Quote:
Originally Posted by tech49
Maybe later in this thread I will argue that the martingale will work if one has an infinite bankroll, however, casinos are very clever and have TABLE LIMITS!
This protects casinos from nonexistant people with infinite bankrolls who can play arbitrarily quickly. Very clever of them.
The mirrors help to protect the casinos from vampires. Defenses against Santa Claus and leprechauns are a trade secret.
The main point of the table limits is not to protect the casinos from martingalers. They mean that inexperienced/untrusted dealers do not have to handle $5 million bets right beside $5 bets, and the casino does not need to have ridiculous amounts of chips at each table. If you say you want to play a martingale and would like the table limit raised at a private table, the casino will happily raise the limits for you (as long as your minimum bet is worth their time). If you bet enough, they will comp you a room and meals until you bust out, while laughing at you behind your back. They have seen it before, and busting out does not take long.
A quick upper estimate for the median time to bust out is the time it would take to double your bankroll. You will double up less than 1/2 of the time. In fact, it will be much less than half if your bankroll is large in comparison with your minimum bet. Decreasing the size of your minimum bet decreases the probability that you will eventually double up.
Quote:
1 - With both an American double zero wheel, and a European single zero wheel, what is the expected value of this system. Am I safe to assume that if there is more than a 1 in 511 chance of a player losing 9 consecutive wagers, this proves the system bad? With each of the wheels, what are the chances of losing 9 consecutive wagers?
It's that there is a more than 1/512 probability, not 1/511, since you only gain $1 on the complement.
(20/38)^9 ~ 1/323.
(19/37)^9 ~ 1/403.
You are selling lottery tickets for $1 with a prize of $512 which pay off too frequently.
This won't prove that the martingale is bad -- for people who hate money. If you like money, the martingale is bad, except as I mentioned, cover play designed to make you look like a harmless casual gambler, when you have really identified bets you would like to exploit without a martingale.
Quote:
2 - Assuming I have 10 Billion dollars in chips and want to win one dollar, How bad is using the martingale (with each of the American and European Roulette tables) without a table limit, beginning with a $1.00 bet. Assuming I have 100 Billion dollars in chips and want to win a dollar (again without a table limit). I each of these cases, what is the probability that I will lose enough consecutive wagers to bankrupt me?
That's underspecified. What do you do when you are not bankrupt, but don't have enough to win back your losses? If you quit at that point, you can figure it out from the above formula. If you keep betting smaller amounts, you lose even more, while increasing your probability of winning slightly.
By the way, the logistical costs of moving $1 billion to a casino exceed $1.
There is no way to add negative numbers to get a positive number. If you want to win on average, and you aren't a vampire or Santa Claus or someone with an infinite bankroll, you need to find some wager with a positive expected value. Don't try to get creative with a really complicated sum of negative value wagers.