Hey Bud .. I saw what you wrote in Supereagles thread about Martingale being destined to always lose, and generally I agree ..I am just curious if you think a martingale is equally likely to lose when it is based on conclusive previous data .(i.e my college football 6 game chase that has only lost once in 29 years, and over 3400 chases).. I would think the probability of losing this chase is much less than losing when you are chasing based on picks that are hitting at less than 50% ...agree ?..thanks
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Hey Bud .. I saw what you wrote in Supereagles thread about Martingale being destined to always lose, and generally I agree ..I am just curious if you think a martingale is equally likely to lose when it is based on conclusive previous data .(i.e my college football 6 game chase that has only lost once in 29 years, and over 3400 chases).. I would think the probability of losing this chase is much less than losing when you are chasing based on picks that are hitting at less than 50% ...agree ?..thanks
I tried to make my explanation 'general' so I simply used straight plays at the industry standard (-105)... These would be 'pick ems' or 'spread' type plays but it literally has NO bearing on how well you actually pick (like Michael550 has stated). For example, if you can magically pick 70% then the numbers I have provided in the other thread won't seem true because you're betting above the norm, but they are still in fact true; you're just avoiding the bust through what we call 'luck' (cappers might call it skill). Furthermore, if you take only heavy favourites (-110, -150, -200, etc.) then those numbers won't seem true because it's easier to get that one win out of seven using heavy favourites, but you simply won't make enough money in the long run.
BUT, if you always make straight/level/even/pick'em plays -- then those numbers are not only are true, but seem true as well. Is it possible to go 250 bets without a loss? Of course! But there is always still a 90% chance that you bust... and also note that this equation is an asymptote so it approaches zero but never actually reaches it so you'll always have a chance (albeit small) to beat the probability of busting, it just becomes much less likely the longer you play.
All that gibberish up there is to say that michael550 is wrong and that the probability of busting has nothing to do with how well you are picking. Because like I've said before, the past does NOT predict the future and someone betting at a 70% clip is still just getting lucky, even if it's been like that for years. <--- I know that may seem hard to understand but the odds of losing is always the same and it's NEVER in the player's favour -- so any winnings is simply due to luck since it literally goes against probability theory.
So to answer your question, yes, the martingale is equally likely to lose even if it is based on 29 years of conclusive previous data.
0
I tried to make my explanation 'general' so I simply used straight plays at the industry standard (-105)... These would be 'pick ems' or 'spread' type plays but it literally has NO bearing on how well you actually pick (like Michael550 has stated). For example, if you can magically pick 70% then the numbers I have provided in the other thread won't seem true because you're betting above the norm, but they are still in fact true; you're just avoiding the bust through what we call 'luck' (cappers might call it skill). Furthermore, if you take only heavy favourites (-110, -150, -200, etc.) then those numbers won't seem true because it's easier to get that one win out of seven using heavy favourites, but you simply won't make enough money in the long run.
BUT, if you always make straight/level/even/pick'em plays -- then those numbers are not only are true, but seem true as well. Is it possible to go 250 bets without a loss? Of course! But there is always still a 90% chance that you bust... and also note that this equation is an asymptote so it approaches zero but never actually reaches it so you'll always have a chance (albeit small) to beat the probability of busting, it just becomes much less likely the longer you play.
All that gibberish up there is to say that michael550 is wrong and that the probability of busting has nothing to do with how well you are picking. Because like I've said before, the past does NOT predict the future and someone betting at a 70% clip is still just getting lucky, even if it's been like that for years. <--- I know that may seem hard to understand but the odds of losing is always the same and it's NEVER in the player's favour -- so any winnings is simply due to luck since it literally goes against probability theory.
So to answer your question, yes, the martingale is equally likely to lose even if it is based on 29 years of conclusive previous data.
Hot Forum Topics
