+ Register

[wannawin]

http://finance.martinsewell.com/money-management/Thorp1969.pdf

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/breiman/breiman.pdf

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/stat596/Kelly.pdf

[AMK]

Thanks for the great info wannawin.


In the first essay Pearson indicates that a person cannot randomly produce/guess the same averages for the appearance of numbers over the course of 1000's of spins as random does.


Or better said, we cannot write down the same random results as a live wheel will produce during at least 1000 spins in my opinion, due to our subconscious biases. There might already be a clear difference after 300 spins?


Perhaps we can apply this to a bet selection.


If we know that we are consistently incorrect 30 or 40% of the time a certain bet might give us an advantage : )

[Ralph]

.


If we know that we are consistently incorrect 30 or 40% of the time a certain bet might give us an advantage : )

To know we are consistently incorrect would be nice, such a "bad" method will win if we reverse it.


Even 30%-40% incorrect is winning.

[Ralph]

I have checked the math and probability for risk of ruin, I do not know how I still can be in the game, as it should be 100% impossible due to the formulas.  It may be some wrong in the formulas, 100% must mean almost sure 100%.

[Max]

Thanks for the info.

Regards
Max

[aafm69]

Thanks...let's take a look.