The Double Up Method

[slacker00]

ok natrass, I think I understand.

You are explaining why casinos must put a limit on how much a person can bet, otherwise, the risk of casinos going bankrupt is too high. It's a good point. It would be a bad business decision from the casino's perspective.

But, if it's bad for the casino, why is it also bad for Trump? I mean, Trump is losing money every time he makes a bet. Is there some mathematical novelty that I am missing?

[natrass]

Slacker .. the point I made which caused the argument was that a big player could bankrupt a small casino easily by using the martingale. (Without the martingale it is just a series of independent bets in which luck becomes more important).

In this scenario, remember just to prove the hypothesis above, Trump would have a 0.00003% chance of losing everything.

Conversely he would have a 99.9997% chance of winning $100,000 and thereby bankrupting the casino within a maximum of 16 rolls. (Even though the house had a probability advantage).

He could be in and out in two minutes!

Ganchrow has correctly asserted that over a long time, the casinos probability edge would eventually pay.

[Ganchrow]

Good. Like I said before, its been a good debate and has made me think ... you have not been wrong BTW, only your basis for saying I am wrong (does that make sense?).

If you think that either my argument has changed in any way or that yours has not then you need to reread this thread.

Specifically, how has my argument changed from what I argued in post #5, and what exactly did you mean it post #15 when you argued:

Even for a casino with infinite limits and a de minimis bank roll, the expectation would would still be for the "Big Player" to lose (although the most common occurance would be for the casino to lose, the times that it did win its winnings would dwarf its losses.)
...
There exist no betting strategies which can ever ever ever turn a negative EV game into a positive.

Sorry but that's plain wrong.

An example, you are the casino and your total bank is $100,000.

I am Donald Trump, total bank $4.2 bn

Say I play black or red and as you say there is "infinite limits" so I am playing $1,000 a go. I will play the Martingale system. Are you still saying that the "expectation will be for the big player to lose"?

[slacker00]

It's really just a fascinating mathematical exercise, it seems.

The big player can bankrupt a small casino, but really only gains a microscopic small fraction to his total bankroll. Kinda lika a blue whale gathering up plankton in the ocean, nevermind that these particular plankton contain hazardous toxins that may kill the poor whale if eaten in high enough concentration.

As for the argument about the martingdale system bankrupting an actual casino, has a casino ever been foolish enough to allow this to happen, in reality? We've had to draw up some extreme parameters for this to work in our Trump example. I guess this turns more into a history lesson now. I'm curious if casinos have ever bankrupted themselves by ignoring the laws of mathematical risk. I'm googling it right now, but I never get what I'm looking for on this darn internet.

[Ganchrow]

Then I do agree. You'll note that I have been saying just this (although without giving specific figures) since way back in post #14.

No, I think you have been arguing that the house advantage makes this somehow illogical or at least a flawed argument..

If you think has been my argument then you need to reread my posts. Where the heck did I make that argument?

Read post #5, I've been saying just this all along:

As one's bankroll approaches infinity, then by using Martingale, the probability of profiting by a given amount approaches unity (100%).

[natrass]

If you think that either my argument has changed in any way or that yours has not then you need to reread this thread.

Specifically, how has my argument changed from what I argued in post #5, and what exactly did you mean it post #15 when you argued:

Again, to argue that the probability advantage means the unlimited staking big player couldn't easily bankrupt a casino playing the martingale system was, as I said, plain wrong.

[Ganchrow]

Again, to argue that the probability advantage means the unlimited staking big player couldn't easily bankrupt a casino playing the martingale system was, as I said, plain wrong.

Please point out where I made this argument. In fact, I posted numerous times to the contrary. Starting back at post #5.

[natrass]

If you think has been my argument then you need to reread my posts. Where the heck did I make that argument?

Read post #5, I've been saying just this all along:

Yes, as I have said before, you have made many points which are actually agreeing with what I was saying but you didn't realise.

All I have maintained is that an unlimited staking big player could easily bankrupt a small casino playing the martingale.

You have argued that I am wrong because of the house probability advantage. I have been saying this is effectively irrelevant to the statement.

I still say the house fractional advantage is irrelevant to my statement.

Again, I have never said that the martingale system would (over a massive amount of tries) be successful. I said it was a flawed system right at the start.

[natrass]

Furthermore, even if said bankruptcy did occur, I'd have a rather difficult time believing that the Martingale method was the cause.

This is one post where you had "a rather difficult time" believing how the martingale system could have been deployed to bankrupt a casino.

I then have maintained it very well could have been used.

I then said with unlimited bets and an overwhelming bankroll, indeed, it could become overwhelmingly probable.

You have disagreed because the house has a fractional advantage.

I think that is the history of this thread in summary.

[Ganchrow]

I have maintained is that an unlimited staking big player could easily bankrupt a small casino playing the martingale.

You have argued that I am wrong ...

Where do you contend I made this argument? Certainly not anywhere on this forum! You're putting words in my mouth. This is but a straw man argument at its most blatant. I simply never said it. If you believe otherwise, please point out where I supposedly made this claim.

[Ganchrow]

This is one post where you had "a rather difficult time" believing how the martingale system could have been deployed to bankrupt a casino.

Right, because at that point we were talking about IN PRACTICE! And in practice, casinos do have limits. We had yet to begin discussing the unlimited scenario.

I then said with unlimited bets and an overwhelming bankroll, indeed, it could become overwhelmingly probable.

You have disagreed because the house has a fractional advantage.

Where, pray tell, did I disagree with the above?

[Ganchrow]

Furthermore, even if said bankruptcy did occur, I'd have a rather difficult time believing that the Martingale method was the cause.

This is one post where you had "a rather difficult time" believing how the martingale system could have been deployed to bankrupt a casino.

The actual quote in context is:

Furthermore, even if said bankruptcy did occur, I'd have a rather difficult time believing that the Martingale method was the cause. The Martingale is characterized by extremely small wins in relation to the stake risked. If one's goal were to bankrupt a casino (with presumably greater resources) in a short period of time before going bankrupt oneself, the Martingale would probably be one of the least efficacious strategies to use.

I wasn't even talking about a gambler with a larger bankroll than that of the casino let alone a casino with a no limit! It would be entirely disingenuous of you to claim I was referring to a no-limit scenario here.

[natrass]

As for the staking, thats the whole point of the martingale. The theory is that if say Roman Abramovich or Donald Trump went into a tin pot casino ... he could bankrupt it by playing the martingale system because he could have the bankroll to come back from much higher losses than the casino could.

I said the above

[natrass]

No. That is not at all true for a casino with anything even approaching reasonably set limits. Even for a casino with infinite limits and a de minimis bank roll, the expectation would would still be for the "Big Player" to lose (although the most common occurance would be for the casino to lose, the times that it did win would its winnings would dwarf its losses.)

What you're describing is but a common (and highly dangerous) fallacy regarding the Martingale system.

Remember: there exist no betting strategies which can ever ever ever turn a negative EV game into a positive.

You replied with this

As I said, you disagreed with my statement (ie the word "no") because of the fractional house advantage.

[Ganchrow]

I said, "No. That is not at all true for a casino with anything even approaching reasonably set limits." So where did I refer to infinite limits???

[natrass]

What I did say, however, and again what I do wish to make certain, is that by now you see that even if there were no maximum bet imposed by the casino, the casino would still have a positive expectancy versus the Big Martingale Player (regardless of how Big he was). This even holds if the Big Martingale Player had an unlimited stake. Yep. Even for an infinite player bankroll the casino still expects to profit from a player using the Martingale.

This is a post to prove my statement wrong. Again, house advantage/probability forms the basis of it .... not factually wrong there, just irrelevant to the possibility of a big toller being able to bankrupt a casino.


As I have also said, I do not think you are wrong ... just it is irrelevant in trying to overcome you finding it "difficult to believe a martingale system could have been used".

Limited betting or not .... can you find it any easier to believe that it was possible now?

[Ganchrow]

This is a post to prove my statement wrong. Again, house advantage/probability forms the basis of it .... not factually wrong there, just irrelevant to the possibility of a big toller being able to bankrupt a casino.


As I have also said, I do not think you are wrong ... just it is irrelevant in trying to overcome you finding it "difficult to believe a martingale system could have been used".

It's a straw man argument you're making. You're just flipping back between limited and unlimited maximum bets. In the case of a real casino, bankruptcy is utterly improbable.

In the utterly improbable scenario of a casino with infinite limits, bankruptcy probability will approach unity as player bankroll approaches infinity.

I have been saying this all along. (Starting in post #5 and #14). You can't show where I've said otherwise.

At this point I'm just tired of having to constantly repeat myself.

[tacomax]

As I have also said, I do not think you are wrong ... just it is irrelevant in trying to overcome you finding it "difficult to believe a martingale system could have been used".

ganchrow said that he found it difficult to believe the Martingale system was used to "break the bank at Monte Carlo". ganchrow was most correct in his assumption.

The "man who broke the bank" is usually credited to an Englishman called Joseph Jaggers. He used his engineering experience gained in a manufacturing environment and theorised that mechanical imbalances in a roulette wheel can result in bias to certain numbers on the roulette wheel. He identified one of the six roulette wheel had a definate bias to 9 numbers. He left a few days later with $325,000 in winnings.

However, the man immortalised in song was another Englishman called Charles Wells. One day in 1891 he put his chips on number 5. It came up 5 times in a row.

Neither of these guys used the Martingale system.

[natrass]

OK, but I have maintained all along that unlimited is essential (by definition, you cannot play the martingale system with limited stakes).

In that case, house advantage can become irrelevant. So that is how it could have been used ... it was possible without the player being "lucky".

Anyway, I dont think either of us are wrong ... more likely we are having different understandings of the others viewpoint.

So, as a truce .... heres the real story (and not a martingale in sight!!) ...

http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/Breaking-the-bank.html

[natrass]

ganchrow said that he found it difficult to believe the Martingale system was used to "break the bank at Monte Carlo". ganchrow was most correct in his assumption.

The "man who broke the bank" is usually credited to an Englishman called Joseph Jaggers. He used his engineering experience gained in a manufacturing environment and theorised that mechanical imbalances in a roulette wheel can result in bias to certain numbers on the roulette wheel. He identified one of the six roulette wheel had a definate bias to 9 numbers. He left a few days later with $325,000 in winnings.

However, the man immortalised in song was another Englishman called Charles Wells. One day in 1891 he put his chips on number 5. It came up 5 times in a row.

Neither of these guys used the Martingale system.

Erm.... taco, I don't know if you noticed, but we were neither of us were arguing about the facts of monte carlo ... might want to re-read the thread mate (page 1 was where it was last mentioned).

[tacomax]

And you brought up the quote again in post #156.

Just clarifying that ganchrow was correct in his assumption.

Hope this helps.

[natrass]

And you brought up the quote again in post #156.

Just clarifying that ganchrow was correct in his assumption.

Hope this helps.

Nope .... never was about the specific facts of that case ... have a re-read mate.

Where does it mention monte carlo in post 156?

You've been trying to read without using your finger again havent you. Take it slowly .. you'll make less mistakes.

Remember, read slowly mate.

[tacomax]

Post #156 refers to the posts on page 1 (namely #9 & #11 in particular) where ganchrow said it found it difficult to believe a martingale system could have been used to break the bank at Monte Carlo.

He was right in that assumption. Also you were incorrect in stating that "The Martingale system did break the bank at Monte Carlo" in post #6, unless you can provide some evidence to prove it of course.

Let me know if you need any further assistance.

[natrass]

If I remember right, the guy who bankrupted the famous Mont Carlo casino about a hundred years ago .... he used this system (he may have even been the very same Mr Martingale) ... I think he played for big big stakes ... but its years ago I read about it, so I am open to correction.

From page 1 mate ... pretty clear to most folk I would think.

.

[jjgold]

I thought I was nuts you guys are fukkin crazy!!

Although great material in this thread

Good Work

[natrass]

Ganchrow is cool ... a bit of a marathon, but he made me think a bit more carefully ... I wouldn't want to face him in a courtroom. He would grind me down into a confession, no doubt about it.

Taco is still lost on page 1 still apparently. Yawn.

[tacomax]

As long as ganchrow (finally) made you see the light, that's the main thing.

[natrass]

As long as ganchrow (finally) made you see the light, that's the main thing.

Yawn.

[SHADYLANKY]

So is this a twice a year thread or quarterly?

http://http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/892573-1800-win-10-martingale-system-red-black.html#post8367805

[brxbmbers42]

Do any of you guys double up bets when you lose the first one? I guess another phrase would be called chasing and I sure we have all done it. I once started with a couple of $50 bets about 7 years ago and by end of week lost over $4k.

Be careful and stay calm when you lose.

[Sam Odom]

I cannot beleive some guys here saying the martingale system is not a 100% winning system with no house limits.

All you do is keep betting red in roulette and then when it hits you go back to 1 unit bets.

It is automatic

13 yrs of spreading wisdom to the gambler

[ChuckyTheGoat]

JJ didn't write that opening stanza. Coherent complete sentences not his thing.

[Chi_archie]

There isn’t much "method" to this at all.

This is known as the "Martingale" strategy and what it allows a gambler to accomplish versus level staking for any sequence of N bets (truncated at bankruptcy if it occurs) is:

• increase his chances of bankruptcy
• increase his chances not making a profit
• decrease his expected finishing bankroll (for a gambler with a negative expectation)
• increase the standard deviation of his finishing bankroll

Sound great, right?

That being said, as one's bankroll approaches infinity, then by using Martingale, the probability of profiting by a given amount approaches unity (100%).

Note however that this does not imply any increase in expected profit (or decrease in expected loss). This is simply the result of increasing one's probability of a gain and decreasing one's probability of an extremely large loss only by (exponentially) increasing the magnitude of that loss. In other words, given a negative expectation, then the larger the gambler's stake the greater the expected loss, but the higher the probability of yielding a (tiny) profit.

In short, whether you're a gambler or an investor, stay far, far away.

love you man, miss you brother

[Sam Odom]

love you man, miss you brother

call him... 1-800-800-7777

[Sam Odom]

JJ

System still working ?