The Evolution Of Collusion

[navybuttons 15]

its hypothetically viable.

i'm saying it's not hypothetically viable for anything but the short term.long term it will work the same as consistent bet sizing, no better, no worse. even in a +ev gamble it will work the same.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

wrong.

Another well though out response.The sum of any -ev stream of bets is negative. End of debate.

[silkyjonson 1]

i'm saying it's not hypothetically viable for anything but the short term.long term it will work the same as consistent bet sizing, no better, no worse. even in a +ev gamble it will work the same.

With a infinite bankroll I dont see how it would'nt work without any limitations on betting.But if you would like we can settle this with arm wrestling??

[silkyjonson 1]

Another well though out response.The sum of any -ev stream of bets is negative. End of debate.

So anyone ever playing blackjack can never win in the long run? Learn to think out of the box just a tad.

[navybuttons 15]

With a infinite bankroll I dont see how it would'nt work without any limitations on betting.But if you would like we can settle this with arm wrestling??

it will work w/ an infinite bankroll.i way a buck fifty soaking wet but i got the guns waiting for you.

So anyone ever playing blackjack can never win in the long run? Learn to think out of the box just a tad.

they can, but they have to change the bets from -ev ones to +ev ones, e.g. betting more when the deck is in the players favor.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So anyone ever playing blackjack can never win in the long run? Learn to think out of the box just a tad.

I am saying that anyone playing -ev bets can never win over the long run.

[navybuttons 15]

I am saying that anyone playing -ev bets can never win over the long run unless their name is durrrr.

FYP.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

FYP.

...an exception to every rule!

[HermanKahn 0]

First of all, thanks for the post. Even where I disagree, it was definitely interesting reading.

Success in online poker these days all comes down to who you know...not how good you are.

.Not at all. People genuinely helping each other is cool, but if you don't need it, you don't need it. End of story. As far as I'm concerned, the entire online poker community staking system as we know it can kiss my lily-white, exquisitely-formed, sweet smelling ***. LOL

The sum of any -ev stream of bets is negative.

Not always. Here's something Michael Kinsley, a former student of Nobel-prize-winning game theorist Thomas Schelling (widely regarded as "the Godfather of Game Theory"), recalled in a classroom lecture of Schelling’s whose lesson Kinsley associated with the purposeful projection of "madness".So you’re standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You’ll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal—threatening to push him off the cliff—would doom you both? . . . Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don’t have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win. You have done it by using probability to divide a seemingly indivisible threat. And a smaller threat can be more effective than a bigger one. A threat to drag both of you off the cliff is not credible. A threat to take a 60 percent chance of that same thing might be credible. . . . Madness can be wickedly rational. If one of those two folks on the cliff can convince the other that he is just a bit nuts, that makes his threat to drag them both off the cliff much more plausible. Some defenders of Richard Nixon used to claim that the evidence of insanity that bothered a few Americans was actually a purposeful strategy to enhance the deterrent power of our nuclear arsenal.3

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

First of all, thanks for the post. Even where I disagree, it was definitely interesting reading. .Not at all. People genuinely helping each other is cool, but if you don't need it, you don't need it. End of story. As far as I'm concerned, the entire online poker community staking system as we know it can kiss my lily-white, exquisitely-formed, sweet smelling ***. LOLNot always. Here's something Michael Kinsley, a former student of Nobel-prize-winning game theorist Thomas Schelling (widely regarded as "the Godfather of Game Theory"), recalled in a classroom lecture of Schelling’s whose lesson Kinsley associated with the purposeful projection of "madness".So you’re standing at the edge of a cliff, chained by the ankle to someone else. You’ll be released, and one of you will get a large prize, as soon as the other gives in. How do you persuade the other guy to give in, when the only method at your disposal—threatening to push him off the cliff—would doom you both? . . . Answer: You start dancing, closer and closer to the edge. That way, you don’t have to convince him that you would do something totally irrational: plunge him and yourself off the cliff. You just have to convince him that you are prepared to take a higher risk than he is of accidentally falling off the cliff. If you can do that, you win. You have done it by using probability to divide a seemingly indivisible threat. And a smaller threat can be more effective than a bigger one. A threat to drag both of you off the cliff is not credible. A threat to take a 60 percent chance of that same thing might be credible. . . . Madness can be wickedly rational. If one of those two folks on the cliff can convince the other that he is just a bit nuts, that makes his threat to drag them both off the cliff much more plausible. Some defenders of Richard Nixon used to claim that the evidence of insanity that bothered a few Americans was actually a purposeful strategy to enhance the deterrent power of our nuclear arsenal.3

Game Theory is VERY different from classic -ev gambling scenarios. Particularly when you consider a dynamic game like the one described (can't really decide if it is a zero sum, non-zero sum,or constant sum game). There are not a string of -ev bets to consider in such a game and the math is very different.

[HermanKahn 0]

Game Theory is VERY different from classic -ev gambling scenarios. Particularly when you consider a dynamic game like the one described (can't really decide if it is a zero sum, non-zero sum,or constant sum game). There are not a string of -ev bets to consider in such a game and the math is very different.

Ya think? (sw) Anyway, we're not disagreeing about much. I'm just saying that once you calculate all the odds and factor in your opponent's psychology, sometimes "the wrong play" is the right one. Because poker is a "people game played with cards" not a "card game played with people", it's entirely possible to improve your odds by deliberately worsening them as long as you remain credible. Predictability is the kiss of death, as any good strategist knows.

[mtdesmoines 3]

The sum of any -ev stream of bets is negative.

The problem I have with this is that, in my original example, at the $2/5 game, the villain now sits on an 8:1 chip lead and can push thin margins and probably stay ahead. In other words, is it REALLY -EV to chase someone down 40/60 when you outchip them 8:1?

[rgold79 0]

If you have infinite wealth you would win using the martingale system if you did not have any limits set by the casinos. This is why there is always a table min and max, if you were rolled enough and had no min or max you could turn a profit every single day in the casino, so yes they will increase the table max but the max and min bets will not have enough of a range to allow for applying the continous doubling of your bets to a certain extent. You don't see many 5 dollar min 10k max tables at the casino or I have not anyways.

Max bets at tables don't really exist. Like everything else, they are at the house's discretion. So they can post them, and if they don't want your action to be higher than a certain amount they can say no thank you and point to the posted maximum, and if they do want your action high enough they will happily waive the requirement. I won't argue the utility of the martingale system under a condition in which a person has infinite wealth, since that would be like me arguing that I can run a 4 minute mile in a world without friction. As a practical, real world application the Martingale system has long been a proven loser.

[mtdesmoines 3]

since that would be like me arguing that I can run a 4 minute mile in a world without friction.

Hmm. A world without friction would suck.

[David_Nicoson 1]

With a infinite bankroll I dont see how it would'nt work without any limitations on betting.But if you would like we can settle this with arm wrestling??

Suppose a game in which a player rolls a die. On 6 he doubles his money. On 1-5, he loses the amount wagered. Can you apply Martingale on that game with an infinite bankroll to make a profit as a player?Suppose a player proposes to you that you can play the house in that game for $x. Do you take it? Now suppose that there are infinitely many houses, of which you are only one. Would the fact that the player is using the Martingale system dissuade you from taking his action for one roll? How about twice?If the player has a positive expectation, who's the sucker? Where does this money come from?