|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:29:56 -0500, "gravity" <gravity1@m-net.arbornet.org>
wrote:
i'm glad that the troll knows basic integration. most of us did that crap
in elementary school. he claims i do long division, yet he can't even
handle Peano axioms or basic arithmetic like multiplicative number theory.
I have a bad mind for math. Well, maybe not that bad. I just don't use it
much, so I have never gotten very good at it.
And yet I think of questions sometimes that just scream for math knowledge.
Then I get frustrated. For instance...
Different scenarios for Martingale betting on roulette - that is if you
always bet on black, starting with $25 and doubling up every time you lose
(until you win again, at which point you go back to your initial $25 bet),
you will, on average, net $25 for each round played.
The downside is the table maximum. After enough losses, the bet required
to cover the previous losses will exceed the maximum bet allowed. (Of
course, given an unlimited amount of money, you can always go to a higher
limit table and make the bet. Black's probability is 47.37% so you will
win eventually.)
Any player should be able to sit down at the table and - assuming they
don't hit a string of eight losses - win an average of $25 per round.
But... what if you take a friend and, sharing the same stake, both play the
same system, except you always play black and he always plays red? Playing
from the same pot, every time you win, he loses and vice versa (discounting
pushes). So it wouldn't double the winnings, it would result in breaking
even?
Okay, so what if you always bet black, and double up every time you lose,
while your partner always bets red and doubles up every time he wins?
This seems to be a push also. Every time your bet became very large due to
a string of losses, your partners bet would be equally large because of his
string of wins.
The idea is to make it a push, at least part of the time. When faced with
larger and larger bets, your partner would ease the risk by placing a
counter bet.
I haven't seen a roulette table in nearly five years. But these problems
bother me.
--
HERMIT, n. A person whose vices and follies are not sociable.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
