So I don’t gamble, and don’t ever indend to make it a habit.
But a friend told me to play roulette, and I would have a ~47% chance of doubling my money and , as long as I had enough money to keep doubling my stake, would have a ~95% break even if I kept going until I won and never played again.
So say I had $200k in the bank and always put my money on red
Spin 1 : $5K
Spin 2: $10K
Spin 3: $20K
Spin 4: $40k
Spin 5: $80K
Spin 6: $160k
In this scenario, I’d have a ~47% chance of winning $5k, and just a 2% chance of losing $160k?
EDIT: Although just working this out, I think I would probably put the 160k into a 4% savings account if I had it, or start off way smaller amounts e.g. $500 to reduce my chane of losing money significantly lol.
In: 8
I tried this on blackjack and did really well until i lost 9 times in a row and lost everything.
Because that’s not fun. And if you’re not gambling to have fun, you’re doing it wrong. The *only* way to look at a night out in the casino is to decide how much money you’d like to spend to have a night of fun in the casino. That’s it. If you want to have $200 worth of fun….then you’ll probably have to find a low min place.
Let’s assume you can make all those bets. Let’s look at the expected value:
First off: with $200K, you can only make 5 bets: having already bet $155K at that point, you only have $45K.
Over 5 bets, you have a (53%)^(5) chance of losing everything: about a 4% chance of losing $155K – an expected loss of $6.4K. Over the same 5 bets, your ~96% chance of winning $5K is less than that – so, on average, you will lose.
And that’s the problem of the “Martingale System” – it stops working as soon as you run out of money. In theory, if you have an infinite amount of money and time, and no limits to how much you can bet, it works – but in practice, there is a negative expected value and you will run out of money eventually.
There are some really good answers on this thread, but there’s a really simple way to look at it. You and the casino are playing the same game. If you have a 47% chance of winning, they have a 53% chance. Additionally, they have more money than you do. With better odds and more money in the bank, the house will always win in the long run
Let’s assume you can make all those bets. Let’s look at the expected value:
First off: with $200K, you can only make 5 bets: having already bet $155K at that point, you only have $45K.
Over 5 bets, you have a (53%)^(5) chance of losing everything: about a 4% chance of losing $155K – an expected loss of $6.4K. Over the same 5 bets, your ~96% chance of winning $5K is less than that – so, on average, you will lose.
And that’s the problem of the “Martingale System” – it stops working as soon as you run out of money. In theory, if you have an infinite amount of money and time, and no limits to how much you can bet, it works – but in practice, there is a negative expected value and you will run out of money eventually.
Because that’s not fun. And if you’re not gambling to have fun, you’re doing it wrong. The *only* way to look at a night out in the casino is to decide how much money you’d like to spend to have a night of fun in the casino. That’s it. If you want to have $200 worth of fun….then you’ll probably have to find a low min place.
You’re not doubling your money. You need to have the highest amount to start with. So that’s the amount of money that count.
If you’re betting $500 and have $500k. You’re risking $500k, and your best hope is to gain $500. You’re much more likely to get the $500 than to lose the $500k, but you’re expectancy is still to lose money because $500k times the probability to lose it is higher than the $500 times the probability to win it.
Also, you’re trying to get an amount of money that is negligible for you. You need to be extremely rich to be allowed to risk $500k, so the $500 you’re likely to win is basically nothing to you.
It’s like an inverted lottery, though the expectation is not inverted. You’re almost sure to win rather than almost sure to lose, but what you win is negligible rather than life changing. Like the lottery, though, you still have a negative expected gain.
You’re better off investing that $500k. You’re expected to do a few percent if you invest it in bonds (the exact expectation depends on the interest rate) and about 8% if you invest it in stocks though it’s likely to go down in the short time.
You’re not doubling your money. You need to have the highest amount to start with. So that’s the amount of money that count.
If you’re betting $500 and have $500k. You’re risking $500k, and your best hope is to gain $500. You’re much more likely to get the $500 than to lose the $500k, but you’re expectancy is still to lose money because $500k times the probability to lose it is higher than the $500 times the probability to win it.
Also, you’re trying to get an amount of money that is negligible for you. You need to be extremely rich to be allowed to risk $500k, so the $500 you’re likely to win is basically nothing to you.
It’s like an inverted lottery, though the expectation is not inverted. You’re almost sure to win rather than almost sure to lose, but what you win is negligible rather than life changing. Like the lottery, though, you still have a negative expected gain.
You’re better off investing that $500k. You’re expected to do a few percent if you invest it in bonds (the exact expectation depends on the interest rate) and about 8% if you invest it in stocks though it’s likely to go down in the short time.
I think most people have covered why this is not a sure thing. But I’m surprised no one has brought up the [Monte Carlo (or Gambler’s Fallacy)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Monte_Carlo_Casino) (or maybe I missed it somewhere in the comments).
I think most people have covered why this is not a sure thing. But I’m surprised no one has brought up the [Monte Carlo (or Gambler’s Fallacy)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy#Monte_Carlo_Casino) (or maybe I missed it somewhere in the comments).
Latest Answers