Quote:
Originally Posted by TLD
Absolutely true. And in the long run it's just as negative EV as any other way of structuring your bets.
But if the challenge is about whether one will do better than break even in one session, and it is at even money, you don't need certainty for it to be a good bet.
|
It is all about the length of the session - that is the key variable. Here's a good thread about betting "systems".
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html
The key bit of the text is this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wizardofodds.com
Usually the Martingale bettor would show a profit represented by the bell curve on the far right, peaking at $51; however, on the far left we see those times when he couldn't cover a bet and walked away with a substantial loss. That happened for 19.65% of the sessions. Many believers in the Martingale mistakenly believe that the many wins will more than cover the few loses.
|
If the maths isn't with you then over the long term, any craps system is a crap system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLD
So i'm just trying to figure out the "trick." Does "your returns will be statistically no better than break even" mean something other than winning or losing the session? Is it intended to be something other than an even money bet?
If the challenge was "I can prove mathematically that your strategy has a long run negative EV," I know what side I'd want to be on. But this is different. This is "Let's meet at a craps table in Vegas, and I bet you'll break even or lose." Surely a Martingale approach can give you a better than 50% chance of winning a short run session like that.
|
Playing Martingale, your winning sessions will be generally bigger that a flat bettor. But your few losing sessions will more than make up for that and give you a negative player edge equal to the house edge.