Another Stupid Martingale Question

[ShaunWhite]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin

If you can figure out out the maths I think the answer is in here somewhere

[Derek27]

Thanks for all the esoteric philosophy folks!!
Back to the martingale stupidity and ignorance question, let us assume that statistically, my trading strategy had a 66% success rate and that on any trading day I was only prepared to lose 2% of my trading bank, if I doubled up on loss days, how long until I go broke?

Depends what you mean by "prepared to lose 2%". If you mean prepared to risk 2%, you would never hit zero as you would always have 98% of your bank left, but once you're down to 50p you wouldn't be able to stake less than 2%.

A 66% strike-rate doesn't tell us anything - it depends on the amounts you win and lose.

[Derek27]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin

If you can figure out out the maths I think the answer is in here somewhere

This is the one the OP requires.

Martingale (betting system)

I'm no mathematician but I understood this paper and thought it's well explained.

I think the Bet Angel site is infested with a virus that has mutated and jumped the bridge to humans. Earlier today we had a member asking how to make money from betting without going to the trouble of placing bets, and now we have a member who wants advice on how to lose money and how quickly it can be done!!!!

[Derek27]

SHIT!!!

Don't read the last paragraph of the link MugPunter!

[gutuami]

Thanks for all the esoteric philosophy folks!!
Back to the martingale stupidity and ignorance question, let us assume that statistically, my trading strategy had a 66% success rate and that on any trading day I was only prepared to lose 2% of my trading bank, if I doubled up on loss days, how long until I go broke?

just press F9 for updates

[MugPunter]

SHIT!!!

Don't read the last paragraph of the link MugPunter!

Thanks, I'm definitely Anit-martingale now!!!!

[MugPunter]

Thanks for all the esoteric philosophy folks!!
Back to the martingale stupidity and ignorance question, let us assume that statistically, my trading strategy had a 66% success rate and that on any trading day I was only prepared to lose 2% of my trading bank, if I doubled up on loss days, how long until I go broke?

just press F9 for updates

Thanks Gutuami, nice sheet!!! Everytime martingale is mentioned the Betangel police come charging out with trudgeon in hand, but I guess they're in the business of selling software subscriptions.

[Derek27]

Everytime martingale is mentioned the Betangel police come charging out with trudgeon in hand, but I guess they're in the business of selling software subscriptions.

Everybody who replied to your post is a member of this forum, not Betangel. We're not in the business of selling software subscriptions

[ShaunWhite]

Thanks Gutuami, nice sheet!!! Everytime martingale is mentioned the Betangel police come charging out with trudgeon in hand, but I guess they're in the business of selling software subscriptions.

It looks even worse when you factor in the commission.

btw +1 on Derek's comment, I'm nothing to do with BA either.
Not 'police', just the normal concern any person would have if they saw someone who's just about to jump off a bridge.

My take on martingales and such 'systems' is that if hundereds of thousands of people have spent hundreds of years studying gambling (lets say a million man years), and martingales still have a bad reputation, then my few grey cells aren't going to find a magic way to make it work. Ditto every other hair-brained, over-simplified, get rich easy scheme that every new gambler thinks they've discovered, but was actually disproven about 500 years ago.

[MugPunter]

Thanks Gutuami, nice sheet!!! Everytime martingale is mentioned the Betangel police come charging out with trudgeon in hand, but I guess they're in the business of selling software subscriptions.

It looks even worse when you factor in the commission.

btw +1 on Derek's comment, I'm nothing to do with BA either.
Not 'police', just the normal concern any person would have if they saw someone who's just about to jump off a bridge.

My take on martingales and such 'systems' is that if hundereds of thousands of people have spent hundreds of years studying gambling (lets say a million man years), and martingales still have a bad reputation, then my few grey cells aren't going to find a magic way to make it work. Ditto every other hair-brained, over-simplified, get rich easy scheme that every new gambler thinks they've discovered, but was actually disproven about 500 years ago.

Thanks for bringing out the cudgel again, did you take the time to look at Gutuami's spread sheet or read Derek's link which included Anit-martingale?

[ShaunWhite]

I'm sure I heard a third one ......

Not quite the same story but the same number...

.....the total number of grains - 18446744073709551615 - was
not only beyond the means of his granaries, but beyond the means
of the granaries of all the world. The formula for arriving at this
number 2^64 — 1 - turns up in another famous legend ....

The Tower of Brahma
This, so the legend has it, is a temple in Benaras. They say that
when the great lord Brahma created the world he put up three
diamond sticks, mounted on a brass plate, beneath the dome that
marks the centre of the world. Upon one of the sticks he placed
64 gold discs. The biggest at the bottom, all decreasing in size,
with the smallest at the top. The temple priests have the tasks
of transposing the discs from one stick to the other, using the
third as an aid. They work day and night, but must transpose only
one disc at a time and must not put a bigger disc on top of a
smaller one. When their task is complete, the legend says, the
world will disappear in a clap of thunder.
Now the total number of transpositions needed to shift the
64 discs is, again, 2^64 - 1, or 18446744073709551615. If every
transposition takes a second it will still take 500000 million years
to get the job done.

(that's taken from a book called Figuring, The Joy of Numbers, I bought it in 1977 when I was 13 and it got me interested in numbers. No wonder I couldn't quite remember the story, I read it 41 yrs ago! )

[Derek27]

Thanks for bringing out the cudgel again, did you take the time to look at Gutuami's spread sheet or read Derek's link which included Anit-martingale?

I'm not sure what relevance Gutuami's spreadsheet is because you suggested you would limit your losses to 2% a day. This would mean that a Martingale is impossible, because the Martingale requires risking your entire bank!

I would never have posted that link if I re-read it first. How exactly do you think the anti-Martingale will help you?

24 hours ago you were interested in the Martingale, now you're interested in the complete opposite - you're running around like a headless chicken!

[LeTiss]

Thanks for all the esoteric philosophy folks!!
Back to the martingale stupidity and ignorance question, let us assume that statistically, my trading strategy had a 66% success rate and that on any trading day I was only prepared to lose 2% of my trading bank, if I doubled up on loss days, how long until I go broke?

This is the perfect example, of why not accepting red screens destroys traders more than anything else!

What you need is money management, because if your strategy is winning 66% of the time, why are you considering blowing your whole bank, to try and recover the 33%?

[Derek27]

Yes, I know its stupid, but I'm a benevolent guy who loves to give his money away to hard working punters.

[Naffman]

Spam?