Quote:
Originally Posted by TLD
He didn’t deny the mathematical flaws in his approach, but insisted that mathematics is only relevant to theory, whereas he’s concerned with winning in the real world and he has the empirical evidence of his own experience to know that his system accomplishes just that.
|
Without even reading the thread, I know he's onto a loser. Unless he can gain some advantage due to something like weighted dice where he gains an advantage (and hence this wouldn't be a random game) then his "theory" is nothing. And if there is a mathematical flaw in his approach, there is a real world flaw in his approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLD
But isn’t there an obvious problem here? Why wouldn’t he just do some Martingale type thing to make it almost certain he’d win? Betting strategies like that don’t change the long run negative EV, but surely they affect the likelihood of winning or losing a given session.
|
There is no certainty that Martingale will make you a winner. This has been discussed time and time again here. Raiders thinks it's a 100% winning system in theory but that shows how much he knows. I'm sure that Ganch will provide you with the maths. Assuming he's not working out the finer points of the bet with the person in question, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLD
Or is there something else going on in how you worded the challenge that I’m just missing?
|
Again, I've not seen the challenge. But I'm pretty damn sure that if Ganchrow worded a bet, it would be a sure fire winner.