Gambler's Fallacy again, looking for a succinct explanation of a variant of Martingale

[Big Bad Barney]

Surely a martingale would work if you roll it enough times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Could you argue that the closer you get to whatever that large number is...something different happens?
What about instances where the coin flip DOES have a memory? I.e. Non-determinism, freewill or quantum something or other
What if there is a bias towards brown horses amongst foolish punters with lots of money? A martingales would work in ones favour instead of the house in that instance?

[Tuco]

if you did implement this strategy, how are you going to decide which horse to bet on?

Out of a hat? Pin the donkey tail? Back the rank outsider? or are you going to 'place it on Lucky Dan' for the win?

[Crazyskier]

Martingale is for evens chances / 50:50 or as close to as possible, so European Roulette with La Partage rules where you receive half your evens bets returned on a zero.

CS

[silentdiver]

if you did implement this strategy, how are you going to decide which horse to bet on?

Out of a hat? Pin the donkey tail? Back the rank outsider? or are you going to 'place it on Lucky Dan' for the win?

The thread is purely about the staking plan and the fallacy as related to the flawed 'wait until X blacks/losses....' concept, not selection; so I'd prefer to keep it to that.

Since you ask though, in the absence of a sufficiently long pin, same as the others - whatever race is coming up next is included/excluded (and the stake, if included) determined according to a set of rules and on-the-fly plus pre-generated analysis - that's where I gather one might look for edges, I'm a relative beginner to all this, but that seems to be the best approach.

That's where I'm trying to lean my friend towards, rather than more convoluted versions of the same flawed concept of upping the stakes and relying on the win that's 'due soon'.

To be revised when materials technology allows a pin long enough that doesn't bend so badly

[silentdiver]

Martingale is for evens chances / 50:50 or as close to as possible, so European Roulette with La Partage rules where you receive half your evens bets returned on a zero.

CS

Thanks yes, from what I've read here and elsewhere the only non-sure-disaster-in-the-end application of Martingale is where the chances are it'll be a short series; either by reality insisting on it (not the case with horses or roulette of course, but with say, drawing from a deck of cards and not replacing, betting on a court card coming up having an absolute maximum of 40 losses in a row and a very small likelyhood of anywhere near that) and/or a hard limit that accepts the loss at a certain point and stops chasing it.

So for horses, aye, a win rate that isn't too small, with an absolute limit on total exposure; along with an acceptance that it will hit that limit a lot more than you'd probably think it should, or like it to !

[silentdiver]

What about instances where the coin flip DOES have a memory?

Sure, in another reply I suggested an example of drawing cards from a deck, not replacing and betting on a court card coming up. That'd be a case where you could calculate your increasing stake to suit your bankroll and know damn well that by card #41 you'd get the win and recoup all your losses (jokers and the bridge card aside, anyway !) - can't see anyone offering that deal though - or not without say, a limit on the number of cards you were allowed to draw before putting the discards back and shuffling the deck.

[jamesedwards]

What about instances where the coin flip DOES have a memory?

Sure, in another reply I suggested an example of drawing cards from a deck, not replacing and betting on a court card coming up. That'd be a case where you could calculate your increasing stake to suit your bankroll and know damn well that by card #41 you'd get the win and recoup all your losses (jokers and the bridge card aside, anyway !) - can't see anyone offering that deal though - or not without say, a limit on the number of cards you were allowed to draw before putting the discards back and shuffling the deck.

You wouldn't get any odds on the final pick because drawing a court card would be certain on card #41

[silentdiver]

You wouldn't get any odds on the final pick because drawing a court card would be certain on card #41

That's exactly what I meant by "unlikely to find anyone offering that deal"

I was giving a theoretical example of a series of bets where there's a fixed endpoint enforced by reality, where the win really is 'due soon' (unlike horse racing/roulette etc); so if a casino were mad enough to offer that game without limits you could calculate a 'perfect martingale' where you'd be guaranteed to win even in the eventuality that you reached pick #40 and turned over the last numbered card leaving all the court cards in the deck, your last stake on pick #41, assuming your stakes were correct, would win back your entire exposure so far plus whatever profit you calculated in just as your pockets became empty.