General Topics
Technical Topics
Brokerage Firms
Community Lounge
Site Support

# newb gambling question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gordon Gekko, Oct 3, 2003.

1. ### Gordon Gekko

i may have asked this question here before, but i'm not sure.

i very rarely buy lottery tickets or scratch tickets. i've been to a casino once in my life and i only brought like \$20 (i actually won, too. i remember i bet on the kentucky derby and i picked the winning horse lol i think the horse was "silver bullet"). the markets are the only casino i need. if i went to a casino tonight with friends, i'd probably just watch them and not gamble myself. however, i was thinking about one idea. i just want to know if this would work or if it is even possible.

play roulette or something and bet on colors. find something close to 50/50 with 1:1 payoff or something. say you bring \$2,000. first bet \$100, if you win, quit. if you lose, next time increase size. if you win, quit. if you keep losing, keep increasing size until you do win, then quit.

the point would be to bring enough money to increase size and outlast most losing streaks. when you do win, quit.

if you know a win rate or loss rate, you can calculate the % chance different streaks will happen. for example, if you lose 51% of the time, there is less than a 1% chance you will get 7 losers in a row. so play roulette, and start with the right size, preparing to increase size for a possible 7 losers in a row. in other words, how much money you have will determine your very first bet size, if you are prepared to increase size for 7 losers in a row and quit on first win to make money.

would this work at all?! if this wouldn't work, is there a way to make this idea work? thanks

2. ### rlb21079

Every morning I wake up and think to myself, "self, what's the dumbest thing I can say or do today?"

But hey, I don't then go to ET and do or say that thing.

3. ### Gordon Gekko

you're my hero. fuck off.

you have a bad attitude. i can't stand people with bad attitudes. i admitted i don't know much about gambling and i had a question, so i asked it. the point is to learn. i don't give a fuck what some negative ass like you thinks about my questions. your attitude sucks.

4. ### rlb21079

alright i'll play ball...

roulette has a negative expectancy, so if you plan on returning to the roulette table (today, tomorrow, 5 years from now) you are not really quiting

and, since you are doubling your bets (or some approximation of this) you will eventually hit a streak whereby (a) you don't have enough \$ to increase your bet, or (b) the table maximum bet has been reached... at that point you will lose a great deal all at once and recovery is, as they say, a bitch

5. ### Gordon Gekko

i know the expectancy is negative. if you play today, tomorrow, and 5 years from now, that is only 3 times. if there is less than 1% chance of losing 7 times in a row, big deal. who cares if you're not really quitting. each time you play after winning, you're starting over small again, prepared for a losing streak.
the increasing of bet size is prepared for. you prepare to have to increase size 7 times. as i said, how much money you have determines your initial bet. if you have to start extremely small, so be it. if i'm going to play 3 times in my life, i'll take the chance i won't get that 1% gigantic losing streak the 3 times i play.

i don't know anything about table maximums.

6. ### rlb21079

If you plan only to play 3 times in your life than it may work.
The more you play the greater your risk, and there is nothing to say you won't get 'unlucky' and go bust the first time.

7. ### horseman

I do this every day in the market. It's called "averaging down".

8. ### Kap

lol...

seriously though, tables have limits otherwise you could keep doubling up for ever and eventually win - there is also the issue of "0" and if your in the states "00" too, The zero's are the houses cut to swing the apparent 50/50 probability there way.

you gotta come up with a better idea than that

9. ### Gordon Gekko

ok, that's another idea i have, but this one isn't averaging down on the same bad trade.

say you have a positive expectancy trading. obviously, you'll still have losing trades. would it make sense to risk more on EACH LOSING TRADE until you get a winner and then start over again with a more normal smaller size?

example......

say you have a positive expectancy and win 45% of the time. say you start risking .5% of account per trade. if your trade is a loser, on next trade risk .55%. if you win, risk .5% again. if you lose on next trade, risk .55%, if you lose again, risk .6% and so on...each time going back to .5% after a winner.

10. ### Gordon Gekko

rlb21079, NOW DO YOU SEE WHY YOU ARE SUCH AN ASS?? this is now an interesting discussion. your negative attitude prevents people from asking questions like i did. CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE.

#10     Oct 3, 2003
ET IS FREE BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THESE COMPANIES: