fat chris: Betting strategy

[fat chris]

As I have said in a previous post, I am new to advantage play. I read somewhere that progressive betting strategies (what I believe is called the Marigold strategy?) has been mathmatically proven to be false.

I am not a math wizard by any means, however I ran the equation though a binary distribution, and it appeared to me as if the law of averages should yield a small profit in the long run. Did I do somethign wrong?

I am not questioning the conclusion that the theories are unsound, however I am wondering if anybody has an explination why. If i constantly bet the total of what I have lost plus five dollars, shouldn't I make a profit?

Fat Chris

[Dancer]

> As I have said in a previous post, I am new
> to advantage play. I read somewhere that
> progressive betting strategies (what I
> believe is called the Marigold strategy?)
> has been mathmatically proven to be false.

Absolutely.

> I am not a math wizard by any means, however
> I ran the equation though a binary
> distribution, and it appeared to me as if
> the law of averages should yield a small
> profit in the long run. Did I do somethign
> wrong?

Yes, you did. If progressions of any kind worked there would be no casinos. If you're still not convinced, try one with your own money. You'll be welcomed in every casino on earth.

> I am not questioning the conclusion that the
> theories are unsound, however I am wondering
> if anybody has an explination why. If i
> constantly bet the total of what I have lost
> plus five dollars, shouldn't I make a
> profit?

Not a chance.

[Parker]

> As I have said in a previous post, I am new
> to advantage play. I read somewhere that
> progressive betting strategies (what I
> believe is called the Marigold strategy?)
> has been mathmatically proven to be false.

It's called a Martingale, otherwise you are correct.

> I am not a math wizard by any means, however
> I ran the equation though a binary
> distribution, and it appeared to me as if
> the law of averages should yield a small
> profit in the long run. Did I do somethign
> wrong?

> I am not questioning the conclusion that the
> theories are unsound, however I am wondering
> if anybody has an explination why. If i
> constantly bet the total of what I have lost
> plus five dollars, shouldn't I make a
> profit?

You forgot about a couple of things. For starters, you don't have an infinite bankroll, and casinos have table limits. Sooner or later, you would hit that long losing streak that would wipe you out.

[fat chris]

Gottcha

[onetoomany]

[Norm Wattenberger]

> You forgot about a couple of things. For
> starters, you don't have an infinite
> bankroll, and casinos have table limits.
> Sooner or later, you would hit that long
> losing streak that would wipe you out.

Even with an infinite bankroll and no table limits it would still not work. With X number of hands and a house edge of Y you will be X*Y behind on average with no limits.

[Saboteur]

I'm aware that a Martingale is a losing proposition, but your statement appears to me to be true only if all bet sizes are identical.

A Martingale method with an infinite bankroll and no table limits would be a can't-lose method, as long as the player can be assured that he'll win a hand once in a while. If you disagree, what am I missing?

[Norm Wattenberger]

A negative number times a positive number is a negative number. Period. This has been argued too many times for me to remember and I won't do it again.

[MrPill]

> as long as the player can
> be assured that he'll win a hand once in a
> while. If you disagree, what am I missing?

I think the "assured" part is the problem. I have lost 11 hands in a row once or twice. At a $5 dollar table that would be a total risk of $10,235 to win $5?

I don't think too many folks are interested in doing this.

Pill

[sammyvegas]

Not only is this system fallacious, but who wants to bet an elephant to perhaps win a peanut?

[G Man]

> Even with an infinite bankroll and no table
> limits it would still not work. With X
> number of hands and a house edge of Y you
> will be X*Y behind on average with no
> limits.

An infinite bankroll and no table limits would be a winning proposition provided a fair game is offered.