Without meaning to sound like a troll, you're both wrong. To correct Rocked, No matter how you try to break it up, the only way to make money in a single 1/2 chance game is to get above-average luck.

 

Now to our situation, where we have an undetermined number of stakes, and goal is to make a profit, and leave when a profit is made (as may be the goal of a staker). As i demonstrated in my previous post, I proved with a large cash pile, a profit is almost guaranteed.

 

Yes, a profit is ALMOST guaranteed for one game. But in the long term, the SLIGHT chance of losing, which has an impact exponentially stronger than the impact of every little win, the results still even out to 0 net profit.

 

Seriously, this is one of those arguments where I'm positive I'm not wrong. Just wikipedia the Martingale System.

Staking and the duel arena never left.

The only thing that left were the clowns who needed to manipulate the system to win. (movement off, dragon spear spec, dhally win).

RIP duel tournaments, RIP fair fights...

 

staking 50k was horrible, especially when you could only stake that much ever 15 minutes.

I liked duel tournaments, but no one did them, and staking with 50k was so bad.

Without meaning to sound like a troll, you're both wrong. To correct Rocked, No matter how you try to break it up, the only way to make money in a single 1/2 chance game is to get above-average luck.

 

Now to our situation, where we have an undetermined number of stakes, and goal is to make a profit, and leave when a profit is made (as may be the goal of a staker). As i demonstrated in my previous post, I proved with a large cash pile, a profit is almost guaranteed.

 

Yes, a profit is ALMOST guaranteed for one game. But in the long term, the SLIGHT chance of losing, which has an impact exponentially stronger than the impact of every little win, the results still even out to 0 net profit.

 

Seriously, this is one of those arguments where I'm positive I'm not wrong. Just wikipedia the Martingale System.

 

I guess that's right, with a large, non infinite stack of cash, there will always be the finite chance of losing, putting the net profit down to 0. However, the theoretical case where someone has an infinite stack of cash, leads to a situation where the probability of losing actually does tend to zero, as chance of losing is infinitesimally small.

 

Cheers for the correction, hadn't thought about it enough!

just quit once you made your profit. Should "break" the statistics.

just quit once you made your profit. Should "break" the statistics.

If you play one game, you either win a small amount of money (very likely) or lose all of your money (very unlikely). If you play a bunch of times, you win a lot of times and then eventually lose all of your money.

 

It's not a smart thing to do one way or another. Playing just once isn't even that much profit, so obviously to actually earn anything you're going to have to do it more than once, and there's where the "losing all your money" part comes in.