Let-s fight with their weapons

[giraldi]

I'm not sure it's an original idea. It came to mind after I lost in 3 weeks almost all the advantage I gain for 2 months If we consider true the following statements: 1. Payout of bookmakers and our loss is based on the calculation of probabilities for events on long-term 2. Bookmakers approximates probabilities much better than us for a specific event 3. The laws of statistics are available for all bookmakers and bettors For simplicity let’s take the case of an event for which it is offering odds of 2.00. This listing suggests a probability of 50%. According to bookmakers margin we can assume that the true probability is 45%. No one knows the exact probability of an event and everyone can go wrong, including them, let's say + or -10%. Let's assume that the mistake is on their advantage and so we can easily assume then that a real probability for 2.00 offered is around 40% This means that betting on 10 units, win 4 games so 8 units. On the whole, forever losing 2 units every 10 invested. So probably the system works. Now, of course the statistics allow us to win the first 300 bets in a row that we have 600 won at 300 units invested. If we continue to play the laws of statistics work and when we draw the line at 1000 units we have lost 200. So we want or do not want the results are according to the theory. But that's not the same for them? Statistically they can earn 200 at a time and so we have 0 units won and 200 units invested. Statistics will continue to work and to 1000 invested we lose again 200 units. The idea is if you don't play the first 200 bets? We have 1,600 won at 800 units invested. This example is extremely. I put it so you understand. To see in practice: Let-s say that we have the Pinncale odds between 2.50 and 3.00. Considering what I've said above, considering their margin and approximation errors, in the worst case the probability, for this range of odds, is about 25% They are very good on calculated odds so we expect 25 matches out of 100 to be winning for odds in this range. If you are at the beginning of a season and 10 games with odds in this range that have not come out winning is correct to think that statistics will work and will have more events won to achieve the level of winning 25 percent? I have the tools to check this theory and I make a small program for that. I know it seems like kind of a Martingale but I think is far more subtle. What is your opinion?

[zbrochu]

Re: Let-s fight with their weapons These events are unrelated so it is not conditional probability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability). It is gambler's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) because you understimate what "long-term" means. It is few milions of bets, not few hundreds.