Quote:RSThis one's got some potential. Spunky, I like that.

Martingale is break-even because it is being applied to a game with 0% house edge. It is not the system that determines the EV, it's the HE that determines the EV. Some systems will just experience more variance than others (ie: a 1-10-100-1000-10000 player will feel some variance, while the 1-1-1-1-1-1 bettor will feel very little variance).

Spunky, spoken like someone with control of the reigns, someone who doesn't know that, that's a dangerous position to be in, no? You know, like, the loftier the dream, the deeper the crater, Caesar and all :)

So, you showed the 1-10-100-1000-10000, shows a lot of variance, you also showed flat betting, kinda missed the D'alembert, though. How's that do on 0% house edge?

Sorry, so you can understand, the worse the system, the worse the EV. If I bet 1-10000-1000000-100000000-1000000000, that's worse than a marty, what if I bet a much better system, say a D'alembert, 1-2-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-2-1-2-3-2-1, How did I do there? Better system, better results, right.

But, for the 5th time, I'm just looking for a mathematical equation for the EV on the D'Alembert, that's all. If you've got one please feel free to share it, if you don't think one can ever be calculated, feel free to share that as well.

Have you found a game that has a 50/50?Quote:JyBrd0403The D'Alembert is the "Edge" on a 50/50,

does this helphttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/dAlembertsSolution.html

Quote:AxelWolfHave you found a game that has a 50/50?

Sure, a coin flip, why? You trying to make money on a coin flip? I used to know a guy... What's this got to do with a mathematical equation for the EV on A D'Alembert?

Quote:JyBrd0403Spunky, spoken like someone with control of the reigns, someone who doesn't know that, that's a dangerous position to be in, no? You know, like, the loftier the dream, the deeper the crater, Caesar and all :)

So, you showed the 1-10-100-1000-10000, shows a lot of variance, you also showed flat betting, kinda missed the D'alembert, though. How's that do on 0% house edge?

Sorry, so you can understand, the worse the system, the worse the EV. If I bet 1-10000-1000000-100000000-1000000000, that's worse than a marty, what if I bet a much better system, say a D'alembert, 1-2-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-2-1-2-3-2-1, How did I do there? Better system, better results, right.

But, for the 5th time, I'm just looking for a mathematical equation for the EV on the D'Alembert, that's all. If you've got one please feel free to share it, if you don't think one can ever be calculated, feel free to share that as well.

Total action / rounds = average bet

(1+2+3+4+3+4+3+4+3+2+1+2+3+2+1)/15 = 2.533

EV = average bet * edge

EV = 2.5333 * 0.00

EV = 0.0

Would you like to show me a another example? As many times as I've tried, I've never been able to multiply a number by 0 and get anything other than 0.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL What now? Lest add a W then LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL................Quote:JyBrd0403wLwLWLWL

wwLLWWLL

wwwwLLLL

wwwwWWWW

LWLWLWLL

LLWWLLWL

LLLLWWWW

LLLL L L L L

That's the possible outcomes for 4 in a row. That's 64 trials, 32 wins/32 losses. How's the D'Alembert doing there, is it winning? How about the Marty, breaking about even? That's the "proof" that the D'Alembert beat a 50/50 game. You can do that for how ever many trials you want. D'Alembert still wins, Marty still breaks even. Or you can look at another thread where someone did a simulation for a million trials.

But, again, I'm just looking for a mathematical formula for the EV on the D'alembert. Not even sure if one exists at this point.

Quote:RSTotal action / rounds = average bet

(1+2+3+4+3+4+3+4+3+2+1+2+3+2+1)/15 = 2.533

EV = average bet * edge

EV = 2.5333 * 0.00

EV = 0.0

Would you like to show me a another example? As many times as I've tried, I've never been able to multiply a number by 0 and get anything other than 0.

Kiddo, what I've been trying to tell you, and if one of these math gods attempts the EV for the D'Alembert ,will explain to you, is that average bet * edge, is complete and utter nonsense. Sorry, you've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, etc. You're missing all the complexities of mathematical probabilities, like, if I lose 1 then bet 2 and win, I just won 1 unit, as opposed to average bet of 3*0=0. I'm kinda looking for the formula that cannot be unproven within the first 10 seconds, if that helps any.

?Quote:AxelWolfLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL What now? Lest add a W then LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL................

Quote:AxelWolf?

Not sure what you're going for here, but is this a fair game? or do you need to buy a revolver? Losing 25 in a row, followed by a win and then losing 25 in a row again, think you're getting cheated, if not, no worries, you'll win 25 in a row and lose 1 then win 25 in a row again in pretty short order. Making the D'alembert a winner again.

what about 30 losses in a row?Quote:JyBrd0403Not sure what you're going for here, but is this a fair game? or do you need to buy a revolver? Losing 25 in a row, followed by a win and then losing 25 in a row again, think you're getting cheated, if not, no worries, you'll win 25 in a row and lose 1 then win 25 in a row again in pretty short order. Making the D'alembert a winner again.