i wouldn't even know how to deposit, and cashing out just requires a couple of mouse clicks ♦
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
41
Posts
20
Users
0
Reactions
5,815
Views
Originally posted by Kruppe
i wouldn't even know how to deposit, and cashing out just requires a couple of mouse clicks ♦
+1, im still playing with funds earned and never put a cent of my own money online
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Roulette is not a beatable game. The odds are stacked against you and you WILL lose in the long run, just because you win a few times doesnt mean you are "beating it"....Correction. So long as you have an infinite amount of funds, roulette is beatable. ♠_biggrin:
w34z3l
This is incorrect as there is a betting cap (Most you are aloud to bet in one go)
Are you talking about the "double your bet if you lose" system? It does not work because the 0 is neither red/black or even/uneven, it's the "rake" in the game.
Because of that rake you will lose money after infinite hands (= infitine money = infinite "tries")
Those guys who think casinos are beatable... go to google and search for No Deposit Casino take those free monies and beat the games, why are you playing poker LOL ♠_ugly:
Originally posted by viewer88
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Roulette is not a beatable game. The odds are stacked against you and you WILL lose in the long run, just because you win a few times doesnt mean you are "beating it"....Correction. So long as you have an infinite amount of funds, roulette is beatable. ♠_biggrin:
w34z3l
This is incorrect as there is a betting cap (Most you are aloud to bet in one go)
Are you talking about the "double your bet if you lose" system? It does not work because the 0 is neither red/black or even/uneven, it's the "rake" in the game.
Because of that rake you will lose money after infinite hands (= infitine money = infinite "tries")
Yes, your expected value for using the martingale system (double your bet) is negative. However, if you have infinite funds you can keep on doubling your bet until eventually you win. And you WILL win eventually. Even if you had to hit the 0 to double up you can make a profit. Your expected value will be even worse than standard roulette but showing a profit is a mathematical certainty.
The catch is, no-one has infinite funds. So of course roulette is not actually beatable except for in the short term.w34z3l
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by viewer88
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Originally posted by w34z3l
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Roulette is not a beatable game. The odds are stacked against you and you WILL lose in the long run, just because you win a few times doesnt mean you are "beating it"....Correction. So long as you have an infinite amount of funds, roulette is beatable. ♠_biggrin:
w34z3l
This is incorrect as there is a betting cap (Most you are aloud to bet in one go)
Are you talking about the "double your bet if you lose" system? It does not work because the 0 is neither red/black or even/uneven, it's the "rake" in the game.
Because of that rake you will lose money after infinite hands (= infitine money = infinite "tries")
Yes, your expected value for using the martingale system (double your bet) is negative. However, if you have infinite funds you can keep on doubling your bet until eventually you win. And you WILL win eventually. Even if you had to hit the 0 to double up you can make a profit. Your expected value will be even worse than standard roulette but showing a profit is a mathematical certainty.
The catch is, no-one has infinite funds. So of course roulette is not actually beatable except for in the short term.w34z3l
The martingale system does not work even with infinite funds and no betting cap. Why? Because Variance is infinite and you can hit negative infinity in variance before winning, you are not actually guaranteed to win.
I think its something like that anyway, ask a mathematician for the proper explanation.
Originally posted by DaPhunk
The martingale system does not work even with infinite funds and no betting cap. Why? Because Variance is infinite and you can hit negative infinity in variance before winning, you are not actually guaranteed to win.
I think its something like that anyway, ask a mathematician for the proper explanation.
Ask a mathematician? I studied maths for quite a few years and believe my understanding of the matter to be quite correct. Of course, none of us are infallible.
Firstly, as I said in my previous post, you are never technically "beating" the game because each of your actions has a negative expected value. All you are doing with the infinite funds "strategy", is jumping off the variance train when you are in the positive.
And you are suggesting over infinite games you might never win a single game? That is the only way one could ever reach 'negative infinity'. This is a pretty idiotic statement imo. The whole idea behind taking an infinite sample size is that you can consider yourself to run precisely at your expected value. (Poker players call this "the long run"). This means you MUST win some games; in fact, just under half of them for a standard roulette wheel.
This does not mean you should make the mistake of thinking infinity is a rational number where the funds are concerned. Negative infinity can never be reached. There will always be double your bet amount left for the next roulette spin. So all that matters is that you eventually win 1 spin, 1 time, and you will show a profit. But again, this is also why the "infinite funds strategy" will not work; infinite funds do not exist.
As for martingale with finite funds, you are actually /likely/ to increase your funds in the short term, despite each individual game having a -EV. You can calculate exactly your chance of going broke with a finite number of bets.
It can be expressed simply as p^n, where p is your probability of losing and n is the number of total bets you have (factoring in the double ups). For example, say a fair roulette wheel of 50% to win. You have $15 and start with $1 bet. You bet $1, then £2, $4, $8. You have a total of 4 bets meaning your probability of going broke with each complete game (a complete game being the time from your first spin to the time you show a profit) is (0.5)^4 = 0.0625 = 6.25%. So for each complete game in this example you are 93.75% chance to win $1 and 6.25% to lose $15.
So you can see from this example you are actually /likely/ to win in the short term. What you are effectively doing with martingale is gambling your entire roll to win a min-bet. It's all about jumping off the variance train while you are in profit though. Eventually you will hit a stone cold run of losses. You can "beat" roulette in the short term, but you are never truly beating it. It's the same as saying that you "beat" someone in poker when you got in with an underdog and sucked out - although with the martingale, you are likely to suck out, but if you don't, you lose your entire roll.
w34z3l
Originally posted by w34z3l
Ask a mathematician? I studied maths for quite a few years and believe my understanding of the matter to be quite correct. Of course, none of us are infallible.
At what level?
Originally posted by DaPhunk
Originally posted by w34z3l
Ask a mathematician? I studied maths for quite a few years and believe my understanding of the matter to be quite correct. Of course, none of us are infallible.At what level?
GCSE??? 
Only A-level....and some more advanced maths afterwards for my own enjoyment.
The again, the maths we are talking about is not exactly difficult maths. Although perhaps it borders on philosophy when discussing the concept of infinity.
w34z3l
what's to say you can't just lose every time? each time you spin, winning isn't guaranteed.
what is a 'mathematical certainty'?
That's true and you can theoretically lose all your money but the probability of that happening becomes lower and lower as you have more funds to double your bet.
For example, the chances of you losing ten 50/50 bets in a row would be approximately 0.1% I believe.
edit: Mathematical certainty comes from the infinite part of the requirements. Since you can always double your bet if you lose, the chances of you losing approaches zero. Losing 20 in a row in the situation above will happen 1 in 1000000 of the time.
Originally posted by w34z3l
Only A-level....and some more advanced maths afterwards for my own enjoyment.The again, the maths we are talking about is not exactly difficult maths. Although perhaps it borders on philosophy when discussing the concept of infinity.
w34z3l
Sounds like you enjoy it, why didn't you take it further?
Originally posted by infinity21
20 in a row in the situation above will happen 1 in 1000000 of the time.
yeah, but if it does happen, you lose more than 1000000 times what you stand to gain, right?
Originally posted by PocketAcesJohn
Originally posted by aceonetheriver
well my dad can beat roullte ..Roulette is not a beatable game. The odds are stacked against you and you WILL lose in the long run, just because you win a few times doesnt mean you are "beating it"....
No Roulette is quite beatable. If you play Russian Roulette, you will know it is quite beatable. And it is a great great beat.
Originally posted by VheroM
Yeah, this thread just got seriously derailed, hijacked and sent to siberia.
Yes and in siberia they play beatable roulette, that I mentioned
Originally posted by DaPhunk
Sounds like you enjoy it, why didn't you take it further?
I like music more, so I study that
w34z3l