Ruark - 27 July 2011 08:08 AM

$nakeEyes - 26 July 2011 05:06 PM

It still comes out to ” 1 of 6 rolls ” or ” 1 in 6 rolls ”  -

Those are simply English language expressions of a mathematical relationship.  One-sixths of the rolls will be a 7. But that is different from saying, “every 6th roll will be a 7.”  Run an Excel simulation and look through it. There will be some places where it goes 40-50-60 rolls without a 7. But each time, the probability of a 7 is STILL 1 out of 6. It is not valid to say, in so many words, “every time a non-7 is rolled, the odds of the next roll being a 7 increase.”  Um, no. That’s the basis of a Martingale system, which is obviously hogwash, or every casino in the country would be bankrupt.

Just looking at the Martingale, with no other considerations, it looks like a foolproof system to me and not hogwash.

You know red is due on the wheel and 7 is due on the dice. How can you lose using the Martingale ? Of course, if you believe ned is never due and the 7 is never due, than the Martingale can lose. But the Martingale can’t lose because you know ‘they’ are coming….they are due;  they alway come, just like they are pre-ordained to come…..just like they always have and always will.

777

basicstrategy777 - 27 July 2011 09:10 AM

Just looking at the Martingale, with no other considerations, it looks like a foolproof system to me and not hogwash.

You know red is due on the wheel and 7 is due on the dice. How can you lose using the Martingale

You gotta be trolling.  If this is the level of thought for this forum, I’m out of here.

No, they aren’t “due” if “due” means “more likely to occur.”  If you flip a coin and get 10 tails in a row, a head is “due” but it is not “more likely to occur.” The probability of the 11th flip being heads or tails is still 50%. 

A lot of people have trouble with this concept.  “Jeez… after 10 tails in a row, isn’t a head overdue??????”  No. Because you’re betting ONLY on ONE flip: the 11th. And the probability of THAT flip being heads… or tails… is 50%.

“But after 10 tails in a row…”  This perception is understandable, but it presumes that the previous flip will somehow AFFECT the next flip, and they don’t.

Yes, there IS a probability factor in there; the probability of the 11th flip being tails is small, but only *IF* you are looking at ALL ELEVEN FLIPS AS A SINGLE EVENT.  The probability of 11 tails in a row is very small. But to make that bet, you would need to say “I bet that the next 11 flips will be tails.”  See the difference? 

But to look back and say “well, the last 10 flips were blahblahblah, so the next one is more likely to be blahblahblah” is sheer fantasy. If it wasn’t, no casino could stay in business.

Does that help?

basicstrategy777 - 27 July 2011 09:10 AM

You know red is due on the wheel and 7 is due on the dice. How can you lose using the Martingale ?

You run out of money or hit the table limit.  One of the problems with “number due” theory—known somewhat more officially as The Maturity of Chances, and even more officially as The Gamblers Fallacy—is that you never know when the event that is due is going to occur, just as you did not know when it was going to occur when you started counting non-occurrences.

And BTW, how do you know that an event is due?  See http://www.smartergamblers.com/forum/viewreply/6840 for my answer to that.

Ruark…...You did not read what I said regarding the Martingale, which was the main subject of the post you quoted.

I said…....”.Just looking at the Martingale, with no other considerations, it looks like a foolproof system to me and not hogwash.
You know red is due on the wheel and 7 is due on the dice. How can you lose using the Martingale ?

I said…..NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS midnite,  Why do you think I said that ?  Money and limits are not a consideration.

It depends who you are .....The guy that won 15 mill playing BJ in AC at 100k a hand did not have a limit problem and he did not have a money problem. The Trop said they will continue to welcome his action even tho some casinos banned him from playong BJ. Rules can be bent if you have money.

Are you in Ruark camp on this Martingale question midnite .....I’m extremely wealthy and playong at a casino that has agreed to remove max bet limits. They want my action.

777

basicstrategy777 - 27 July 2011 12:17 PM

I said…....”.Just looking at the Martingale, with no other considerations, it looks like a foolproof system to me and not hogwash.
You know red is due on the wheel and 7 is due on the dice. How can you lose using the Martingale ?

I said…..NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS midnite,  Why do you think I said that ?  Money and limits are not a consideration.

They are in the real world, but I will concede the point.  Only in the infinite can you lose playing a Martingale where money and limits are not considerations.

basicstrategy777 - 27 July 2011 12:17 PM

It depends who you are .....The guy that won 15 mill playing BJ in AC at 100k a hand did not have a limit problem and he did not have a money problem. The Trop said they will continue to welcome his action even tho some casinos banned him from playong BJ. Rules can be bent if you have money.

The secret to Don Johnson’s success was not that he played a Martingale, or any betting progression at all for that matter.  Rather it was the deal of a 20% rebate on losses he extracted from the casinos that gave him an advantage.

For some reason I cannot post here the URL of the July 10, 2011, article at pressofAtlanticCity.com, so I will quote the applicable parts.
    “As Blackjack Insider eNewsletter discovered, however, Johnson was apparently aided by a since-discontinued discounting program that allowed him to get 20 percent of his losses returned to him, the article said.
    “The secret, Blackjack Insider found, was for a player to take advantage of the loss rebates with the fewest number of wagers as possible, which Johnson did by making gigantic bets. Doing so tilted the odds in Johnson’s favor for five rounds of roulette and for a jaw-dropping 650 hands of blackjack, the newsletter’s researchers wrote.”

basicstrategy777 - 27 July 2011 12:17 PM

Are you in Ruark camp on this Martingale question midnite .....I’m extremely wealthy and playong at a casino that has agreed to remove max bet limits. They want my action.

“Extremely wealthy” is not the same as “infinitely wealthy”.  Clearly it is possible that a casino would be so dumb as to allow you to start out a Martingale betting strategy at so high a level that you could bankrupt it within your lifetime.  Remember, however, that when such a progression wins, that net win is only the amount of the first bet; the rest of the “winnings” come from the bets you previously lost.  The 20th bet in a Martingale is 524288 units, but if you win that bet the casino is out only 1 unit overall; it won the other 524287 units from you on the previous 19 bets.

MN…....You are talking about an even money bet. A field bet would not always pay even money. You would be ahead big if the Marty was at the 10th level and the 2/12 hit. 10 non-field #‘s in a row ?  You know one would be due.

777

Ruark - 27 July 2011 08:08 AM

$nakeEyes - 26 July 2011 05:06 PM

It still comes out to ” 1 of 6 rolls ” or ” 1 in 6 rolls ”  -

Those are simply English language expressions of a mathematical relationship.  One-sixths of the rolls will be a 7. But that is different from saying, “every 6th roll will be a 7.”  Run an Excel simulation and look through it. There will be some places where it goes 40-50-60 rolls without a 7. But each time, the probability of a 7 is STILL 1 out of 6. It is not valid to say, in so many words, “every time a non-7 is rolled, the odds of the next roll being a 7 increase.”  Um, no. That’s the basis of a Martingale system, which is obviously hogwash, or every casino in the country would be bankrupt.

Verbal symantics -

Correct, that is in essence what I said / alluded to -

Those are your words - not mine !

To reiterate, what your Excel spreadsheet analysis arrived at -  is exactly what I was referring to and said !

bek423 - 28 July 2011 05:48 AM

I guess Ruark left. He’s much too intellectually superior to be bothered with us “trolls” on this forum.

Nope, I’m still here, just not much left to say that I haven’t already said.  Being labeled a “troll” is a risk run by people who talk about things like foolproof Martingales and “overdue” sevens.