3 ms·

This is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

by CyrusL 12y ago

grecy 12y ago
Thanks, I just found that. Interesting they say that casino betting limits eliminate the strategy. I don't think that's true. Let's say you have $100k on the table, which is the maximum allowed, and you lose. All you need to is play multiple tables with the doubled bet ($200k) split up across those tables. Once you've played all of those to conclusion (maybe even splitting again...) you will have effectively "won" the line of play that they tried to stop you when you hit the $100k limit.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Betting $100,000 on two tables has a lower probability of returning $400,000 than betting $200,000 on one table. Also a lower probability of returning zero, but winning one of those bets and losing the other doesn't help. Needing to win two independent (consecutive or simultaneous) negative-EV bets to beat a losing streak of a certain length increases the probability that combination of events won't happen, and if you lose both bets at the table limit (which is slightly more probable than winning both) you'll need to spread your bets across even more tables and hope even more independent events fall in your favour.
- chasing 12y ago
  The Martingale strategy is not viable. If winning at casinos is your goal, you're going to need to look elsewhere.
- inclemnet 12y ago
  But this obviously fails in exactly the same way when there are no more tables. The strategy simply doesn't work.
  - grecy 12y ago
    Go to another casino and continue
- abritishguy 12y ago
  It is pretty basic maths that will demonstrate that this system doesn't work (as in it doesn't "beat" the casino). You say you won $10k, but how much money did you have? You said at one point you had $60k on the table so let's assume you had just that - if you put the entire 60k on something which has 7:6 odds then the odds of you winning are high but exactly what you would expect given the winnings compared with the bet. When you play with the martingale strategy your odds of winning aren't any better, you just think they are because you don't realise your entire pot of money is actually at stake.

This is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

by CyrusL 12y ago

This is called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

grecy 12y ago

Thanks, I just found that. Interesting they say that casino betting limits eliminate the strategy. I don't think that's true. Let's say you have $100k on the table, which is the maximum allowed, and you lose. All you need to is play multiple tables with the doubled bet ($200k) split up across those tables. Once you've played all of those to conclusion (maybe even splitting again...) you will have effectively "won" the line of play that they tried to stop you when you hit the $100k limit.

notahacker 12y ago
Betting $100,000 on two tables has a lower probability of returning $400,000 than betting $200,000 on one table. Also a lower probability of returning zero, but winning one of those bets and losing the other doesn't help. Needing to win two independent (consecutive or simultaneous) negative-EV bets to beat a losing streak of a certain length increases the probability that combination of events won't happen, and if you lose both bets at the table limit (which is slightly more probable than winning both) you'll need to spread your bets across even more tables and hope even more independent events fall in your favour.
chasing 12y ago
The Martingale strategy is not viable. If winning at casinos is your goal, you're going to need to look elsewhere.
inclemnet 12y ago
But this obviously fails in exactly the same way when there are no more tables. The strategy simply doesn't work.
- grecy 12y ago
  Go to another casino and continue
abritishguy 12y ago
It is pretty basic maths that will demonstrate that this system doesn't work (as in it doesn't "beat" the casino). You say you won $10k, but how much money did you have? You said at one point you had $60k on the table so let's assume you had just that - if you put the entire 60k on something which has 7:6 odds then the odds of you winning are high but exactly what you would expect given the winnings compared with the bet. When you play with the martingale strategy your odds of winning aren't any better, you just think they are because you don't realise your entire pot of money is actually at stake.