Senior Member
Posts: 308
Maybe I've got something wrong, but couldn't you practically insure that you make some money gambling if you continuously bet more than you did the last time, and start over from a low amount each time you win?
Say you're going on 1 in 2 odds of either doubling your bet or losing it. Each time you lose, you withdraw and gamble twice the amount you've lost on your fail chain. Once you win, you start over at $1.
balance withdrawal & bet result fail debt 0 1 fail 1 -1 2 pass x 1 1 pass x 2 1 pass x 3 1 fail 1 2 2 fail 3 0 6 pass x 6
Even when the odds are against you (though not too extreme) you can still make money. Say you had a 1 in 7 chance of only doubling your money. If you always gambled the same amount, you'd normally lose money, but now it actually speeds up your gainings, even if it does make it more unstable.
balance withdrawal & bet result fail debt 0 1 fail 1 -1 2 fail 3 -3 6 fail 9 -9 18 fail 27 -27 54 fail 81 -81 162 fail 243 -243 486 pass x 243
By using this method, you'd always turn positive the total amount you've withdrawal'd since your last win. The only holes in this method is that it will either take quite a few tries to make any money or you'll just fail so many times in a row that you deplete your very real and finite wallet.
So, uh, does this actually work, or did I just do the math wrong somewhere?
Posting Freak
Posts: 768
Except, Gambling is all luck.
Posting Freak
Posts: 13,609
Plus the fact that most dealers don't offer good odds such as 1 in 2 odds of either doubling your bet or losing it (they lose money in the long run, regardless of any method).
Member
Posts: 146
EmuAlert Wrote: balance withdrawal & bet result fail debt 0 1 fail 1 -1 2 fail 3 -3 6 fail 9 -9 18 fail 27 -27 54 fail 81 -81 162 fail 243 -243 486 pass x 243
I think it's better to view it this way:
bet debt-result win-total-result probability of winning 1 1 2 p 2 3 1 p 6 9 3 p 18 27 9 p 54 81 27 p 162 243 81 p 486 729 243 p
Problem being, it's a higher chance to lose money than earn. That means that you will on average lose money instead of earning it.
It's easier than the "If you flip a coin until you get heads, I will give you
dollars, where n is the amount of tails you got in a row" though. You could try to find the expectation-value of that one!
Noah
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,370
Gambling is not worth it in my books. In my honors class we're learning probablity and the chances of me getting profit from a 8% hand isn't very comforting- even if I played 12 times....
Senior Member
Posts: 308
Noah Wrote: I think it's better to view it this way:bet debt-result win-total-result probability of winning 1 1 2 p 2 3 1 p 6 9 3 p 18 27 9 p 54 81 27 p 162 243 81 p 486 729 243 p
Noah
Not completely sure what you mean there, but you're Noah, so you're probably right. Also, I'm assuming that I have an infinite money supply. Of course, with that, you can gamble whatever huge amount you want and just quit whenever you make a profit. Of course I can make a huge finite profit out of finite money, but both doubling my money and using it all up have a theoretical 50% success rate if I repeated it infinite times.
Since the amount of money I gamble will always increase exponentially with this method, with a finite wallet I'll be only a handful of failures in a row from emptying it.
Basically, you have an incredibly high chance of making a small portion of your money supply back using this method (which can be as enormous as you want when you have an infinite supply) but your chance of making a large
proportion of your supply isn't helped at all. If you inch your way up, you're gambling enough times to put your money at risk, and if you're gaining in leaps and bounds, you're getting dangerously close to losing it all.
IT MAKES SENSE IN MY HEAD.
Junior Member
Posts: 8
its true this strategy will net you profit guaranteed
Posting Freak
Posts: 6,070
2009-12-04, 02:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 2009-12-04, 02:11 AM by KajitiSouls .)
One of my rl friends actually makes a living off of online gambling. He says that 90% of the people that play end up losing, while the rest of the 10% milk the crap out of those 90%. I have not seen him do anything that the OP figures, and it kinda doesn't make sense to do that when you see the kind of tactics and mind games that go on.
Posting Freak
Posts: 4,302
This is interesting.
Posting Freak
Posts: 844
Most gamble games doesn't work as the OP says.
Posting Freak
Posts: 6,070
Horusmaster Wrote: In games such as texas hold'em everyone can bet. Say if you bet $1, and your opponent raises, what would you do now? forced to fold cause you can only bet $1 for the first round.
Horusmaster sez "I found a new exploit!"
No.
Posting Freak
Posts: 4,302
2009-12-04, 02:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 2009-12-04, 03:41 AM by Russt .)
As I expected... assuming you have a finite amount of money, you'll eventually lose a large bet and be forced to stop.
Starting with 100 money
Spoiler
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 5
Trial 6
Trial 7
Trial 8
Trial 9
Trial 10
Starting with 500 money
Spoiler
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
However, the more money you allow yourself to spend (compared to whatever '1' is), the higher chance you have of gaining money. I tried starting with 20000, and got to 120000 on the first trial and 50000 on the second. The flip side to this, though, is that it takes a long time; it takes about 60000 bets to get from 20000 to 50000.
Edit: Actually... I've done it wrong, I misinterpreted him. It's still much the same though, just takes less time and requires even larger initial values to become 'safe'.
Starting with 500 money
Spoiler
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 6
Trial 7
Trial 8
Trial 9
Trial 10
Posting Freak
Posts: 844
KajitiSouls Wrote: Horusmaster sez "I found a new exploit!"
what:f6:
Posting Freak
Posts: 6,070
Horusmaster Wrote: what:f6:
You paralyzed everyone except the last guy (and maybe big blind, depending on parameters) from betting, because all it takes to guarantee that you'll win over the guy before you is to bet. Why bet if the next guy can just 1up you and force you to lose? Also, by liberty of your logic, the guy that raised is breaking the rules anyways since he'd have to bet more than $1 to raise someone that bet $1.
I don't know what kind of game you play, but the versions I'm familiar with, when someone makes a bet and another person raises, everyone else (except the person who originally raised) has the option to either "call", "fold", or "re-raise". Sure, there can be a raise limit, which I suspect is what you're confusing yourself over. But there would be no Texas Hold'em or Poker if you went with your example.
(in the case of misinterpretation, no one's stupid enough to only bring $1 to the table or even just $10)
Posting Freak
Posts: 844
KajitiSouls Wrote: You paralyzed everyone except the last guy (and maybe big blind, depending on parameters) from betting, because all it takes to guarantee that you'll win over the guy before you is to bet. Why bet if the next guy can just 1up you and force you to lose? Also, by liberty of your logic, the guy that raised is breaking the rules anyways since he'd have to bet more than $1 to raise someone that bet $1.I know how to play texas, the example I gave obviously doesn't work to prove OP wrong.
OP is basically saying u bet $1, then $2, then $4, then $8 and etc...
but in texas the first round ur opponent can raise to the max amount of money you have, in that case you have to fold if ur going by OP's way of betting.
Posting Freak
Posts: 8,478
2009-12-04, 07:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 2009-12-04, 07:55 PM by Stereo .)
Thinking about the finite amount of money.
![[Image: yep7xmn.png]](http://mathurl.com/yep7xmn.png)
dollars, where n is the amount of tails you got in a row" though. You could try to find the expectation-value of that one! 
