The gamblers fallacy

[a1choi]

All bets are equal to all other bets independently, as their EV is the same.  But a chain of bets, plus differing bet sizes will product different possible outcomes if you take a non-infinite time scale.  EV is still the same, but skew is different.

For more analysis, please go here  http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/betting-systems/

Take a look at the Flat-betting outcomes versus Martingale system.

Martingale can be more alluring for the Gambler, as it provides chance for larger wins, but at a price of much larger losses.  This is why martingale bettors believe in the martingale method.  That is until they hit bad luck and lose their shirts.

But thats the thrill of gambling.  Good luck!

[1715651116]

1715651116

[FUR11]

In terms of odds-to-lose?

So, for example, the odds of losing 10 consecutive 50% in a row is the same as the odds of losing one 99.90234375%?

I guess I need ask about more than just raw probabilities, otherwise it is trivial as you've just demonstrated.

So, I'd like to know:

I place a martingale doubling series bet, starting at size X. It takes Y number of doublings before a win is generated. What single bet size and odds is that equivalent to?

There ought to be a nice graph in there somewhere

The problem is, it's a non-definitive answer.  If you are betting at 50%, for example, it's 50% that you'll generate a win after one roll, 75% that you'll generate a win within two rolls, ect, but technically you could go on forever without winning a roll (thus then the gamblers fallacy).

[Qwiner]

I don't know if probability is really @ work when betting. The games seemed to become rigged, as U increase your games no.

The more U play,
1. the actual results seems to be the opposite of what U bet (eg. when U bet the result to be >50%, the actual result = <50%, & vice versa)  it seems that the gaming system know your betting patterns, so U always ended up losing all your bank roll; +

2. your winning rate (compared to losing rate) will be decreasing over the LR

[dolphin2014]

The gamblers fallacy is that you can find a 'system' to win at gambling.

So true. You can find a system that might increase your chances of winning, but there is no system that can guarantee you will win every single time.

[a1choi]

The gamblers fallacy is that you can find a 'system' to win at gambling.

So true. You can find a system that might increase your chances of winning, but there is no system that can guarantee you will win every single time.

i disagree.  for dice, there is no way to increase your chance of winning.  Your chances are set at the expected value of the house edge, which is negative.  What you can do is skew the potential results in such a way so that you can win more at the cost of losing even more.  This can happen while still holding the same overall chance of winning.  see my above post for a graphical representation