Wow, if that breakdown didn't do it for you then I doubt anything will... you honestly may just have to find out for yourselfsilentdiver wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2026 1:31 pmThanks to all who replied where I've not responded individually; not sure I've found the killer argument yet
It's not about doing it for me, it's about persuading my partner that it's not worth me wasting time implementing another variant of martingale, and not worth him wasting his time playing with it.
Fire himsilentdiver wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 11:58 amMy partner's strengths are as a businessman, and he's mighty successful at that; but he's not a maths guy at all, so while he is great at doing all sorts of things that I would find impossible, he finds it hard to grasp (or perhaps grok is the better word) that the win really isn't 'due', or that adding theoretical trickery along the way won't make it due any sooner.
Code: Select all
using System;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("--- Martingale Simulation ---");
Console.Write("Enter house edge (e.g. 0.02 for 2%): ");
double houseEdge = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write("Enter number of simulations: ");
int simulations = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write("Enter table limit (max bet): ");
double tableLimit = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write("Enter starting bankroll: ");
double startingBankroll = double.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
Random rng = new Random();
int ruinCount = 0;
double totalProfit = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < simulations; i++)
{
double bankroll = startingBankroll;
double bet = 1;
while (bankroll > 0)
{
if (bet > tableLimit || bet > bankroll)
{
ruinCount++;
break;
}
bankroll -= bet;
// Win probability adjusted for house edge
double winProb = 0.5 - houseEdge / 2.0;
if (rng.NextDouble() < winProb)
{
bankroll += bet * 2;
bet = 1;
}
else
{
bet *= 2;
}
}
totalProfit += (bankroll - startingBankroll);
}
Console.WriteLine("\n--- Results ---");
Console.WriteLine($"Simulations: {simulations}");
Console.WriteLine($"Ruin Probability: {(double)ruinCount / simulations:P2}");
Console.WriteLine($"Average Profit: {totalProfit / simulations:F2}");
Console.WriteLine("\nPress any key to exit...");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}Great little video, thanks - I found one that described that event but not as well, will send it on.Taff15 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2026 11:10 amFunny enough this popped on one of my feeds earlier.........
https://youtube.com/shorts/5ozut1VB3Es? ... axC5hNcfAP
t'other way around, I'm the paid lackey in this partnership
- he's the rich businessman funding it !Oh I don't know - guess it depends what you mean by basics - sure, when I sit back and coldly look at it, then it's blindingly obvious but still even though I consider myself 'innoculated' to it - if I look at series of say 15 horse races where the 1st favourite didn't win, I still subconsciously expect the next one to be more likely to win even though intellectually I know it isn't.
Aye, got you, but then again, martingale is mathematical - but yes, I know what you mean !
I really don't, and would have loved if someone broke it down like that for me years ago.silentdiver wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 11:58 amYou may have a mathematical/statistical background and/or know from hard experience that it's always a loser in the end; but without that, the concept that the win is somehow 'due' is hard to resist, and even harder to shift when it's already well-embedded.
Guilty as charged, I should use the preview button, am a part-time writer, so tend to review and review texts like I'm working on an article in an editor, even if it's just a little forum post.
Forgetting maths, forgetting psychology, the question simply becomes, if thousands of people have studied probability for hundreds of years, including Nobel prize winners, then why does he think he knows better?
Shaun White (c.1972–TBC): Correctly identifies Martingale as a pile of crap.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2026 2:36 pmForgetting maths, forgetting psychology, the question simply becomes, if thousands of people have studied probability for hundreds of years, including Nobel prize winners, then why does he think he knows better?
List of notable people who have studied gambling probability and discounted the concept of a Martingale...
Joseph L. Doob (1910–2004): A major figure in probability theory who formalized the mathematical theory of martingales in the 1940s and 1950s. His work on "martingale stopping theorems" proved that in a fair game, no betting strategy (including Martingale) can change a fair game into a favorable one.
Jean Ville (1910–1989): In his 1939 thesis, Ville provided a critical study of randomness and introduced the concept of martingales as a formal mathematical concept in the context of gambling, borrowing the term from gambling parlance while showing the limitations of "game systems".
Paul Lévy (1886–1971): A French mathematician who studied martingales from 1934 on, contributing to the foundation of the theory that ultimately demonstrates that you cannot beat the system with a Martingale approach.
Richard A. Epstein: Author of The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic, which thoroughly analyzes betting systems. Epstein highlights how the Martingale strategy is ultimately futile against the house edge and finite betting resources.
Daniel Bernoulli (1700–1782): While not explicitly debating 18th-century "doubling" strategies, his development of "expected utility" theory explained why doubling down on losing bets is irrational and why people prefer lower-risk.
