Doubling bet after a losing hand..

[sagefr0g]

Infinity is not a number at all. As Qfit stated it is merely a word to describe a process or situation with bounds. And without bounds... all is possible. :whip:

if it's not a number how come you can use it in an equation or other maths stuff? errhh i mean it's not an operator or variable in an equation, don't it plug in a equation just like a number?
errhh if it's not a number what the heck is it?:whip:
edit: oh, a word to describe a process or situation with bounds or no bounds?
edit: hmm, ok Dad........ : http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55765.html

 

[QFIT]

if it's not a number how come you can use it in an equation or other maths stuff? errhh i mean it's not an operator or variable in an equation, don't it plug in a equation just like a number?
errhh if it's not a number what the heck is it?:whip:
edit: oh, a word to describe a process or situation with bounds or no bounds?

You can't perform arithmetic on infinity. Otherwise you end up with problems like this:

Assume a = x
[add a to both sides] a+a = a+x
[a+a = 2a] 2a = a+x
[subtract 2x from both sides] 2a-2x = a+x-2x
[2a-2x = 2(a-x)] 2(a-x) = a+x-2x
[x-2x = -x] 2(a-x) = a-x
[divide both sides by a-x] 2 = 1

Proof that 2=1. __________________

 

[daddybo]

if it's not a number how come you can use it in an equation or other maths stuff? errhh i mean it's not an operator or variable in an equation, don't it plug in a equation just like a number?
errhh if it's not a number what the heck is it?:whip:
edit: oh, a word to describe a process or situation with bounds or no bounds?

without bounds (my definition). I edited my post... I accidently typed "with bounds" instead of "without bounds". As far as using infinity in an equation... well, I would think that would be an infinite possiiblity. I can think of a few cases where you could do that, but by definition are not really equations. They are indeterminate expressions, I believe. Somebody smarter that me can probably tell you for sure. :laugh:

After you figure this one out... please tell me the meaning of life. :whip:

if infinity were definable.. then if x = infinity then x -x = 0 would be true... but its not.

 

[QFIT]

without bounds (my definition)

after you figure this one out... Please tell me the meaning of life.

42

 

[daddybo]

42

DAMN.. I keep getting an infinitely smaller number! :laugh:

 

[SleightOfHand]

42

I love you QFIT :laugh:

 

[sagefr0g]

You can't perform arithmetic on infinity. Otherwise you end up with problems like this:

Assume a = x
[add a to both sides] a+a = a+x
[a+a = 2a] 2a = a+x
[subtract 2x from both sides] 2a-2x = a+x-2x
[2a-2x = 2(a-x)] 2(a-x) = a+x-2x
[x-2x = -x] 2(a-x) = a-x
[divide both sides by a-x] 2 = 1

Proof that 2=1. __________________

errhh, what's with the bolded part? :whip:
is that kosher? lol

 

[SleightOfHand]

errhh, what's with the bolded part? :whip:
is that kosher? lol

Looks fine to me. The portion in the brackets is the explanation for the proceeding equation

 

[sagefr0g]

Looks fine to me. The portion in the brackets is the explanation for the proceeding equation

ahh, ok, just mixed up by the way it's written, i guess.:whip:

so but ok, it's not ok to divide by the term (a-x) or (x-a) since that would be the same as dividing by zero.

ok, so that has something to do with the infinity issue?
like maybe infinity isn't defined just as dividing by zero isn't defined?:whip:

 

[assume_R]

ok, so that has something to do with the infinity issue? like maybe infinity isn't defined just as dividing by zero isn't defined?:whip:

Yeah, similar. what qfit ended up with was

2 * 0 = 1 * 0

If you were allowed to divide by 0, you'd get 2/1 = 0/0.

The definition of "dividing by 0" alludes to the idea of infinity, because think of it like this: to divide by .5, you'd have to double it. To divide by .1, you'd have to multiply it by ten, to divide by 0.001, you'd have to multiply it by a thousand. Dividing by 0 is like "multiplying by infinity", and as qfit stated you can't use infinity in arithmetic.


Alternatively, you could have just as easily said:
0 = 0
15 * 0 = 7 * 0
If you were allowed to divide by 0,
15 = 7.

Just pointing out it didn't necessarily have to be "2" and "1"

 

[sagefr0g]

like ok, never did really understand those infinite series stuff but does n in those summations supposedly go to infinity? :whip:

 

[QFIT]

like ok, never did really understand those infinite series stuff but does n in those summations supposedly go to infinity? :whip:

Yes, but infinity is not being used arithmetically in a summation.

 

[sagefr0g]

Yes, but infinity is not being used arithmetically in a summation.

just numbers with out bound sorta thing?

 

[QFIT]

just numbers with out bound sorta thing?

∞ is used as an upper bound in summations, limits and integrals. But, this is generally phrased as "approaching infinity," not infinity.

 

[k_c]

like ok, never did really understand those infinite series stuff but does n in those summations supposedly go to infinity? :whip:

Compute sum[(1/2)^n] (n varies from 1 to infinity)

S    = 	  1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +........+ (1/2)^n
1/2 * S =       1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +........+ (1/2)^n + (1/2)^(n+1)

1/2 * S = 1/2 - (1/2)^(n+1)

S = 1 - (1/2)^n

if n = 1, S = 1/2
if n = 2, S = 3/4
if n = 3, S = 7/8
if n = 4, S = 15/16
.
.
As n approaches infinity, (1/2)^n approaches 0
Limit of S as n approaches infinity = 1

 

[DeathArch]

I use the martingale most of the time but when i walk into the casino I'm in there for fun. It's a do or die method and I know it's flawed but it's fun. However this system will definitely give you something: High Blood Pressure!
Good Luck everyone and Have Fun!

 

[hbguy]

So far I've read only 10 pages of this thread and its been very interesting so far. I've learned a lot from this forum (other threads) and decided to post a reply here now.

With so many so vehemently opposed to the act of doubling up after a loss, or any "progressive" system, I have to wonder if there's anyone here who has actually had any experience trying that method. Is all the bad stuff just theory or hearsay, or have you, or someone you know ever lost your shirt trying to make that method work?

It works for me. Always? No. Usually? Yes.

No different that counting.

Let me explain. First, I've done this for years. I used to go to Tahoe with a four figure amount and usually doubled it. I lost it once with 7 losses in a row. After that, I adjusted my strategy to three losses max...example: $5, $10, then $20 (or $25). If I lose 3 in a row, I start over at $5.

Do I lose 3 in a row? Of course. Do you? Yes. So I tend to accrue some winnings and occasionally lose. There is a win/loss ratio. What is it? It depends on how much I drink and how much fun I have.

Worst case scenario: I lose 5, 10, 20...then another 5, 10, 20, then another. that makes $105 in losses. I put my money where my mouth is that I will more likely be ahead than behind in an hours playing...not always, but more likely than not.

Losses in experience: I usually lose big if I split or double when I shouldn't (i.e. 3rd double or whatever).

It's NOT fool-proof. It can bite you in the end. It's also not for everyone, but I figure I'm above average (per hand) and this helps me in the long run. Yes, long run.

I've read a few books and been playing for years. I'd love to find a better strategy but counting isn't for me (no fun...tried the +1/-1 style and it was enough).

I registered here to make a point: it works for me. It might not for you. We are, after all, talking about gambling. Casino's love our types? Of course. They love counters also...don't fool yourselves. If they don't, they'll tell you (the individual, not a group).

Now that I've got that out of my system, I hope to join you guys in further discussions after I go back to reading the rest of this thread (I'm on page 11) and hopefully you guys will prove me wrong...or better yet, convince me to ditch this strategy. So far, I've clicked on links and read the replies and you guys are all shooting blanks...mainly under the assumption that people intend to play for several hours and eventually lose their 10th double in a row compounded. As I mentioned, I only double 3x and it works fine for me. Not only that, but it makes the game much more enjoyable to know that I don't have to count and I can do as I please (dont follow any "basic strategy strictly as some do).

This thread actually reminds me of the other thread here about comps...a lot of opinions and thoughts, but very little empirical evidence. It also reminds me of the average "serious" player you run into casinos, who seems to think that the randomness of the draw card can be altered by my decision to hit or stay...or worse, the voodoo atmosphere of a playing style.

I'm not defending thunderwalk, but I agree completely that some of you have an irrational and exaggerated animosity to this simple strategy.

 

[rrwoods]

"it works for me" and "convince me not to play this strategy"

The single problem with any progression system is as follows:

Your bets are not correlated with your advantage.

It has nothing to do with streaks or table maxes or running out your bankroll. Simply that you are not betting more when the deck is good and less (or not at all) when it's bad means that your bets are equivalent to random bets from an advantage perspective.

 

[rrwoods]

I use the martingale most of the time but when i walk into the casino I'm in there for fun. It's a do or die method and I know it's flawed but it's fun. However this system will definitely give you something: High Blood Pressure!
Good Luck everyone and Have Fun!

This is the best post in this thread, by far.

 

[Sonny]

...it makes the game much more enjoyable to know that I don't have to count and I can do as I please (dont follow any "basic strategy strictly as some do).

If your goal is to have fun and you find that using a progression system is more fun then by all means continue. As you said, you can do whatever you please with your own money. Just don't proclaim that a player can get a long term advantage when he is not playing or betting intelligently. That is very bad advice.

This thread actually reminds me of the other thread here about comps...a lot of opinions and thoughts, but very little empirical evidence.

If you want evidence (and better still, cold hard proof) then read the sticky threads. They will answer all of your questions and clear up all of your misunderstandings. They were put at the top of the forum with the hope that people would read them before posting anything incorrect or misleading.

-Sonny-