Just getting a few opinions would be great as well. 

We all know that you will get twice as many singles as repeats and so forth....

So my question is the following.

Let's say you are playing a martingale. {1 2 4 8} Are you subject to the same negative expectancy on every bet?

"We all know that you will get twice as many singles as repeats and so forth...."

Bally

So you'll get twice as many

R
  B

as you do

R
R

If that's not right, please spell it out for me.

Sam

 
You will see twice as many singles as doubles.

Twice as many doubles as triples.

Twice as many triples as four timers etc...

A single is 1/1.

A double (parlay) is 3/1.

A triple is 7/1.

A four timer is 15/1.

Bally

Is this what you call a single:

R
R
  B

Bear with me......

Sam

A single could be either RED or BLACK.

If I decide to bet BLACK.. the odds are 1/1. Same as if I decide to bet RED.

Going for any double... RED BLACK, BLACK RED, RED RED, or BLACK BLACK is 3/1.

So I am twice as likely to get my single bet up as I am getting the double.

Bally

I have spent hours studying this and even had KonFuSed help me on it.  Don't know if you knew of him, but he was quite the math guy!  I don't want to appear to be a "math guy" because I'm certainly not.  However, I can regurgitate what I learned from him.

If you'd like me to continue, I will.  If not, I'll let it go.

And Thanks...

Sam

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 09:01:33 PM

You will see twice as many singles as doubles.

Twice as many doubles as triples.

Twice as many triples as four timers etc...

A single is 1/1.

A double (parlay) is 3/1.

A triple is 7/1.

A four timer is 15/1.

Bally in theory YES. In real play. it depends when you enter the cycle. You might see 10 doubles and no singles. You might see RRR-BBB-RRR-BBB-RRR And no doubles. Random is awesome it can form all manner of runs and patterns.

Sam

I am just trying to get my head around a few things and would appreciate any input!

Here is the thing.....

Singles are twice as likely as doubles and doubles are twice as likely as triples etc...

That to me also means that we can go in reverse. A second loss is half as likely as an isolated loss and so on....


This is where my negative expectation question comes into things.

The NE supposedly stays the same on every round. HOWEVER my chances of winning are increasing if a second loss is half as likely as the first loss and so on.

Maybe I am completely confusing myself 

Bally

You can never have a true single.  It must be

R
R
  B

or

R
  B

or

  B
R
  B

You can say......I just hit B and that was a loss, so my chances of losing twice are less.  Only if you made that statement before the first B hit.  After that B hit, it's a whole new world.


What are the chances of hitting B B when you first place a bet?  25% VS 75% for red.  It appears after the first B, you have a greater chance of getting another B.  Not so.  Now you chance is 50/50, just as it always is.

That s the way konFuSed explained it--more or less.

Sam

(It may be I don't understand you.  The above is pretty elementary.  You probably know it already)

You get as many singles as series.

As for the probability it stays the same no matter past spins. 1/2.
Even Chances have a Linear Expectation: the sum of the probabilities of each independent trial.
For two trials the expected success is 1/2 + 1/2 = 1
3 trials = 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.5
4 trials = 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 = 2
....
As you see it is linear and so why the amount of Singles = amount of Series
amount of series of two = 2x amount of series of 3 = 2x amount of series of 4 .....
...
So in 2 trials you may expect 1 Win, but at the fourth trial you may expect 2 Wins, the ratio stays the same, it is Linear. =)

---

The number n of trials for the expected number of Wins to be 1 is
n = 1/p
This is also the expected number of trials before we see the first Win.

---

Expect a Loss after a Win or Vice versa is a very common pitfall of Gambler's Fallacy.

Hope this helps.

---

One nice thing you can observe in a binary random distribution is that you can only detect 3 different states.


RR BB Series of Series
RR B R BB Series of Singles
BB R BB Isolated Single / Isolated Series (hovering state)


Cheers

If there was no zero, the probability of getting one or more hits in three trials would be 87,5 %


We can devise a simple flat bet exercise.
Having a Series of 3 or more as trigger to bet on the opposite outcome, we stop on at +1, 0, -1 or -3
Seems a disavantage...
Below attached are sessions from Random.org  (1000 outcomes), one a day.
Surprised on how well it goes...


Example of LW registry:

Random.org 17/01
WLWLWWWLLWLWLWWWLWWLWWWLLWWLWWWWLLWWLWWLLWLLWLLWWLLL
WWWWWWWLLWLWWWLLWWWLLWLLWWLWLWWWLLL
LWLWLLWWLLWLWWWLWLWLWLWLLL
WWLWLWWWLWLLL
LLWLWLLL
LLWWLWLLL
LLL
WWWWWWLWWWWWWWLLL
LWWLWLWWLWWWLWWLWWWWWWWLWLWLWWLLWLLL
LWLLWLLWWWLLWWWLWWWLWLWWWWLLL
LLWLLLWWLLLWWLWWLLWLLL
WLLL
W
+16 UNITS

---

15.01 -10
16.01 +7
17.01 +16
18.01 +6
19.01 +18

Quote from: Bally6354 on January 18, 2013, 09:44:59 PM
Sam

I am just trying to get my head around a few things and would appreciate any input!

Here is the thing.....

Singles are twice as likely as doubles and doubles are twice as likely as triples etc...

That to me also means that we can go in reverse. A second loss is half as likely as an isolated loss and so on....


This is where my negative expectation question comes into things.

The NE supposedly stays the same on every round. HOWEVER my chances of winning are increasing if a second loss is half as likely as the first loss and so on.

Maybe I am completely confusing myself 

Chance to get same EC in next bet and to change with opposite is equal. So, RB is as likely to appear as RR is or BB is. Gambling on roulette or any similar gambling runs on the principal of chaos or randomness and not strictly on probability. Probability theories hold good in long run only. For instance, chance to get 7 reds in a row is very remote in a 185 spins session but you may get that not just once but many times in 185 spins. However, if you see the same thing with its mathematical probability in say 1 million spins, it would be very close to  that.

Those who are too much obsessed with probability or mathematics starts playing a sleeper EC after certain losses and end up one's bankroll with martingale.

Quote from: albalaha on January 19, 2013, 08:33:46 AM
Those who are too much obsessed with probability or mathematics starts playing a sleeper EC after certain losses and end up one's bankroll with martingale.

Those who are too much obsessed with probability or mathematics WILL NEVER USE A MARTINGALE PROGRESSION!

MG, I agree. If you're "obsessed" with probability or mathematics (and understand it) it means you WON'T use a Martingale.