We measure success in gambling by whether we have won or lost money
at the end of an arbitrarily set time. The trouble is, unless we are
realistic about our gambling lives, we can fool ourselves about the
true nature of our results.
It is possible to play even negative-expectation games so that the
majority of SESSIONS result in a win. There are thousands
of "systems" out there that push betting patterns designed to
achieve that result. An example is the Martingale, which will indeed
produce many more winning than losing sessions (presuming one stops
when one achieves one's stated goal of being ahead by one bet). The
fallacy, of course, is that gambling sessions are not like baseball
games. In baseball, it doesn't matter how much you win by (or lose
for that matter). Last weekend, the Giants played the Dodgers, and
the scores were something like this: Giants 4, Dodgers 3; Giants 3,
Dodgers 2; Giants 4, Dodgers 3; and Dodgers 16, Giants 4. Now, the
Giants won the series handily despite being outscored 24-15, Why?
Because at a predetermined point we stop the game and WIPE THE SLATE
CLEAN. If you lost in baseball 20-0, 1-0, 10-9, whatever, tomorrow
is a new day and the score is reset to 0-0. LIFE IS NOT LIKE THIS.
It is irrelevant to stop at a series of arbitrary points and measure
one's success or failure. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE BOTTOM LINE.
The sytem pushers try to make you ignore this basic fact by
concentrating on the arbitrary point-in-time method of measuring
success. Break the system player's results into "sessions", and it
might look something like this:
+20, +35, +50, +10, -200, +90, +5, +30, -340, +25, +40
Wow! 8 out of 10 winning sessions! I think I'll buy this guy's book!!
The illusion is created by the fact that even when playing a game
that has a player disadvantage, the player will be ahead SOME TIME
during an arbitrarily chosen time frame (or group of bets) more
often than not. We can create the illusion of winning by creating an
artificial stopping point whenever we are "ahead". Of course, what
explodes this whole concept is the stark fact that there will
be "sessions" where we are NEVER ahead. The aggregate results from
these sessions will ultimately outweigh all the "winning" sessions.
Consider again the Martingale, which works just fine until the
inevitable run of disaster occurs.
So the conclusion has to be: THERE IS NO "SHORT TERM" THAT IS
SHORTER THAN ONE'S LIFESPAN. If you intend to gamble again before
you die---and I assume you do---then stopping at THIS particular
moment and counting your cash is an irrelevant gesture.
The core of all gambling "systems" (including one authored by a
certain "RS") lies in obscuring this fundamental fact.