 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
The Double Up Method
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.
I don't.Originally Posted by jjgold
Money management is the key here. I was guitly of doing that when I first started betting. Sometimes not chasing is easier said than done. We all have days where we get killed and want it all back in one fell swoop.
I usually chase 1 game and if it doesn't win, that's it. I just move on to another game.
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:Sound great, right?
- 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
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.
The Martingale system did break the bank at Monte Carlo ..
... but, statistically, it is proven to be flawed.
What do you mean by this?
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.
I know that there's a song about "Breaking the Bank in Monte Carlo" but I ‘m fairly certain that the casino in question (the Casino de Monte-Carlo – a beautiful place) was ever actually bankrupted. Urban legend.
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.
Not if you are betting huge stakes ... could be very quick. I think he had a bigger bankroll than the casino.
I don't know how casinos were run a hundred years ago, but it would be positively astonishing to me if a casino, even back then, would have allowed wagers so enormous relative to its own bankroll, that a Martingale could realistically bankrupt it. Remember that to run a sucessful Martingale over a decent stretch of time you'd likely need to place wagers thousands and thousands of times larger than your base wager. I suppose the gambler could have simply gotten lucky, but then that would hardly have qualified as a Martingale strategy.
Got any evidence supporting this claim?
According to the American Automobile Association (http://www.aaa.com/eurotourbook/Frenet1.html):
n.b. "Breaking the bank" refers to the state of affairs where a casino simply runs out of currency on-premises to pay its winners and ought not be used interchangeably with rendering bankrupt.It was here [the Pink Salon Bar at the Casino de Monte-Carlo] in 1891 that Charles Deville Wells turned $400 into $40,000 in a three-day gambling spree, thus inspiring the popular tune 'The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte-Carlo'.
Last edited by ganchrow; 10-14-05 at 04:40 AM.
You may be right there ... but, in those times, Id imagine a casino not having enough money to pay a winner was a scandal. I dont know I read he bankrupt it but who knows ... Im sure you know better.
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.
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.
Sorry but that 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"?
The Martingale system only fails because of house limits. If there were no house limits you can beat gambling.
With all due respect, natrass, it is not.
Yes. It will be.
How much do you care to wager on this? I'll spot you 2-1 odds. Because I'm a nice guy.
Last edited by ganchrow; 10-14-05 at 07:22 AM.
100% incorrect.
It's statistically impossible to turn a house advantage into a player advantage.
OK .. Ill make this really simple.
You are the casino. You have $100,00 total bank.
I am Donald Trump I have $4.2 bn
You say there are infinite limits. So I will play the martingale system. I will always bet red. My first bet is for $100,000. If I lose, my next bet will be for $200,000. If lose my next bet will be for $400,000. And so on.
The only way the house can not be bankrupted is if its gets probably endless consecutive blacks or something. It cannot suffer one loss.
Do you still believe the expectation is for the house to win?
I think you have confused statistical probabilities with bankroll effect.
If you dont believe me (and I am sure you wont) then tell me why casinos place limits ... maybe they know something you dont.
Last edited by natrass; 10-14-05 at 07:34 AM.
Casinos have limits only because of MArtingale system
Actually 16 losses will do it.
With 100% certainty.
I don't know what this means.
I'm sure they know a lot I don't. But the reason they place limits is to manage their risk.
I'll write a monte carlo program to simulate just this scenario. If in the mean time you care to wager on that outcome ... I'd be rather happy to do so.
Last edited by ganchrow; 10-14-05 at 10:22 AM. Reason: 16 losses NOT 15!
Sorry but thats idiotic ... the whole premise ... the total basis for the arugment is unlimited bankroll versus limited. To just compiund your lack of understanding of this, you then want to bet on it??How much do you care to wager on this? I'll spot you 2-1 odds. Because I'm a nice guy.
When have I said I have an unlimited bankroll? Even less, when have I said I care enough about it to put money on it.
GTF.
Yes. You see I have an advantgage. I understand probability.
Fine so how about this. If I'm wrong I'll send you a case of of New York State wines. If I'm right you can send me anything at all you want. ok?
OK. So here's the monte carlo simulator (written in Perl) I'll let it run a few million times and will report back the results. (If you want to try running it yourself and don't currently have perl installed, you can download it for WIN32 from http://activeperl.com/Products/Downl...id=ActivePerl).
Code:#!/usr/local/bin/perl use strict; print "TRIAL #\tSPINS\tTRUMP WIN\tCASINO END\n"; ################CONSTANTS################ my $START_CASINO = \(100000); # Casino's starting bankroll my $START_TRUMP = \(4.2 * 10**9); # Trump's starting bankroll my $PROB_WIN = \(18/38); # Probability of trump winning one round of roulette my $PAY_OFF = \(1); # amount won if above my $BET_UNIT = \(100000); # a single betting unit ################CONSTANTS################ my $trials; while (++$trials) { my ($cur_casino, $cur_trump,$cur_bet) = ($$START_CASINO,$$START_TRUMP,$$BET_UNIT,); my $spins; $cur_bet = $cur_casino if $cur_bet > $cur_casino; $cur_bet = $cur_trump if $cur_bet > $cur_trump; while ($cur_casino > 0 && $cur_trump > 0) { $spins++; if (rand() <= $$PROB_WIN) { # trump wins $cur_casino -= $cur_bet; $cur_trump += $cur_bet; } else { # casino wins $cur_casino += $cur_bet; $cur_trump -= $cur_bet; $cur_bet *= 2; $cur_bet = $cur_casino if $cur_bet > $cur_casino; $cur_bet = $cur_trump if $cur_bet > $cur_trump; } } print $trials . "\t" . &commify($spins) . "\t" . &commify($cur_trump-$$START_TRUMP) . "\t" . &commify($cur_casino-$$START_CASINO) . "\n"; } sub commify { my ($num, $def_dec, $dec,) = (shift, 0,); $num =~ s/(\$|,)//g; unless (defined($dec = shift)) { $dec = $def_dec; } $num = sprintf("%.${dec}f",$num); 1 while ($num =~ s/^([-+]?\d+)(\d{3})/$1,$2/); $num =~ s/^-0$/0/; return ($num); }
OK, if you want to play virtual unlimited bankroll versus limited.Yes. You see I have an advantgage. I understand probability.
Fine so how about this. If I'm wrong I'll send you a case of of New York State wines. If I'm right you can send me anything at all you want. ok?
What are the terms?
As you state:Only change to the game is the stipulation that neither the casino nor trump will be allowed a negative balamce. In other words no one may bet more than they have.
ganchow ... WTF???
I appreciate the effort you are putting into this.
But (and I havent checked your work there) but I think all this will prove is that the house has a statistical advantage on black/red (the zero).
What it doesnt address (and the reason why you couldnt play this in real life) is that when a bank needs to get 16, 20, 25 consequetive wins and never suffer a loss then the odds of the casino being bankrupt become so huge it is practically inevitable.
This is the reason why there are limits. You can take all your spreadsheets to a casino and try and convince them that actually they have the advantage ... they will laugh at you.
In other words, the two bankroll's will be nearly identical.
Ganchow, mate, re-read the thread for gods sake. The whole argument has been about a vastly inflated bankroll against a minimal one.
I think you need to reflect on that single point for a little while.
One thing not mentioned here and I can tell you by personal expeirence ALCOHOL!!! The worst inhibitor to staying level. I more than once bet a first half line lost, and because I was loaded tripled my bet on the second half chasing. I would fall asleep wake up at 2am on the couch put on ESPN news and see I had lost half my bankroll. I canot stress enough how alcohol can lead to more than one type of hangover!
The stipulation is completely irrelevant to the results. It's just how I programmed it. I take it back if you like.
You are simply wrong here. This isn't much work for me. This is what I do. For a living. Math. Statistics. Probability. The size of the bankrolls have zero impact on expected outcomes. Zero. Certainly the more likely scenario is for the casino to go bankrupt. But each times it does, the casino only lises $100,000. Each time trump does bankrupt, he loses $4.2bn. Ad guess what, because roulette is a game in which the house has the advantage, the casino goes bankrupt less than 42,000 times as frequently as trump.
Positive EV casino. Negative EV trump.
natrass,
granchow accounted for your specified bankrolls in his program
Another way to look at it is like this: On any given bet, the advantage is in the house's favor. Hence, no combinationation of bets will yield a positive expectation for the player. (If on each and every bet the house has postive expectancy, then on teh sum of all bets the house must have postive expectancy, too.)
OK. I just ran the simulator for 10,004,491 trials.
The average number of spins per trials was 2.11.
The expected profit for the casino was $132,202.79.
The expected loss for Trump was -$132,202.79.
Of the 10,004,491 trials Trump was rendered bankrupt 566 times.
Of the 10,004,491 trials the casino was rendered bankrupt 10,003,925 times.
The casino was rendered bankrupt 17,675 times more frequently than Trump (way less than 42,000 times required to make the game "fair".)
Ganchrow, I appreciate you are genuine in this but I am really just going to have to repeat myself.
In the real world, the chances of a casino surviving a need for, say, 18 consequetive wins are 0.000003%.
In the real world, I cant martingale you because I dont have the bankroll to dwarf yours. (I wish!!)
Its not about statistics anymore when you get to these probabilities, its about common sense.
Reply With Quote