Following articles are worth reading.
Remember , it's just a good support for financial management and probability calculations, use on own risk. Sauna Kiev.

notebook dell batteries store


Martingale

Originally, martingale referred to a class of betting strategies popular in 18th century France. The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins his stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double his bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake. Since a gambler with infinite wealth with probability 1 eventually flips heads, the martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who practiced it. Unfortunately, none of these practitioners in fact possessed infinite wealth (indeed, why would one bet if he possesses infinite wealth?), and the exponential growth of the bets would eventually bankrupt those foolish enough to use the martingale over a long losing streak


Analysis

Suppose that someone applies the martingale betting system at an American roulette table, with 0 and 00 values; a bet on either red or black will win 18 times out of each 38. If the player's initial bankroll is $160 and the betting unit is $10, the player will make a win in approximately 96% of sessions, gaining an average of $4.30 from each winning session. In the remaining 4% of sessions, the player will "bust", exhausting his bankroll, for a loss of $160. It follows then that the average session losses of a gambler employing this strategy are $2.27. Given a larger bankroll, the odds of making a win before running out of cash increase; however, the average winnings grow more slowly than the average losses, so the game remains a losing proposition.

Modern casinos generally have table minimums and maximums to prevent players from doubling their bets more than five or six times, rendering the martingale system obsolete.


Explanation

The betting strategy seems intuitively to work. We think of long streaks as impossible, and they are the only thing that could actually bankrupt the betting party. However, they're not actually impossible, just unlikely. One can easily demonstrate that they are possible enough to keep the balance at the casino.

Let's say that a very large number of people are each gambling $1 on the flip of a coin in their hand. About half will win, and about half will lose, and thus the casino will pull in as much as it puts out. For the next flip, it branches off and half bet $1, half bet $2, in line with the strategy. Remember that previous flips won't affect future flips, so half of the people betting $1 will win and half will lose. Half of the people betting $2 will win and half will lose. The casino will take in as much as it loses, again.

This simply continues to branch out. Half betting $4 win on the next round, half lose. Even out at round 25, when there are people betting $33,554,432 the casino will not become off-balance for winnings and losings, because half of the people betting that much will win and half will lose.

Let's now suppose that the game being played results in 51% losing and 49% winning. This branches in the same way, except the casino will always take in 2% of the total money gambled. Group them by how much they bet, and we find that in each of those categories the casino makes 2%, so in total they will make 2%. Interestingly, the casino would make less money per round if everyone continued to bet $1 each time, instead of increasing the betting pool -- but each individual would play for a greater number of rounds before quitting or going bankrupt. The casino still takes in the same 2% of the total money gambled.




Anti-Martingale

The Anti-Martingale betting strategy is the opposite of the better known Martingale approach. In a classic Martingale betting style, gamblers will increase their bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The Anti-Martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. In this manner, the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing the losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak.

One activity where money management based on an Anti-Martingale approach has a recognized value [1] is speculation and trading. Many markets have some cyclical component to them, and the approach of an individual speculator or trader may only be appropriate for one portion of that cycle. Using an anti-martingale risk management scheme will increase profits during time periods when a trading approach is working well, while automatically decreasing exposure during portions of the cycle where trading is unprofitable. This is believed to decrease the risk of ruin for trading.


d'Alembert gambler's fallacy

The gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy involving the mistaken belief that past events will affect future events when dealing with random activities, such as many gambling games. It can encompass any of the following misconceptions:

  • A random event is more likely to occur because it has not happened for a period of time;

  • A random event is less likely to occur because it has not happened for a period of time;

  • A random event is more likely to occur because it recently happened; and

  • A random event is less likely to occur because it recently happened.

These are common misunderstandings that arise in everyday reasoning about probabilities, many of which have been studied in great detail. Many people lose money while gambling due to their erroneous belief in this fallacy.

Put simply, the chances of something happening the next time are not necessarily related to what has already happened, especially in many gambling games. This is known in probability theory as the memoryless property.


Coin-tossing

The gambler's fallacy can be illustrated by considering the repeated toss of a coin. With a fair coin the chances of getting heads are exactly 0.5 (one in two). The chances of it coming up heads twice in a row are 0.5*0.5=0.25 (one in four). The probability of three heads in a row is 0.5*0.5*0.5= 0.125 (one in eight) and so on.

Now suppose that we have just tossed four heads in a row. A believer in the gambler's fallacy might say, "If the next coin flipped were to come up heads, it would generate a run of five successive heads. The probability of a run of five successive heads is (1 / 2)5 = 1 / 32; therefore, the next coin flipped only has a 1 in 32 chance of coming up heads."

This is the fallacious step in the argument. If the coin is fair, then by definition the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more (or less), and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, never less (or more). While a run of five heads is only 1 in 32 (0.03125), it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they don't count. The probability of five consecutive heads is the same as four successive heads followed by one tails. Tails is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability relied on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result. Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future.

As an example, the popular doubling strategy (start with $1, if you lose, bet $2, then $4 etc., until you win) does not work; see Martingale (betting system). Situations like these are investigated in the mathematical theory of random walks. This and similar strategies either trade many small wins for a few huge losses (as in this case) or vice versa. With an infinite amount of working capital, one would come out ahead using this strategy; as it stands, one is better off betting a constant amount if only because it makes it easier to estimate how much one stands to lose in an hour or day of play.

A joke told among mathematicians demonstrates the nature of the fallacy. When flying on an airplane, a man decides to always bring a bomb with him. "The chances of an airplane having a bomb on it are very small," he reasons, "and certainly the chances of having two are almost none!" - this joke was also written into Blackadder Goes Forth - when Baldrick is carving his name into a bullet, Edmund Blackadder asks why and is told "because if I have the bullet with my name on it, I can't get shot with it!".

Some claim that the gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias produced by a psychological heuristic called the representativeness heuristic.


Oscar's Gring system

The system has the player bet one unit. If he wins, the sequence is over and a new one can be initiated. If the bet is lost, then the next bet will be the same size as the one just lost. Whenever a bet is won, the next stake is one unit larger, unless it causes the bettor to net more than one unit of profit for the sequence. At that point, just enough is wagered to net one unit if the bet wins. A sequence might look like this:

1) Bet 1 unit and lose: -1 unit
2) Bet 1 unit and win: +0 units
3) Bet 1 unit and lose: -1 unit
4) Bet 1 unit and lose: -2 units
5) Bet 1 unit and lose: -3 units
6) Bet 1 unit and win: -2 units
7) Bet 2 units and win: +0 units
8) Bet 1 unit and lose: -1 unit
9) Bet 1 unit and win: +0 units
10) Bet 1 unit and win: +1 unit


The player starts with a loss so his second stake remains at one unit. This bet is won, putting him back to even. Because he is only seeking a one-unit win for the progression, he does not escalate his bet to two units. Bets 3 through 5 are losses so he stays with a one-unit stake. After the sixth bet wins, he now increases his wager to two units. The seventh bet also wins, but again he only needs a one unit bet to win the sequence. The eighth bet loses so the ninth wager is one unit. Finally, the tenth bet wins and our player wins the entire progression. Notice that out of ten total wagers, nine were only one unit in size. This system tends to be more conservative and less volatile. The sequence illustrated above contained five wins and five losses, it;#44;s good in the way that this system does not quickly escalate your losing wagers.



Miller's betting system
(financial management)


If You are still not familiar with J.R.Miller then visit www.professionalgambler.com to know more. In short - Miller is one of the most famous american cappers, i.e. sport gamblers.

So, first of all I'd like to warn you that all the calculations are based on odd 1.91 and the winning % should be not less than 52.38% to make profit. There are many systems (Matingale, Kelly etc.) to get the sum you might put in particular bet, but they're still about making the winning percent higher and not about reaching the loseless poing. So we consider flat-betting (each bet 5% from bank) as the most logical system.

The most unlogical systems proposes to raise or lower bets when you're on a such called "winning/loosing row". That's because if you're on a winning streak, and logicaly will win, then you must bet all the money on such an event , and if you're on a loosing streak then why to put money on a loose. Anyway looseless is much more important that winning/loosing streaks. If your winning percent is about 56% (for odds 1.91) then after making >200 bets 17% of total time you will be winning less that 50% of all bets. In other words even if you win 50% of all then after making 200 bets of 5% each you will be loosing 45% of total bank (200*5%-100*5%*1.91=45%). So, Miller says that bets higher than 2% of total bank will probably lead to financial disaster.

You may wonder how to make profit winning total of 56% bets (this % was mentioned above), but don't forget about finance turnover, i.e. Miller makes 1000 bets a year, 1% from total bank each, in a year it's 1%*1000=1000%. So the bank turns over 10 times. Consider the winning 56%, we have a 7.6$ from every invested 100$. And that's a profit of 76% a year. Let's leave the sum of each bet and the overal amouth of bank for the next article.

And now in general. Miller makes every bet of 1% from initial bank (consider it 10000$) till time it raised on 25%. After that the amouth of money put in a single bet is recalculated according to the the bank sum. So, if initially 1%=100$, after recalculating it will be 12500*1%=125$. Then raising another 25% another recalculation. Such a financial method will make profit of 100% from initial bank if winning percentage = 56%.

Locations of visitors to this page

 

AbsoluteTips.com © 2008

Main page