You've covered most of the key points.Morbius wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:28 amWhat I forgot to mention in the OP and in regards to something that was troubling me was in the difference between a martingale on roulette which because of table limits must lose 100% of the time over time and something that is structurally similar in horseracing where there are factors that make it different.

My problem and what I couldn't figure out was if a loss avoidance system or whatever you want to call it wouldn't lose 100% of the time in the long run like a conventional martingale but would in fact be profitable over time but this time period and the stochastic process left it difficult to see the end of the road when large losses are warping our perception. So bottom line, I was wondering if long sequences of winning races were overcoming the large losses but it took maybe a much longer sample size to prove profitability than many people were allowing for.

Sorry if I am waffling again lol

A martingale staking plan/system will win..a lot of the time, enough times for someone to think it's the holy grail and good times ahead. Many university students have started on this journey of discovery, and found this to be the case...but...

It is only with unbounded wealth, bets and time that it could be argued that the martingale becomes a winning strategy.

It is only with unbounded wealth, bets and time that it could be argued that the martingale becomes a winning strategy.

Assuming the odds of were Evens at all times...(not accounting for the 2.7% house edge)

I was a croupier for a time and there were many occassions the results board on roulette red or black, would show an uninterrupted sequence of reds or blacks, up to 20 in a row! So variance does exist, it has to, within the maths.

Okay, so what if you were finding value, an edge, on a selection process. ie: 6/4 about an Evs money chance. Obviously the chances are better overall, but your comfort zone for loss recovery would still be tested to the max.