Mathematical Proof that Progressions will never Overcome a Negative Expectation Game

aslan said:
Yes, johndoe, let's bring it into a reasonable real life perspective. We've all had fun with the infinite prospects; propose now a real life scenario where we have some finite amount of bankroll and the very wealthy house grants a no limit playing environment. Even this hardly seems real life, but just imagine it as a publicity stunt. Is the risk warranted? Is Thorp correct in this context?
Click to expand...

As I've said and agreed completely all along, if there is a finite bankroll (or credit, or table limit, etc.), then of course the system does not work. I have no argument with this whatsoever.

The only reason an unlimited credit line is considered "unrealistic" is because casinos aren't that stupid. It would be a ridiculous mistake for them to make, but, unlike an infinite bank account, it's not inherently impossible.

Thorp gave exactly that qualification when he called using a martingale "reasonable".

As for the publicity stunt, as long as the casino is not extending credit, I think they'd greatly welcome this. I'd imagine that high-rollers regularly play with (effectively) no table limits regularly, as it is. And there are probably plenty of small players whose martingale fails due to a short bank long before they hit the table limit.


I think some of the allure of the martingale is that it would work quite well without credit or table limits, but people grossly underestimate the downside when those constraints exist.
 
k_c said:
I think the missing element is the odds.
...
Martingale proponents say if you play long enough with an endless bankroll you can be guaranteed a 1 unit profit, even in a negative EV game. In a modestly negative game he may have an almost certain probability of winning 1 unit. However the probability of a win is never quite certain and a martingaler is ALWAYS RISKING MORE THAN IT'S WORTH WITH ANY BANKROLL to try for a 1 unit profit in a negative EV game.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, with any finite bankroll. It's a horrible idea doomed to failure.

But if it's unlimited, the risk of losing over any reasonable period is so small that it might as well be zero. Let's see - one roll per minute, for simplicity we'll call it 50/50 odds on red. The risk is 1 in 2^(24*60) for a 24-hour session. That's 1 in 3x10^433. Pretty small. Adding up all the possible positions for all the particles in the universe you "only" get 5x10^591.

(Of course, the max bet size is similarly astronomical, but we didn't place a limit on it. This is still purely hypothetical.)
 
zengrifter said:
Did not find.

So my question is - If martingale will always succeed in the absence of limits,
is that some sort of paradox or violation of commonly held probability understanding? zg
Click to expand...
Even without a house limit, your money could run out. There is no such thing as an unlimited bankroll.
 
johndoe said:
As I've said and agreed completely all along, if there is a finite bankroll (or credit, or table limit, etc.), then of course the system does not work. I have no argument with this whatsoever.

The only reason an unlimited credit line is considered "unrealistic" is because casinos aren't that stupid. It would be a ridiculous mistake for them to make, but, unlike an infinite bank account, it's not inherently impossible.

Thorp gave exactly that qualification when he called using a martingale "reasonable".
Click to expand...
So, what do you think about this >>
zengrifter said:
If martingale will always succeed in the absence of limits,
is that some sort of paradox or violation of commonly held probability understanding? zg
Click to expand...
In other words, given a -EV game, does it only come down to the infinite event where one loses every hand?
That is the reckoning?

But if so, could that ever happen in infinity with a +EV trial? zg
 
johndoe said:
I completely agree, with any finite bankroll. It's a horrible idea doomed to failure.

But if it's unlimited, the risk of losing over any reasonable period is so small that it might as well be zero. Let's see - one roll per minute, for simplicity we'll call it 50/50 odds on red. The risk is 1 in 2^(24*60) for a 24-hour session. That's 1 in 3x10^433. Pretty small. Adding up all the possible positions for all the particles in the universe you "only" get 5x10^591.

(Of course, the max bet size is similarly astronomical, but we didn't place a limit on it. This is still purely hypothetical.)
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that with any bankroll the odds of success do not justify playing.

It's similar to an insurance bet in blackjack. Whenever probability of drawing a ten is less than 1/3 then insurance is negative EV and is not justifiable if you want to make a profit in the long run. If probability of drawing a ten is greater than 1/3 then insurance is positive EV.

In the martingale (applies to any bankroll):
if odds of failure = 1/bankroll then in the long run you break even.
if odds of failure > 1/bankroll then in the long run you lose
if odds of failure < 1/bankroll then in the long run you win

The martingale player is laying odds of bankroll to 1 that he will succeed.

Martingale proponents will only say that since they have been given an unlimited bankroll that they cannot possibly go broke. All this is is a delaying tactic to hide the inevitable failure of a martingale in a negative EV game. If you had a 0 probability of winning and martingaled an unlimited bankroll you could say the same thing. You will lose every trial, double the bet, lose again....keep losing and with an unlimited bankroll you will never go broke.

Martingale proponent will say, "ahhh but if I have any chance at all of winning I must eventually win at least once." However, your chance of winning 1 unit is never justifiable in a negative EV game if you want to make a profit.
 
If I had an unlimited bankroll, I wouldn't worry about odds, percentages, true counts or anything that made my brain hurt
 
k_c said:
In the martingale (applies to any bankroll):
if odds of failure = 1/bankroll then in the long run you break even.
if odds of failure > 1/bankroll then in the long run you lose
if odds of failure < 1/bankroll then in the long run you win

keep losing and with an unlimited bankroll you will never go broke.
Click to expand...
I guess that settles it? zg
 
aslan said:
So-called unlimited credit lines exist in name only.
Click to expand...

The black-red roulette martingale with unlimited credit that johndoe suggested probably wouldn't fail within a person's lifetime. The danger to the casino would be if the person died in the middle of a long losing streak - they would have no way to collect what was owed to them. :laugh:
 
k_c said:
The black-red roulette martingale with unlimited credit that johndoe suggested probably wouldn't fail within a person's lifetime. The danger to the casino would be if the person died in the middle of a long losing streak - they would have no way to collect what was owed to them. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Holy cash cow, Batman! Infinite credit dilemma!!! View attachment 7114
 

Attachments

  • smiley-char076.gif
    smiley-char076.gif
    93 bytes · Views: 249
zengrifter said:
Still hedging?? It would never fail. zg
Click to expand...

No hedging - a person's lifetime is a very short time when compared to eternity. In a -EV game a martingale provides a very good chance of being ahead in its initial stages before it eventually fails. Howeever no matter how large bankroll is there is that nagging, if miniscule, chance that a person may never even see a single win in their lifetime, the chance that they will experience some 1 unit wins but are in the midst of a long losing streak when they die and owe much nore than they have won, and the certainty that no bankroll will not be enough if progression is played out to its conclusion.

Martingale players, do not fear though. There is a place where common sense can be suspended, non sequiturs can prevail, and reality can be replaced by fiction zenzone.

Addtionally we have a testimonial by a satisfied martingale user:

"No matter the odds me swears by me martingale." -Plopeye the Sailor
 

Attachments

  • plop_eye.jpg
    plop_eye.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 237
k_c said:
No hedging - a person's lifetime is a very short time when compared to eternity. In a -EV game a martingale provides a very good chance of being ahead in its initial stages before it eventually fails. Howeever no matter how large bankroll is there is that nagging, if miniscule, chance that a person may never even see a single win in their lifetime,
Click to expand...
QFIT said:
There is no such thing as an unlimited credit line.
Click to expand...
We removed the stop of lifetime many posts ago.
Time is unlimited as well.
Therefore, a fully unbounded martingale or other negative progression,
as noted by Thorp et al will always win, yes?

Early in this thread we acknowledged the elementary proposition that a negative progression MUST ALWAYS lose in a -EV environment, given typical or even atypical parameters.

So we said okay of course and noted that an unbounded progression would ALMOST SURELY prevail, however. We did not expect anything more than a disdainful acknowledgement of that elementary truth. But curiously, THAT is where the heated debate began, right down to attempted math-proofs and repeated ridicule of such proposed non-reality scenario.

Further, subtle hedges were continually injected like "just to win 1u", and "not guaranteed in any lifetime", etc.

So my trailing question(s) is, for the last time -
Is an unbounded martingale almost surely to win in a -EV environment?
And if so, does that constitute a paradox or a suspension of normal statistical logic and/or probability? zg
 
QFIT said:
There is no such thing as an unlimited credit line.
Click to expand...

Try telling our wonderful el presidente that.....:laugh::laugh: Lets not forget "all" and i mean ALL the ijiots on the Hill..... Left, right , under , above, and hidden.......



Machinist
 
QFIT said:
There is no such thing as an unlimited credit line.
Click to expand...

I never said there was. I just said it wasn't completely impossible, unlike an "infinite bankroll" that people get so hung up about on this entirely hypothetical case.

Though Machinist certainly has an excellent point.
 
k_c said:
The black-red roulette martingale with unlimited credit that johndoe suggested probably wouldn't fail within a person's lifetime. The danger to the casino would be if the person died in the middle of a long losing streak - they would have no way to collect what was owed to them. :laugh:
Click to expand...
It was a promo event for publicity - not real money.
The casino industry went along in order to establish that martingale
betting will always win if you got the money and the balls to use it. zg
 
zengrifter said:
It was a promo event for publicity - not real money.
The casino industry went along in order to establish that martingale
betting will always win if you got the money and the balls to use it. zg
Click to expand...
Unless the casino says you can't play anymore during a long losing streak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top