbeard frothing rage and read past the first line of what I wrote, I even specifically said in the long run it'll average out to table odds, i.e., it's not a casino beating strategy.

[Anonymous No.5995273]

>>5995236
>I'm going to the casino with $200, once I have $550 total I leave.
>$250 profit
Yeah, those are some casino-beating math skills, there.

There is less than a 50% chance of more than doubling your money, no matter what your gambling strategy is. Taking $200 to the casino, and coming out with $450, four times in a row, should only happen in a few percent of cases.

Obviously it's possible for this to happen (100 people decide to try a gambling system, 99 losers quietly hide their embarassment, 1 winner proudly declares his cleverness -- beginner's luck has made another problem gambler), but the more likely scenario is that you're exaggerating your success, if you haven't made it up altogether.

Why would you choose $250 profit to stop at, from a stake of $200? $250 in your pocket is a plausible place to stop, because it's over $200. It also fits the Martingale strategy of having a large stake compared to what you're trying to win. But going for $450 from a $200 stake is a pretty good way to lose in any one session, so it's not consistent.

[Anonymous No.5995281]

>>5995262
If you can say something like, "it reshapes the payout structure to capture streaks." in all seriousness, then you clearly don't know the first thing about probability.

And acknowledging reality in one breath, then contradicting it in the next, is not demonstrating that you understand the situation but have further special insights, it's demonstrating that you don't actually understand the situation.

[Anonymous No.5995300]

>>5995281

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote there. How is martingale not reshaping the payout structure? A win and a loss are no longer single turn events, and your amount won or lost isn't the push on that single event. Martingale blocks out the events into a progressive roll series with a unity payout.

[Anonymous No.5995324]

Martingale with a finite reserve/max bet for a fair game never affects your risk to reward RATIO.

[Anonymous No.5995334]

>>5995300
The problem is with "to capture streaks".

[Anonymous No.5995350]

>>5995334

You only get the unity payout if you don't hit the table limit. That's the streak. Not losing x # of times in a row. Martingale lets you quantify those streaks into unity payouts.

Try it with some random 200 roll strings and 7 step Martingale. Compare the payout with unity bets vs Martingale. You'll see overall payouts that you won't see with unity bets.

That's the whole point, the variance is higher. That's all Martingale does. You can have a lot of different distributions that all result in the same expected value. But you're not playing an infinite number of times. You walk away when you hit a target or bust.

[Anonymous No.5995357]

>>5995334

Here's a simpler way to phrase it. Martingale creates winners.

Pretend the game really has 50/50 odds. After a while of playing, 100 unity betters will be pretty much where they started, Martingale betters will have 99 moderate winners, and a 1 busted out.

[Anonymous No.5995394]

>>5995350
You're still demonstrating that you don't understand probability, because "streaks" don't matter. That's what makes Martingale really idiotic: it appeals to people's weird, wrong, superstitious beliefs about gambling, instead of real probability math.

Let's say that your target is $250, and you're starting with $200. Absolutely nothing you do at the roulette table is going to provide better odds of reaching $250 than starting with a $50 bet, and not making a bet smaller than $50 until you have less than $50 left. If you lose the first bet, then yes, it's rational to bet $100.

If your target is $450, and you're starting with $200, then absolutely nothing is going to provide you better odds of reaching $450 than starting out with a $200 bet.

That's rational gambling. You make as few bets as possible. This maximizes the probability of beating the odds, whereas extraneous small bets increase the probability of the casino edge winning out.

Martingale is crazy superstitious gambling, where you start with irrationally low bets, and try to feel out a "hot streak" where magic takes over and big bets are more likely to win.

[Anonymous No.5995396]

>>5994942
martingale fails coz of maz bets and min bets.
you can only successfully double a few times.

even with no max/min bets, it fails eventually and you lose everything you won, plus extra.

[Anonymous No.5995423]

>>5995394

You're confusing what a streak is.

>feel out a "hot streak" where magic takes over and big bets are more likely to win.

That is nonsense, but it also isn't Martingale, if you win, you restart from your smallest bet, not keep betting more.

>Winning before 7 lost bets

That's Martingale, and that's a streak to me. Not losing more than 7 time in a row. Every time you do that, it's a streak, you keep doing that, for unity pay outs, and that's a win streak.

>extraneous small bets increase the probability of the casino edge winning out.

No, it doesn't. Look at the probability distribution for martingale payouts vs unity bet payouts.

[Anonymous No.5995440]

ITT: half of /sci/ cannot into math, and no-one on /sci/ notes the obvious: Martingale can't work or millions of people would want to play roulette for a living, prompting casinos to adapt or close.

[Anonymous No.5995456]

>>5995357
>Pretend the game really has 50/50 odds.
Doing this, and pretending that all bets are insignificantly small compared to the stake, are exactly the failures in reasoning which lead people to conclude that Martingale is somehow not ridiculous.

>>5995423
>>extraneous small bets increase the probability of the casino edge winning out.
>No, it doesn't. Look at the probability distribution for martingale payouts vs unity bet payouts.

By "unity bet", do you mean making the same very small bet over and over regardless of the outcome? Because that is obviously the worst of all possible strategies, and guarantees that you're just feeding the casino the house edge.

If you don't think that extraneous small bets increase the probability of the casino getting your money, then you've been ignoring the house edge.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if you want to make $100 into $200 betting black or red at the roulette table, the only rational strategy is to lay down the full $100 in one bet, and walk away whether you win or lose. If you want to make $100 into $120, the only rational strategy is to lay down exactly $20 on your first bet.

If there is one bet that gets you to that goal, that is always the most rational bet.

[Anonymous No.5995462]

>>5995440
of course it doesnt work. it's like betting a small amount on every single number on the roulette board apart from the number 1.
almost all the time you make a slight win, but eventually that number 1 will come up, and you lose A LOT

just as with martingale, eventually that large losing streak comes up, and you lose A LOT

casinos have no problem with people using it because it simply doesnt work. they're happy to let you keep building up your pile of pennies, thinking your so fucking clever, and then when that big loss comes they'll just laugh in your face and be taking all your money back

[Anonymous No.5995468]

Yes, 4chan plebs can bend probability to beat the casino. Its a wonder theyre still in business.

[Anonymous No.5995471]

>>5995462

Exactly.

The only game you can beat without cheating is Poker

[Anonymous No.5995480]

>>5995471
only if you're good. and a healthy dose of luck always helps too.
doesnt the house take like 10% from the total prize pool just for hosting tho?
and you aint beating the house, you're only beating other players.

[Anonymous No.5995484]

>>5995471

but what if I have infinite money?

[Anonymous No.5995488]

>>5995480

10% would be robbery, it tends to be much lower.

And you can beat the other players well enough to also beat the house.

Most poker rooms take a higher percentage at the lowest stakes, so that may be near-unbeatable, but if you move up it becomes more reasonable.

[Anonymous No.5995489]

>>5995484
then you don;t need to play, smartass!

[Anonymous No.5995491]

>>5995488
>And you can beat the other players well enough to also beat the house.
what the fuck are you on about? the house isnt even competing; it's a zero risk for them. they make no loss, and they get a percentage of the prize pool for free

[Anonymous No.5995492]

>>5995489

but what if I simply borrowed infinite money from the bank so I have to pay it back?

[Anonymous No.5995493]

>>5995484

Not possible for any form of money with real value. As the quantity of money increases the value of money approaches 0.

I know you're trolling, though.

[Anonymous No.5995497]

>>5995491

I'm sorry that you're too retarded to understand.

If the house takes on average $5 from you every hour, you need to make more than $5 an hour off of the other players.

[Anonymous No.5995499]

>>5995492
Then just get your infinite money, and divide it into two piles.
the first pile has $[infinity money], so pay the bank that.
keep the second pile for yourself

...problem?

[Anonymous No.5995502]

>>5995499

fug, you win

[Anonymous No.5995504]

>>5995497
fuck you, you little shit!

>If the house takes on average $5 from you every hour...
THAT NEVER FUCKING HAPPENS!!
it takes from the pool ONCE, and at the START OF THE FUCKING GAME!

the house still cant lose!
go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.5995505]

>>5995504

You are truly retarded. Go back to school

[Anonymous No.5995510]

>>5995505
>knows he's wrong
>dumassed insults without trying to argue any points
uhuh, seems about right

like i said. the house cant lose at poker. they gain for free, just for hosting.
and i know im right
cunt

[Anonymous No.5995515]

>>5995510

Oh I see, you're an idiot arguing semantics. No, you cannot "beat" the house in the sense that you take money from the house, but you can beat other players well enough to surpass the amount of money the house takes from you.

In other words, it is possible to player poker with a positive expected value, which is no the case in any other casino game.

[Anonymous No.5995521]

>>5995515
> but you can beat other players well enough to surpass the amount of money the house takes from you.
[sarcasm] wow, thanks for that [/sarcasm]
<<<

[Anonymous No.5995524]

>>5995521

Which is effectively what I said in the first post, but you decided to make a big show about "JOO CANT BEAT HOUSE!!!!!!!!11"

[Anonymous No.5995529]

>>5995524
yeh, and i was still right, and you're still a twat spouting obvious and pointless statements

[Anonymous No.5995534]

late to the party

>>5995440
see>>5995119
>>5995187

[Anonymous No.5995543]

>>5995529
>MUH SEMANTICS VICTORY
>I WIN

[Anonymous No.5995546]

>>5995534
No you dumbass.
I don't know why so many people imagine "low probability" means "it will happen later".
Well I guess casinos have to make money of some stupid people.

[Anonymous No.5995550]

>>5995546
>There is no betting system that works.
>Martingale will lose you money in the long run.

Can you fucking read? Apparantly not

[Anonymous No.5995556]

>>5995550
You were quoting >>5995187
My post replies to the stupid argument made in this one.

[Anonymous No.5995554]

>>5995550
yeh, but the whole 'extend your bankroll long enough' doesnt really play out, because that losing streak can come at any time.
not him, btw

[Anonymous No.5995560]

>>5995554
It can... but the odds are in your favor that you won't get that losing streak. Therefore, most of the time, your bankroll will last longer using a martingale system

[Anonymous No.5995561]

>>5995556
And what is wrong with that?

If you are playing Martingale like a Monte Carlo simulation then you obviously don't understand the point of the system.

No one is claiming Martingale is flawless

[Anonymous No.5995565]

>>5995560
>your bankroll will last longer using a martingale system
last longer than what??
you still dont realise what a cripplingly huge loss this streak would cost you, do ya?

[Anonymous No.5995567]

>>5994962
>Well how the hell are you supposed to play blackjack, then?
You don't. It's about as bad a slot machine for the odds against you.

[Anonymous No.5995568]

>>5995561
If you think "low probability" means "it will happen later" you don't understand the first thing about martingales.

Martingales are like a stupid form of lottery where everyone wins a little bit and one guy loses the jackpot.

[Anonymous No.5995569]

>>5995568
>If you think "low probability" means "it will happen later" you don't understand the first thing about martingales.

>implying I ever said that

[Anonymous No.5995570]

>>5994954
No, they won't. They'll just say "awesome, another idiot is trying the double-your-bet system again, and we'll have all his money by the end of the night."

This "system" does NOT work. Write a program, test it with whatever "bankroll" amount you like. It will ALWAYS lose in the long run.

[Anonymous No.5995571]

>>5995569
It's what this post implies: >>5995187
It's wrong and laughable.

[Anonymous No.5995573]

>>5995570
Thanks for not reading the thread.

[Anonymous No.5995574]

>>5995571
>It's what this post implies
>implies

well theres your problem. you think you can read minds

[Anonymous No.5995576]

>>5995574
No but I can read, unlike you apparently.

[Anonymous No.5995579]

>>5995574
>hey guize it's easy you just have to leave when you're up!
>implying it doesn't imply you have to be up first

[Anonymous No.5995581]

>>5995565
but the odds of hitting that loss are 1/(2 Log[2, n])
where n is your bankroll.

Do the math... you'll see why people use martingale

[Anonymous No.5995584]

>>5995187
>When you are up, you take the money and run
This is the #1 reason why people lose money in all forms of gambling -- poker, blackjack, roulette, lotteries, even things like the stock market. It's a fundamental lack of understanding of random processes. THINK about it for a second.

Here's an algorithm for always making money on the stock market:

1) Buy stock X at price Y.
2) Wait until price of stock X is Y + $1.
3) Sell stock at price Y + $1.

If you understand random processes, you immediately see why that algorithm won't work. However, if you don't understand random processes, you'll look at that algorithm and think "holy shit, this guy is a fucking genius, I'm going to make infinite money on the stock market." If you fall into the latter category, you need to stay away from all forms of gambling.

[Anonymous No.5995589]

>>5995210
>People don't usually become problem gamblers unless they have a lucky streak when they're first starting.

That's wrong. Very wrong.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/05/gambling_addicts_arise_from_mi.html

[Anonymous No.5995591]

This thread:
Logical arguments
>yes Martingale isn't perfect, and you can't beat the house, but here is an explanation of why people use it and do sometimes win with it

shitters
>gamlbin is 4 dumb phaggotz

No one in this thread is advocating that Martingale is a perfect system. We are trying to explain its advantages and disadvantages while you guys just shit post...

[Anonymous No.5995595]

>>5995584
Ok that is assuming that you are in this strategy for the long run.

Martingale doesn't work in the long run, that's already been established much earlier in the thread.

"take the money and run" is implying that you are just at the casino for the night to have some fun. You are using martingale. While using Martingale, the odds are in your favor that you will be in profit at some point during the night. That's when you cash out.

Obviously in the long run you can't beat the casino, but thanks for reminding us

[Anonymous No.5995596]

>>5995591
>We are trying to explain its advantages and disadvantages while you guys just shit post...
That's not what the OP was doing. And it's moot anyway, because trying to explain "advantages" of this "system" is just shitposting, anyway.

[Anonymous No.5995597]

>>5995584
>implying markets are a random process

kek

[Anonymous No.5995600]

>>5995471
*game of chance

And Poker isn't a game of chance, it's a game of skill with a heavy randomizing element.

[Anonymous No.5995601]

>>5995595
I see, the problem here is just that you don't understand what "in the long run" means. If it meant what you thought it meant, you could just go to the casino every night and "cash out" ahead every time.

[Anonymous No.5995604]

>>5995601
Thats not what I said at all...

"long run" would apply to going to the casino every night as well

[Anonymous No.5995605]

>>5995595
I don't know why I'm trying to talk you out of donating your money to a casino... I should encourage you to do it, because you deserve to pay for your willful ignorance.

Seriously, though, if you think your "system" works on any level whatsoever, why not try it out at any one of the thousands of play-money roulette apps online?

[Anonymous No.5995607]

>>5995604
I see, so you can only use the system one night, then you can never go back to the casino, because it will stop working?

[Anonymous No.5995608]

>>5995605
>sending him to a casino
>not offering to be the house in his little experiment - with real money

[Anonymous No.5995609]

>>5995605
>Obviously in the long run you can't beat the casino, but thanks for reminding us

Is /sci/ full of the kind of autistics where they have no language skill and can only do math

[Anonymous No.5995610]

>>5995607
I never said it was a good system. I was just explaining how to use it to maximum effect

[Anonymous No.5995611]

>>5995609
What kind of terrible equation did you just post? I don't even see any operators!

[not the Vsauce shill No.5995612]

>>5995609
They can't do math either.

[Anonymous No.5995613]

>>5995608
FUCK

[Anonymous No.5995623]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29
> The conclusion is that players using martingale strategy pose no threat to a casino. The odds are high that the player will go bust before he is even able to double his money.

[Anonymous No.5995625]

>>5995623
Yes... but also one of the reasons casino's have bet limits is specifically to counter this strategy.

[Anonymous No.5995628]

>>5995625
NO. The higher the bet limit, the more money they will take from you.

[Anonymous No.5995634]

>>5995625

False assumption.

[Anonymous No.5995635]

>>5995634
http://www.goodbonusguide.com/casino-articles/roulette-systems-destroying-the-martingale-theory-myth.html
>The casino has an insurance policy against this - table limits.

[Anonymous No.5995639]

>>5995635

>its on the internet, they must know what they are talking about

Im not going to waste my time in this thread anymore, but think about variance for a few minutes and youll understand why there are table limits.

[Anonymous No.5995649]

>>5995609
It doesn't work "in the short run" more than it does "in the long run" you stupid fuck.

[Anonymous No.5995652]

>>5995625
They have table limits because they are a business.

[Anonymous No.5995679]

Here you go, OP, did the hard work for you.
http://pastebin.com/c2g5NRCR

Change the numbers at the top accordingly.

[Anonymous No.5995695]

Hi guys, ive been working as a BlackJack Roullette dealer for crown casino in Melbourne

The guy saying the system doesn't work is right, ive seen it firsthand a lot of times, players either reach table max on the outside (2.50 or 5$ table max is usually 1000) or run out of money to back up there bets, typically they will start ,table minimum on the outside, say on 2.50 table is 5$ then just double every time, trying this martingale system , or just following a colour. You also gotta have the nerve to follow through, because it can(and does) quickly escalate and eats through all your money , this is how it would go , (5,10, 20, 40, 80,160, 320, 640,1280- (sorry mate box max is 1000) so thats 8 shots in a row, ive had countless times where the whole screen of the 20 last bets are all one colour, times when it goes red black red black, just random patterns, but really there is no pattern.
But this has already been discussed in the thread, if you have any questions feel free to shoot.

[Anonymous No.5995757]

>>5995695

Yes, any cool storys?

[Anonymous No.5997114]

>>5995695
Question: Are roulettes fair? I had my uncle talk about how you can "get a feel for it" and "know" a particular roulette wheel. I had to grant him that perfect randomness was unachievable and he might be right.

[Anonymous No.5997132]

>>5995695
>Hi guys, ive been working as a BlackJack Roullette dealer for crown casino in Melbourne
Holy shit you got to have amazing stories.
Fuck the martingale, tell us those.