Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Blackjack player wins $6m + $5m + $4m... smart cookie!

Jump to new
cynic said:
As for my favourite probability theory, it's not rocket science, but it is controversial, and I've found that devotees of conventional mathematics often dispute my theories vehemently or (if I'm lucky) simply smirk and politely nod. So my preference for now is to withhold it from public scrutiny.
Click to expand...

My dad (as do many probabilty game players) believe in the theory, that the past effects the future. Though I am a huge Dr Who fan I have undertaken to a deep level probability theory as part of my Uni course. I therefore have little faith in these theories.

I always smile and politely nod.
 
jimmyizgod said:
have a decent bankroll, go to the roulette table and

1)bet X on black.
if you win, bet X on black. if not go to 2)

2) bet 2X on black.
if you win, go to 1) if not, go to 3)

3) bet 4X on black
if you win, go to 1) if not, go to 4)

4) bet 8X on black etc etc
Click to expand...

Follow this method if you want to go broke with 100% certainty.
 
Tyler Durden said:
It would work if there weren't any table limits.
Click to expand...

Given that the table limit applies to each of the individual players (not the sum total of bets by players at the table), what (apart from the control mechanisms that I alluded to in my earlier post) is stopping a syndicate of players from exceeding the house limit whilst employing the "Martingale" strategy?

rryall said:
It would only work if there were not any table limits AND your bankroll was infinite not just "decent".
Click to expand...

This might be true if all components of the game were perfectly engineered (i.e. no mechanical or human/croupier bias whatsoever). In the absence of such perfection, one might agree that the low rate of return compared to the considerable bankroll would render this strategy impractical. Furthermore, I believe this strategy would fail consequent to "other" unrelated considerations that I've alluded to in my earlier post.

Knobby22 said:
...Though I am a huge Dr Who fan...
Click to expand...

Yes - during his visit to Australia in 1979, his fourth incarnation (Tom Baker) autographed my copy of one of the target novelisations, and true to form, he offered me a jelly baby.

Knobby22 said:
My dad (as do many probabilty game players) believe in the theory, that the past effects the future. Though I am a huge Dr Who fan I have undertaken to a deep level probability theory as part of my Uni course. I therefore have little faith in these theories.

I always smile and politely nod.
Click to expand...


Knobby, did you really have to let the cat out of the bag?
I fear I may have created some unrealistic expectations when referring to my unconventional probability theory - so to those posters that were kind enough to PM me - I am sorry to disappoint, but there's really not a lot more to it than has already been mentioned in Knobby's post.

Approximately 2 to 3 decades ago I conducted a number of crude (although not exhaustive) experiments, the results of which led me to conclude that the probability of successive events is indeed influenced by preceeding events.

The assertion that events will be evenly represented over a sufficiently large number of repititions could be used to argue the veracity of said theory and was concurrent with my observations during aforementioned experiments. None of the original experiments that led me to my theory were performed on casino premises. The first time I attempted to profit from casino gaming (roullette and the big wheel), the theory promptly failed. This was puzzling as the data obtained from my experiments outside of the casino grounds (where no money was in contention) appeared to validate said theory.

Whilst I was content with my findings then, and maintain my viewpoint to this day, I do feel the need to reiterate that casinos do not take kindly to winners!
 
Top