• michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    It’s not sound actually because it trivially ends up in nonsensical amounts of money and any sufficiently long series of rolls will have an increasing chance of having a sufficiently long series of losses such that no reasonable person can possibly recover from it. For instance who that can afford to bet 1024x 100 or $100,000 on a single game of chance is excited by betting $100?

    It’s nonsense.

    • Mearuu@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      It’s mathematically sound because you do guarantee a net positive with enough of a bankroll. As I have mentioned in other comments here this is not a strategy that can be used in the real world.

      You even admit it would work with absurd amounts of money… The math works.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        The math doesn’t work because given enough rolls you literally always go bankrupt no matter what bankroll you start with. Take the simplest option a fair coin where you win on tails and lose on heads. Real actual random flips will contains runs of heads. Let N be the number of rolls required to bankrupt you for any value of N. The more you roll the more the probability of such a run increases towards 1.

        You could end up bankrupting a billion dollar bank starting with 10 dollar bets. It’s only sound if you have a literally infinite bank. For any finite bank you just have to play longer to lose but you always end up losing.