Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Betting Systems?
Options
Comments
-
I multi-quoted a few posts, to highlight some of the more glaring errors.
Gonna highlight some of your own, so no bother.Matamathic tells us that its very very unlikely that a coin will continue to land on heads (or tells) for a long period.
Observation backs this us.
Eh, yes but that does not contradict what I said whatsoever.Your assumption that because is not impossible that it should happen is a bit bizarre.
That is NOT my assumption at all and I see you have done this quite a bit throughout my post.The mathematical odds of it happening show that it is highly improbable.
That's correct.Observation would agree with this.
Again, correct.I have no idea what sort of point you are trying to make here.
Evidently.If you were to take a large enough sample of lottery draws, I can guarantee that the same set of numbers would come out two draws in a row.
Look, even if you could find one example, in one country at some point in time where that event occurred - you are missing the point.
The odds of it happening (mathematically) are the same as any other six numbers coming out that week and yet it never (or rarely) does, if that point is lost on you, not much else I can say to be honest.It inevitiable, but the same needed would be quite large.
Exactly.In blackjack the odds are dynamic. From the shuffle they are easily quantified and could be considered known. As is the houses edge. As the odds change, counting cards tracks these changes (if done correctly/accurately). Because the payouts don't vary, at certain points, the player gains an edge over the house due to these changes.
Just want to cottect what you said. It's not an effort to do anything.
You didn't correct anything but just changed my word "fixed" to "dynamic".Here is that assumption again. That because something is not impossible that it will happen.
Here is this accusation again.I hoenstly have no idea how a sane person would even suggest that notion.
This is ludicrous at this stage.
You are suggesting I am 'Insane' here - quite unbelievable.It's incredibably unlikely that it would happen, this is no way "proves" you right.
Of course it proves I am right.
The very notion that people such as yourself hold onto, that makes a joke of using the law averages as a tool in Gambling and you can't find one example in the world that would blow it out of the water.Nobody who disagreed with you suggested the above would happen.
Of course they are, by suggesting there is no advantage using the Martingale after a sequence of 10 TAILS or Ten BLACKS, that is exactly what they are doing.
There whole point of their argument and yours I presume, is that there is no guarantee that HEADS or RED will ever come up and it makes no difference at which point the system executed.
If you could show examples when 40 REDS or 40 TAILS is common enough in experiments, then you would have proven the Martingale an illogical system and that the law of averages as having no place when it comes to 50/50 betting opportunities.Matamatical probability and "likeihood" are identical.
Look, mathematics does not have exclusivity over the word "likelihood", I have already stopped using the word 'probability', give me a break at this stage, you know my point.
If I used the word 'Chance', I would get the same nonsense.In closed systems like flipping coins and roulette it is very easy to put a figure on the likeihood. If the game is "fair" the likeihood exactly matches this figure.
Which word would you like me to use instead of probability / likelihood / chance - so that it can be differentiated from implying mathematical probability from this point on?
Either give me one, or stop being pedantic and take my point when I use the the word.Why are you why are you making this statement as some sort of "however". Are you trying to suggest this is some sort of proof?
It proves the phenomena of the law of averages, yes.Yes it is inevitable that heads is on the way soon. What are you suggestion that this proves??
The law of large numbers.After 5 in a row, there is a 50% chance it will end on the next spin, after 10 in a row there is a 50% chance it will end on the next spin. The chances of heads coming along soon are never going to changes.
Yes, as I have said on the thread all along, thank you for agreeing with me.There is no advantage to starting your bets after zero, 5 or 10 in a row. At no point does the likeihood (matamathical or otherwise) change and therefore it makes no difference to your bet. It is just as likely to win as before.
So you do agree there is an "otherwise" when using that word, so why nit-pick on it's use?Again, why are you even mentioning that? We know is unlikely to happen. the chances are so small* that is pretty safe to say its never going to happen unless somebody repeated it ad nauseum for the sole purpose of making it happen.
WHY am I pointing out that sequences rarely happen in coin tossing, are you serious?*It's about 1 in 18,024,780,783 to happen.
Aye, slim chance right?How are you confusing the chances of it happening a single draw with the compounded chances of it happening over a series of draws.
I am not, that is your reading of it.Yes it is inevitable as there are only 10 balls. But this in no way proves, or even suggests that the odds are increasing.
I never said the "odds" where changing, it is precislly because the odds don't change that makes it a good bet for the Martingale.Each time there is a 10% chances that it will come out, or 90% that it won't. If you keep repeating the draw, it will eventually come out, as the chances that it will continue to not get picked are infinitesimal.
Precisely.What I find lauhable is that you regard this as likeihood increasing. Its not, you are simply takign a bigger sample. It's more likely to come out over 10 draws than 2 draws, this is obvious.
You just contradicted yourself there
But the chances on any individual draw don't change.
Who said they did?
Not once have I suggested on this thread that the odds change on an individual draw, quite the contrary - I have made it very clear that I don't, despite the straw man tactics.Even after 9 misses, the tenth draw isn't more likely to be a winner.
I know, in fact I have said made this point myself, have you read this thread from the start?Mathemathics suggests that its so unlikely to happen that it probably never will. Observation suggests mathematic is right.
I never said Mathematics showed it anything other than "unlikely", why are you suggesting I did?
What I said was, that mathimathics showed it "theoretically" possible, which is another way of saying: 'unlikely' is it not.
You seem to be going to great pains to try and disagree with me here, when there is no obvious need.One individual ball will come out, eventually, as adding up all the chances that it comes out will obviously get bigger and bigger.
Yes.This is not the same as the chances of it increasing on a single draw.
When did I say the "odds" would change on a "single draw"??
The Martingale doesn't work on single draws or for single bets.I have no idea how you would even think that?
I have no idea why you would think I think that.0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »I use the martingale system from time to time, it is foolproof - that is a fact.
The key to the system, is to find something that either A or B will happen, and never happens for ten times in a row or more.
0 -
ArmaniJeanss wrote: »Israeli Lotto, same numbers in reverse order 3 weeks later.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/1018/1224281341526.html.
Four Trillion to One shot and the 125 winners, I'd be pissedGif
More gifs eh, why not try and debate me and tell me why I am wrong.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
We toss a coin and it comes heads 5 times in a row.
Simple question: At this stage, what odds would you give me on a 6th head?
Are you honestly asking me this question?
Read the thread ..OutlawPete wrote: »It is ALWAYS 50/50 because there are only two possible outcomes!OutlawPete wrote: »Look, we are ALWAYS at 50/50, please stop suggesting that what I am saying goes against the mathematical odds.OutlawPete wrote: »You keep on saying that we are "back at 50/50".
We are ALWAYS at 50/50.OutlawPete wrote: »Flipping a coin is ALWAYS 50/50.OutlawPete wrote: »You AGAIN are referring to a SINGLE flip.
I have consistently said that a single flip will ALWAYS be a 50/50 chance.0 -
OutlawPete wrote: »Are you honestly asking me this question?
Read all these pointless quotes of mine
Yet you still want to offer me way more than 21/1 on a fourth winning box?0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Obviously, the longer time passes, the more 'chance' that you will have of your numbers coming up.
OK I think I see what you are trying to say...OutlawPete wrote: »The mathematical 'probability' of the numbers coming out does not change but the likelihood / probable / chance of them coming out is increasing.
Again, I am using a word now that will be picked apart and asked if that means that someone doing six numbers for the first time has less chance than you, just because it's their first time using those numbers
Let's say there are only ten balls in the Lotto and you had just one number (7) and each week one number was drawn out.
Ten weeks go by and 7 is not the number -well, the more weeks that go by, the chances of 7 coming out increase as far as I am concerned, eventually it will come out - it's inevitable.
Mathematicians will tell us that no number is more likely to come out than another, and they would be correct.
However, over a period of time the chances that 7 will come out are increasing and as time passes - the more those chances increase.
So you and I are sitting in a cafe. I say to you "What are the odds of this coin coming up heads?"
You say "50/50... exactly 50%".
I say "OK what are the odds I'll flip five heads in a row, and they are all heads?"
You say "Thats 0.5 to the power of 5.. about 30 to 1."
I say "What are the chances I'll keep flipping it for another five spins after that and it'll come up heads every time again?"
You say "That's pretty damn unlikely. You are asking about the odds of it being flipped heads TEN TIMES in a row. That's like 1000 to 1."
I say "No I'm saying.... what if I've already been flipping it before you arrived and it has come up 5 heads. That's in the past. I'm asking what are the odds that it'll hit ANOTHER 5 heads in the next 5 flips."
You say "Still 1000 to 1"
I think this is where the confusion is.
I believe you are mixing up the odds of the total sequence of events happening versus the chance of the future sequence of events happening.
In the lotto example: the odds of it coming up 2.3.9.25.33.38 next week are 10 million to 1 (or whatever). The odds of it coming up 2.3.9.25.33.38 in the next two draws is 100 trillion to one (10m x 10m).
However what if I tell you that 2.3.9.25.33.38 came up last week... does that make it more or less likely this week? Answer = no change.
You are looking at the two unlikely events together, whereas in reality one of them has already happened.0 -
OutlawPete wrote: »Yes, because I understand the law of averages.
The fact that you would still take 21/1 on a player picking the £250,000 for the 4th time in a row is quite frankly, laughable.
I think that you are, quite frankly, laughable.
0 -
OutlawPete wrote: »Yes, because I understand the law of averages.
The fact that you would still take 21/1 on a player picking the £250,000 for the 4th time in a row is quite frankly, laughable.
on his 4th attempt to pick the 250k box from the 21 boxes, his chances are the exact same as previous its still 1 box from 21,
this is the exact same as your coin toss argument which you agree except replace the 21 choices with 2 choices.
Now if the odds would dramatically change if the choices were dependent on each other,
i presume it would be 21x21x21x21 = 194,481/10 -
Advertisement
-
on his 4th attempt to pick the 250k box from the 21 boxes, his chances are the exact same as previous its still 1 box from 21.
The mathematical odds of him doing so are the same.
Life however tells us that the 'chances' of him doing so are very remote.
It was remote of them to pick the box three times in a row, a third would be even more remote.
Bet ya Paddy Power would have a special on it and do better than the 21/1
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement