As I just wrote, given an infinite bankroll and no house limit, you would eventually win at any game, even if the house edge is 95% instead of 5%. Doesn’t matter. Someday (perhaps one billion year later), you will be ahead of 1000 $.
A 100 000 $ limit is still a limit. It doesn’t change a thing re the OP 's question.
Clairobscur and Mathochist
Wow you folks take some postings much too seriously. Couldn’t you tell by the way I phrased that posting that it was incredibly facetious and sarcastic? I thought by using a generous amount of quote marks, I was showing everyone I was NOT in the least bit serious that this was a “sure-fire” system. You should read some of my other postings. I even quoted Dean Martin from Ocean’s 11 - *“The odds are always with the house”. * That is probably the best gambling advice of all.
Also, Clarobscur, did you notice that Mathochist had already “corrected” me on this and I responded that his posting was totally unnecessary because I was not serious?
Wow - the next time I make a less-than-serious posting, I should qualify it with a generous use of disclaimers, as they do in those ads for automobiles or pharmaceuticals.
Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
IMO, there is no statistical difference between a house advantage of 5.26% and 5.56% because anything over 2.00% is a sucker bet. Does that explain my wording to your satisfaction?
I understand math guys needing to nitpick, but I included the correct information, complete with both a cite of the $20 differential and the actual differences in house advantage, in the same paragraph you quoted. (Your main point, about the $20 difference in action, was pointed out in my very next sentence, which you snipped.)
I can only wonder why you felt the need for your “correction.”
EllisDee
I agree with you 100% about being “corrected” by someone who has not read a person’s entire posting (OR has not read later postings that refer to those “corrections”). You may have noticed I have also had similar experiences in this very thread.
- I NEVER said it did change anything about the OP’s question.
- Who cares if a $100,000 limit is still a limit? The point of my post was to point out that you could take the proposed Martingale a few steps further (yes, it still remains a losing proposition - a stance I haven’t wavered from in this thread you haven’t read).
- Read all the posts in a thread before you respond next time.
I’m being pedantic about the term “statistically indistinguishable” because though you may know what you’re talking about, I guarantee there are many who don’t, and will take your statement at face value. “Statistically indistinguishable” is a much tighter relation than the one you’re indicating, and letting it go just spreads ignorance about statistics.
That is probably true. You’re the expert. But to us non-mathematicians/statisticians, we understood the comment to mean “indistinguishable for all practical purposes.”
And then someone uses the term accurately and the common interpretation is weakened by misuse. Sloppy thinking is the first circle of ignorance hell, and last I checked there was still this banner up at the top of the screen…
No. At least, it’s not always the case. Consider the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8… While it is an infinite sum, it has a finite limit. So, even though you always have a non-zero chance of getting to +$1000, the fact that you are getting farther and farther away means that it could quite well mean there is only a finite possibility that you will reach +$1000 and it is not guarenteed.