Trade Inciarte or No?

smootness said:
The problem is, in that 3%, you lose $1200 each time. In the 97%, you win just $10 every time. So if you tried that strategy and got to 5 rolls 100 times and lost just 3 of those times, you'd be out $3,600 while winning just $970 in your wins.
Click to expand...

His math is off for the double up strategy. If you are wanting to win $10, then the bets would go 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640... Basically each double is $10 more than you have cumulatively lost the prior hand. Once you win, you go back to $10....
 
bravesfanMatt said:
His math is off for the double up strategy. If you are wanting to win $10, then the bets would go 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640... Basically each double is $10 more than you have cumulatively lost the prior hand. Once you win, you go back to $10....
Click to expand...

I was using his triple-down numbers. Regardless, the numbers of each bet don't matter. Over time, you will lose money. As Encheff said, it doesn't matter that it is the same person placing another bet after the first. The odds are what they are for each roll. You have less than a 50% chance to win a 50/50 game. Each roll is an independent event. While your odds of winning one time go up with a larger number of rolls, so too does the amount you are betting and potentially losing. So when you do run out of money and lose it, it will cover the amount you won and then some.
 
smootness said:
I was using his triple-down numbers. Regardless, the numbers of each bet don't matter. Over time, you will lose money. As Encheff said, it doesn't matter that it is the same person placing another bet after the first. The odds are what they are for each roll. You have less than a 50% chance to win a 50/50 game. Each roll is an independent event. While your odds of winning one time go up with a larger number of rolls, so too does the amount you are betting and potentially losing. So when you do run out of money and lose it, it will cover the amount you won and then some.
Click to expand...

right, statistically speaking, hitting black is the same each spin. But similar events happening concurrently does drop over each spin.

His Triple down theory is impossible to break out because if he wins on the fifth roll three times out of ten, his winnings are significantly higher than if he wins on the 2 roll.. The triple down doesn't win at a consistent number like the double down. But not to be-labor the point, any scheme will eventually fail because of the maximum bet.
 
Enscheff said:
This is precisely why casinos make so much money. Do you really think the order you place these bets has anything to do with the odds of you winning? It doesn't, but folks insist that they do, and that's why casinos can afford to build mega resorts.

All that matters is you wagered money on bet with 2:1 payback that had less than 50% chance of winning. You lose. Period. It doesn't matter what bet sequence you come up with. Over time, you lose 3%, no matter what.

One night you win, the next night you lose. You will lose more than you win by about 3%. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...

My favorite thing is the sports better who is absolutely certain that they can read some sort of tea leaves about line movement, smart money, or trap lines.

This person will flat call you stupid if you suggest that the book does just fine off the juice and doesn't have to "trick" the public into betting the other side of a game. In this scenario the bookmaker is a god like creature who knows exactly what is going to happen in any given sporting event.
 
The mistake is in thinking that the odds change just because it's the same person making successive bets.

Think about it from the casino's perspective. Were 'doubling down' not a possibility, would the casino lose money over time if one guy bet $10, then another came and bet $20, then another bet $40, and so on? No. It's the exact same thing here. It's not a continuation of the same bet, it's just successive bets with increasing amounts.

Even if you want to think of it as the same event, your odds of winning once increase with multiple rolls, but so do your potential losses while your potential reward remains the same. And your potential losses are increasing at a higher rate than your odds of ultimately winning.
 
smootness said:
The mistake is in thinking that the odds change just because it's the same person making successive bets.

Think about it from the casino's perspective. Were 'doubling down' not a possibility, would the casino lose money over time if one guy bet $10, then another came and bet $20, then another bet $40, and so on? No. It's the exact same thing here. It's not a continuation of the same bet, it's just successive bets with increasing amounts.

Even if you want to think of it as the same event, your odds of winning once increase with multiple rolls, but so do your potential losses while your potential reward remains the same. And your potential losses are increasing at a higher rate than your odds of ultimately winning.
Click to expand...

The max bets does prevent the automatic win. If I had unlimited bank roll(100 grand even). I could just double down until I finally won. I understand the statistic but again concurrent actions are proportionally decreasing. I literally could bet 10 after every win and walk out a winner if I doubled with no limit bet after a loss assuming huge bank roll of course. We are talking hypotheticals here since very few have that bank roll. And if they did 10 bucks doesn't move needle. Plus the casinos thought of this and restricted the max bet.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
The max bets does prevent the automatic win. If I had unlimited bank roll(100 grand even). I could just double down until I finally won. I understand the statistic but again concurrent actions are proportionally decreasing. I literally could bet 10 after every win and walk out a winner if I doubled with no limit bet after a loss assuming huge bank roll of course. We are talking hypotheticals here since very few have that bank roll. And if they did 10 bucks doesn't move needle. Plus the casinos thought of this and restricted the max bet.
Click to expand...

With infinite money, you are guaranteed to eventually win, yes. But over an infinite period of time, even that person would eventually lose. Again, the fact that the same person is making successive bets does not in any way change the mechanics of the game.

The original scenario was such that the poster essentially made a $1200 bet with a 97% chance to win $10. That is a dumb bet that will lose you money over time.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
The max bets does prevent the automatic win. If I had unlimited bank roll(100 grand even). I could just double down until I finally won. I understand the statistic but again concurrent actions are proportionally decreasing. I literally could bet 10 after every win and walk out a winner if I doubled with no limit bet after a loss assuming huge bank roll of course. We are talking hypotheticals here since very few have that bank roll. And if they did 10 bucks doesn't move needle. Plus the casinos thought of this and restricted the max bet.
Click to expand...

Part of the advantage of the casino is they won't run out of money, but everyone in the casino will. Smoot is absolutely right; the house wants you to keep trying the martingale strategy. It is negative EV for the bettor.

So assume you play 100% right (how many people actually do that), you are at a 0.5% disadvantage. Also, do you pass up on double up situations or splits when trying the martingale system at blackjack because if you don't, you EV just got lower.

Lets just say player has 49.5% chance of winning each hand. Lets go 10,20,40,80,160,320,640,1280. You expected return is something like -15%.
 
smootness said:
With infinite money, you are guaranteed to eventually win, yes. But over an infinite period of time, even that person would eventually lose. Again, the fact that the same person is making successive bets does not in any way change the mechanics of the game.

The original scenario was such that the poster essentially made a $1200 bet with a 97% chance to win $10. That is a dumb bet that will lose you money over time.
Click to expand...

No...

1st roll: $10 winnings on a $10 bet
2nd roll: $20 winnings on a $40 bet
3rd roll: $50 winnings on a $130 bet
4th roll: $140 winnings on a $400 bet
5th roll: $410 winnings on a $1210 bet

The odds of not hitting ONE of those correctly is 3%... so a 97% chance of winning anywhere from $10 to $410 on a 5 roll span
 
sturg33 said:
No...

1st roll: $10 winnings on a $10 bet
2nd roll: $20 winnings on a $40 bet
3rd roll: $50 winnings on a $130 bet
4th roll: $140 winnings on a $400 bet
5th roll: $410 winnings on a $1210 bet

The odds of not hitting ONE of those correctly is 3%... so a 97% chance of winning anywhere from $10 to $410 on a 5 roll span
Click to expand...

But the actual odds are:

1st roll: 47% chance to win $10 on a $10 bet
2nd roll: 47% chance to win $30 on a $30 bet
3rd roll: 47% chance to win $90 on a $90 bet
4th roll: 47% chance to win $270 on a $270 bet
5th roll: 47% chance to win $810 on a $810 bet

It is the exact same thing, from the casino's perspective, as 5 different people walking up and placing these bets in succession. Why do you think the fact that one player makes all 5 bets increases the odds the casino will lose money?

You are correct about the potential winnings, I was wrong about only potentially winning $10 over the course of the entire thing. But here is the way the payouts would work:

47.5% of the time, you win $10
24.9375% of the time, you win $20
13.0922% of the time, you win $50
6.8734% of the time, you win $140
3.6085% of the time, you win $410
3.9884% of the time, you lose $1210

You will lose money over time.
 
smootness said:
But the actual odds are:

1st roll: 47% chance to win $10 on a $10 bet
2nd roll: 47% chance to win $30 on a $30 bet
3rd roll: 47% chance to win $90 on a $90 bet
4th roll: 47% chance to win $270 on a $270 bet
5th roll: 47% chance to win $810 on a $810 bet

It is the exact same thing, from the casino's perspective, as 5 different people walking up and placing these bets in succession. Why do you think the fact that one player makes all 5 bets increases the odds the casino will lose money?
Click to expand...

I don't think that. All I think is the odds of 5 rolls landing on the same thing 5 consecutive times are 3%.

The casino doesn't care because each roll is in their favor. Plus, there are more than just one player and many different bets happening.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think that. All I think is the odds of 5 rolls landing on the same thing 5 consecutive times are 3%.

The casino doesn't care because each roll is in their favor. Plus, there are more than just one player and many different bets happening.
Click to expand...

Why would the fact that many different bets are happening change anything? From the casino's perspective, do they care if every bet is on the same color? Of course not. So do they care if every single bet is made by the same person on the same color? Of course not. So do they care if every single bet is made by the same person on the same color with ever-increasing bets? Of course not.

You are correct - every roll is in their favor. The fact that all the rolls are made by the same person, or on the same color, or any scenario you want to paint, doesn't matter. They will win over time. Which means you will lose over time.

And your % is basically correct. But because of the ever-increasing bets, you will lose more on the 3% than you will gain on the 97%.
 
smootness said:
Why would the fact that many different bets are happening change anything? From the casino's perspective, do they care if every bet is on the same color? Of course not. So do they care if every single bet is made by the same person on the same color? Of course not. So do they care if every single bet is made by the same person on the same color with ever-increasing bets? Of course not.

You are correct - every roll is in their favor. The fact that all the rolls are made by the same person, or on the same color, or any scenario you want to paint, doesn't matter. They will win over time. Which means you will lose over time.

And your % is basically correct. But because of the ever-increasing bets, you will lose more on the 3% than you will gain on the 97%.
Click to expand...

They will win over time because - I'm not arguing against that.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. The 5 bet triple down strategy is like a "black swan" event. Most people will win a few bucks on it, but one person will get wiped out.

If I did it over and over and over again, I'd win a bunch of hands. That I didn't and I paid the price. The casino will do fine over time because they put in those maximum bets. If they didn't, the high rollers would wipe them out with this strategy.
 
sturg33 said:
They will win over time because - I'm not arguing against that.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. The 5 bet triple down strategy is like a "black swan" event. Most people will win a few bucks on it, but one person will get wiped out.

If I did it over and over and over again, I'd win a bunch of hands. That I didn't and I paid the price. The casino will do fine over time because they put in those maximum bets. If they didn't, the high rollers would wipe them out with this strategy.
Click to expand...

You said the math works and that at some point you would be guaranteed a win, which is why they have maximum bets. But it isn't. They will win regardless because of the math of the game. There is no strategy to guarantee you come out ahead.
 
smootness said:
You said the math works and that at some point you would be guaranteed a win, which is why they have maximum bets. But it isn't. They will win regardless because of the math of the game. There is no strategy to guarantee you come out ahead.
Click to expand...

If there were no maximum bets, and I had an infinite bankroll, at some point I would win.
 
smootness said:
You said the math works and that at some point you would be guaranteed a win, which is why they have maximum bets. But it isn't. They will win regardless because of the math of the game. There is no strategy to guarantee you come out ahead.
Click to expand...

you both are arguing the same point really. ultimately the Casino wins. just how you come about that is different. If I had a million dollars and wanted to win, I would by doing the double down method... you will win at some point if no maximum exists... I am not going to calculate the odds that 5 blacks hit in a row but those odds progressively drop with each roll.. I KNOW THAT EACH ROLL IS INDEPENDANT.. but concurrent events within a sample are relevant. Black hitting six times in a row is X% likely to happen, 7 times in a row is less than that, 8 times even less than that... Without a maximum bet, you WOULD eventually get your $10 dollars back. This works more so in games of chance. Cards are more independent because your actions can influence the odds. But Casinos protect against this by putting maximum bets in play. They also count on equal number of bets going on both sides. That is the whole purpose of lines.. they want bets to be 50/50 to maximize their winnings
 
sturg33 said:
If there were no maximum bets, and I had an infinite bankroll, at some point I would win.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. No one's arguing that wins won't take place. But the losses will outweigh it. So if you had infinite money and were able to stop at the exact moment you won once, then you would be guaranteed to walk out a winner.

No one has an infinite bankroll, and people don't stop after their first win. Even if you did have an infinite bankroll, if you didn't stop after your first win, you would lose over time.

Again, maximum bets are not the reason you're not guaranteed to win. The casino will always bring in more than they lose over time, no matter how much people are betting or how many times they double down.
 
A single person may not have unlimited money, but the public as a whole does. And the casino still wins. Any "strategy" can work over a small sample size, but overall, the player loses.

Again, it is precisely misunderstandings like the ones debated over the last 2 pages that allow casinos to make billions of dollars a year. The math is undeniably against the player, yet folks insist on spinning scenarios and ideas in their heads to justify why they "should" win.

Roulette is the most simple wager game imaginable, essentially one step in complexity above flipping a coin, yet the general public can't wrap their heads around how the odds actually work. Gambling is truly a tax on stupidity, and it pays guys like me. So thank you everyone haha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top