I just wondered, has anyone tried to get a formal solution to the problem of controlling bet size for a guaranteed break-even game with infinite capital, if the probabilities of winning, losing and their absence are known (sum of probabilities of three outcomes is equal to one); and also the sizes of winning and losing (two different values).
I just wondered, has anyone tried to get a formal solution to the problem of controlling bet size for guaranteed break-even game with infinite capital, if the probabilities of winning, losing and not winning are known (sum of probabilities of three outcomes equals unity); and also the sizes of winning and losing (two different values).
You say in normal language.
There can be no guaranteed break-even game in the presence of probability at all.
Yeah, it's brutal in places. And sometimes it's 50 or more pips.
I just wondered, has anyone tried to get a formal solution to the problem of controlling bet size for a guaranteed break-even game with infinite capital, if the probabilities of winning, losing and their absence are known (sum of probabilities of three outcomes is equal to one); and also the sizes of winning and losing (two different values).
I just wondered, has anyone tried to get a formal solution to the problem of controlling bet size for guaranteed break-even game with infinite capital, if the probabilities of winning, losing and not winning are known (sum of probabilities of three outcomes equals unity); and also the sizes of winning and losing (two different values).
You say in normal language.
There can be no guaranteed break-even game in the presence of probability at all.
Really? What about martingale?
You say it in normal language.
There can be no guaranteed break-even game if there is a probability at all.
There is always a non-zero probability of a failed series of any finite length.
Capital is infinite :)