Martingale, Labouchere, doubles, SAAW, and all that nonsense

[slapdash]

Yet another thread hawking a Martingale system. It was (rightly) locked before I could add my comments. I cringe every time I see another post that doesn't argue the merits of the individual bets, but gives a "staking system" that will, allegedly, make you money from apparently random bets. Forget your staking system. Imagine you have a potential bet and you want to decide how much to bet on it. What is the "right" amount to bet? It's a difficult question, and I'm not going to answer it here. But what should it depend on? The odds you can get, of course. Your estimation of the chance of the bet winning, sure. The amount of money you can spare (the size of your "betting bank"), yes. But does it depend on whether you have just had five losing bets, or whether your last two bets won, the two before that won, and before that you had a loser? Unless you think that the results of your previous bets affect the chance of the next bet winning, then of course not! If you do think that the results affect the chance, then that should be built into your estimation of the chance of the bet winning, which is one of the factors I listed above. That's why Martingale/Labouchere systems are obviously nonsense to anybody with a mathematical turn of mind. Why did I include doubles/SAAW bets in the title to this thread? Let's start with SAAW bets. Chelsea to win/Arsenal to win, £10 SAAW. Let's first suppose Chelsea play on Saturday and Arsenal play on Sunday. Then you are betting £10 on Chelsea and: If Chelsea win you are betting nothing on Arsenal, but If Chelsea don't win you are betting £10 on Arsenal. So the amount you bet on Arsenal depends on the result of the Chelsea match. Is that logical? Suppose the two matches are played at the same time. Does that make a difference? Well, maybe there is some subtle reason that you think that if Chelsea don't win, then there is a higher chance that Arsenal will win. Good reasons for SAAW bets: The two bets are negatively correlated. I.e., If the first loses then there is a higher chance that the second will win. What about doubles? Suppose you put a £10 double on Chelsea and Arsenal, with both teams at even odds. Suppose again that Chelsea play on Saturday and Arsenal play on Sunday. Then: If Chelsea win you are betting £20 on Arsenal, and If Chelsea don't win, then you are betting nothing on Arsenal. So the amount you bet on Arsenal depends on the result of the Chelsea match. Is that logical? Suppose the two matches are played at the same time. Does that make a difference? Well, maybe there is some subtle reason that you think that if Chelsea win, then there is a higher chance that Arsenal will win. Good reasons for doubles: The two bets are positively correlated. I.e., If the first wins then there is a higher chance that the second will win. Actually, there are other reasonably reasons for doubles. For example, if you don't have enough in your bookie's account to place two single bets, then it might be right to place a double. But "I don't bet odds on, but if I put these two 1.50 shots in a double, then I'm getting odds of 2.25" is nonsense: you are still effectively betting on one match if the other wins, but not if the other loses, and where's the logic in that?

[Djordje]

Re: Martingale, Labouchere, doubles, SAAW, and all that nonsense Good one slapdash :clap