Very interested in achieving the following..
The philosophy behind what you're saying is correct - at some stage the sequence will break. However, how far will your stakes allow you to go before you're bankrupt? You could just blindly lay horses 'in play' (say 1.22 for example) because at some stage you'll get matched & it will win for you, but you could have some major losses whilst waiting for the winner. During those streaks, the potential losses doesn't make the gamble worthwhile, as you'll go bankrupt eventually
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Marko. Did you consider the pounding the bookies would take if the favs kept winning across the card? Hence why there is an edge here. Also why you cant get an accuratr going etc etc. Also hand when the maidens go first.
I think ive said too much in a public forum. Now everyone will start winning like me.
I think ive said too much in a public forum. Now everyone will start winning like me.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Golfer. You turning your nose up at 0.5% of 1.5mil?
When I looked the martingale on exchange some time ago it fell over because of commission. On a martingale you can only return your original stake, but when you compound bets to cover that, you end up paying many times more commission than that original stake so it fails.
Has anybody put that into their calculations?
Has anybody put that into their calculations?
Last edited by Euler on Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The whole concept of 'longest losing run' is fatally flawed when you are talking about independent events. If you think that dark forces conspire to ensure that at least one favourite loses in every meeting, you are mistaken.
Let's use a coin flip analogy. The chances of you getting four heads in a row is one in 16. The chances of you getting 8 heads in a row is one in 256.
For the sake of this example, you've just had four heads in a row, and the coin is unbiased. The chances of you now ending up with eight heads in a row is one in sixteen. If you think, "I can safely lay these remaining heads with progressive staking because there's a one in 256 chance of me losing money", you're basing your decision on a statistical fallacy.
As a result, when you bet the house on a 2.0 horse losing, the odds of that horse losing are 50%. Anything that's happened previously is completely irrelevant. You're basically betting the farm on the roulette ball landing on red, which is a crazy strategy.
Jeff
Let's use a coin flip analogy. The chances of you getting four heads in a row is one in 16. The chances of you getting 8 heads in a row is one in 256.
For the sake of this example, you've just had four heads in a row, and the coin is unbiased. The chances of you now ending up with eight heads in a row is one in sixteen. If you think, "I can safely lay these remaining heads with progressive staking because there's a one in 256 chance of me losing money", you're basing your decision on a statistical fallacy.
As a result, when you bet the house on a 2.0 horse losing, the odds of that horse losing are 50%. Anything that's happened previously is completely irrelevant. You're basically betting the farm on the roulette ball landing on red, which is a crazy strategy.
Jeff
elcapitain wrote:Jeff, how about laying the draw on football? how many draws can a team have in a row?
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Jeff i agree about independent events and it remains 50% but if you add all the odds together, Calculate the LLS it is still relevant.
Many people trade this way when events come close to LLS.
Many people trade this way when events come close to LLS.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Golfer. Good to hear. Lol. Yes i do £2 A time except when 12 reds in a row at Roulette. Lol.
There is no theoretical limit to how many favourites can win consecutively, so there is no such thing as a longest losing streak.
If you spin a roulette wheel enough times, eventually you will get 50 consecutive reds.
The odds of seven horses at odds of 3.0 winning consecutively are 1 in 2187. Bet on enough races, and it's just a matter of time before you get stung.
Jeff
If you spin a roulette wheel enough times, eventually you will get 50 consecutive reds.
The odds of seven horses at odds of 3.0 winning consecutively are 1 in 2187. Bet on enough races, and it's just a matter of time before you get stung.
Jeff
elcapitain wrote:Jeff i agree about independent events and it remains 50% but if you add all the odds together, Calculate the LLS it is still relevant.
Many people trade this way when events come close to LLS.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Jeff. Has the LLS calculation ever been broken in your experience?
For me not.
For me not.
Last year, 21 favourites in a row came in. The mathematical odds of that (conservatively assuming average odds of 3.0) is 1 in 10,460,353,203. Sorry, but black swans do sail in occasionally.elcapitain wrote:Jeff. Has the LLS calculation ever been broken in your experience?
For me not.
BTW, I'm pleased that your liability is just £2 (or it that your stake? I hope the former). That means that you're probably not going to go bankrupt with this system (unless you take loss chasing to the nth degree!).
I ran a simulation on my spreadsheet, using £2 liability and a starting bank of £100. To add extra realism, I changed the odds range to 2.5 to 6.0. Anyway, I've attached the simulation. As you can see, you did great for a while before crashing (but at least you didn't lose tens of thousands!).
If you run a few simulations yourself, you'll find that that pattern is fairly typical.Jeff
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
elcapitain
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:01 pm
Jeff. Try favourites at bsp of 3 only and the longest winning streak is 4.
Does your spreadsheet handle that?
Does your spreadsheet handle that?