Topic: Betting strategy question - page 22. (Read 6114 times)
The same way of strategy as the lotto is that there's a higher chance of winning so if you have the time to risk with this kind of game because of the higher chance of a return for sure you'll grab the opportunity but of course not all the time it works with the different person still ideal if you manage the risk on yourself. For me Martingale is not ideal too and as a gambler it just double and increase the number and amount of losses.
~snip~
We can agree that there's no winning strategy for any games with a mathematical edge not being on your side (negative EV).
But if you still want to gamble on such, then martingale is just as good, or just as bad as any other betting style. You're just betting on not having a losing streak exceeding your bankroll.
^Definitely right that is the fact that there is no strategy in any games and I agree that martingale is one of the best options that you will quickly get your profit and your capital by folding the amount of your loss to place a bet. It is terrible if you don't have enough funds to sustain and cover losses because this strategy needs a very huge funds. It is impossible if you don't win after how many loss streaks you have and then quit when you have your profit or even win at once, that you surely recovered your losses and already have gained. Martingale is a terrible gambling strategy in the long run, and I'm sure we all agree on that.
We can agree that there's no winning strategy for any games with a mathematical edge not being on your side (negative EV).
But if you still want to gamble on such, then martingale is just as good, or just as bad as any other betting style. You're just betting on not having a losing streak exceeding your bankroll.
Most of the time greed will conquer you, when you are in the winning side you'll think to push for more, then when you experienced losing streak you'll find yourself being aggressive in trying to recover your money back, that's where martingale will kill you, as winning streak will continue to happen and the common reaction is to keep trying to till you find your success and recover all those you lose.
It's good only if you have good control over your emotion, if you can quit once you already win some using this strategy.
When we say winning strategy to me I don't see that as a reality because there is nothing like that, bet has know definite outcome because most times we predict without knowing what will happen in the entire game, as a bettor you see yourself strategizing but at the end you won't get your desired results that why I said bet is an unforeseen circumstance,
~snip~
We can agree that there's no winning strategy for any games with a mathematical edge not being on your side (negative EV).
But if you still want to gamble on such, then martingale is just as good, or just as bad as any other betting style. You're just betting on not having a losing streak exceeding your bankroll.
^Definitely right that is the fact that there is no strategy in any games and I agree that martingale is one of the best options that you will quickly get your profit and your capital by folding the amount of your loss to place a bet. It is terrible if you don't have enough funds to sustain and cover losses because this strategy needs a very huge funds. It is impossible if you don't win after how many loss streaks you have and then quit when you have your profit or even win at once, that you surely recovered your losses and already have gained. Martingale is a terrible gambling strategy in the long run, and I'm sure we all agree on that.
We can agree that there's no winning strategy for any games with a mathematical edge not being on your side (negative EV).
But if you still want to gamble on such, then martingale is just as good, or just as bad as any other betting style. You're just betting on not having a losing streak exceeding your bankroll.
Betting is something not 100% sure no matter how small or big the odds are , so Betting on any platform involves winning or loosing, so the question is how do you place your bet in other not to incure plenty risk because the more the risk the less the chance of winning that particular bet,
Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
betting has some certain number of risks we need to be aware of that is why they do say that we should gamble with funds we are ready to lose so eventually if the game or the bet goes against us then we will be happily unworried to think about our money because this is 50 50 probability. You win and you go away with the profit but if you lose then you bear the loses yourself. Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
That is what is invved so we should not be bothered at all about that. Gamble with little money that if we lose it, it will not affect us.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
That is false
... the conditions are unrealistic, ...
You don't say! Really?! Thanks for your wisdom and for letting us know. Keep it up!
Martingale is a terrible gambling strategy in the long run, and I'm sure we all agree on that.
We can agree that there's no winning strategy for any games with a mathematical edge not being on your side (negative EV).
But if you still want to gamble on such, then martingale is just as good, or just as bad as any other betting style. You're just betting on not having a losing streak exceeding your bankroll.
Hypothetical scenario:
You can bet on a single dye roll (choosing a number between 1-6), but if you win you get paid x12 of your stake (instead of x6).
So the Expected Value is positive (see example below), but you'd still have 83% chance of losing.
1 - will you take that bet?
2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?
Again, this is a single, non-repetitive bet.
-----------------------
Simulation for BTC1 bet:
EV = (83% x -BTC1) + (17% x BTC11) = +BTC1.04
Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup
You can bet on a single dye roll (choosing a number between 1-6), but if you win you get paid x12 of your stake (instead of x6).
So the Expected Value is positive (see example below), but you'd still have 83% chance of losing.
1 - will you take that bet?
2 - if so, what % of your available funds would you put at stake (i.e. funds you're willing to gamble and afford to lose)?
Again, this is a single, non-repetitive bet.
-----------------------
Simulation for BTC1 bet:
EV = (83% x -BTC1) + (17% x BTC11) = +BTC1.04
Edit: calculation corrected, credit to Saint-loup
None will say no to this if that's from a legit casino. I would be willing to put 1/10 of my funds or maybe even more if it were possible to do so. I believe if you take into account the win rate and the amount you can earn from it over your winning rate, you'll be able to understand why the computation is very much attractive to anyone willing to take that wager. There is no doubt that this can be a very generous offer on the part of the casino.
Betting is something not 100% sure no matter how small or big the odds are , so Betting on any platform involves winning or loosing, so the question is how do you place your bet in other not to incure plenty risk because the more the risk the less the chance of winning that particular bet,
Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
Indeed. In betting there is no guaranteed winning. There's always a risk that you have to look for in order to have a lesser chance of losing. Despite the odds, there's no guaranteed way, pattern or technique that will safeguard you your profit. If ever there's one to claim that it can predict and give an absolute outcome, it's most probably a scam, so beware.
Favorites should be set aside too if you know it yourself that they are not in the best shape to get the winning. Your emotions should be put into place, it shouldn't control you and you should not be affected too much by it. Otherwise, you'll end up messing up.
Betting is something not 100% sure no matter how small or big the odds are , so Betting on any platform involves winning or loosing, so the question is how do you place your bet in other not to incure plenty risk because the more the risk the less the chance of winning that particular bet,
Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
Like a friend once told me on sport Betting don't bet your favourite team, dot put money on your favourite team if you know they can't win,
Bet the stronger team that has more chance of winning and don't accumulate plenty games or events on the bet.
When it comes to bettings, i believe everyone has his own strategy he always look upon to use to play safe innother to increase their chances of winning, most gamblers often considers the odds as well as another strategy, what they do is to ensure the cognisant study to why those odds were particularly appointed in other to know their intends for such because it has serve a clue to some experienced gamblers in knowing the reason behind a given odd which can cause a distraction for a gambler's concentration in choosing a game to bet with.
~snip~
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
So basically if the central banks started using Martingale then they would be able to win
Then I would say the casino owners will cry on this as they keep winning, so they ain't going to get any profit. I don't also agree on the Martingale strategy (well, it can slightly increase your winning percentage, but it's not guaranteed), since even if you have unlimited money and bet, if you sum up all of your losses and cross-check your winnings, it will be still a loss. If there is a 100% winning strategy in gambling, for sure, no casino owners will be building it if they are just giving away free money.
Martingale does not change your odds or slightly increase your winning percentage. The belief that your odds improve by doubling your bet on the same bet that you previously lost until you win is nothing more than a fallacy. The way you have described it is also totally inaccurate.
~snip~
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
So basically if the central banks started using Martingale then they would be able to win
Then I would say the casino owners will cry on this as they keep winning, so they ain't going to get any profit. I don't also agree on the Martingale strategy (well, it can slightly increase your winning percentage, but it's not guaranteed), since even if you have unlimited money and bet, if you sum up all of your losses and cross-check your winnings, it will be still a loss. If there is a 100% winning strategy in gambling, for sure, no casino owners will be building it if they are just giving away free money.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
That is false and even if it were true the conditions are unrealistic, so people better forget about Martingale, but no matter how many times that has been explained in this forum by several of us, and in a lot of places on the web, people misinterpret what they want and keep trying the strategy.
What were you going to do with unlimited money and no bet limits? Double the bet to win only the initial amount until you lose it all and start all over again?
Actually, you can't lose everything in the Martingale betting strategy if there are no betting limits and you have an unlimited amount of money. But let's face it, those conditions are unrealistic and only exist as a mathematical model, so there's no point in discussing them. Bottom line: Martingale is a terrible gambling strategy in the long run, and I'm sure we all agree on that.
The Martingale should be called the Rubbishgala.
Lol Yeah!
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1565
The first decentralized crypto betting platform
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
That is false and even if it were true the conditions are unrealistic, so people better forget about Martingale, but no matter how many times that has been explained in this forum by several of us, and in a lot of places on the web, people misinterpret what they want and keep trying the strategy.
What were you going to do with unlimited money and no bet limits? Double the bet to win only the initial amount until you lose it all and start all over again?
The Martingale should be called the Rubbishgala.
~snip~
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
So basically if the central banks started using Martingale then they would be able to win
Martingale strategy can be used when playing Video Poker. I'm doing it from time to time, and it's fun. You should try it. As it is always with purely luck based games, there's no guarantee that you will not lose your entire balance following this strategy, but if you are ready to stop in time, or your entire balance is not that big, try it, starting from the lowest bet possible, of course.
Video poker is not a real poker.
Martingale is a guaranteed winning strategy only under two small conditions: 1 - there are no bet limits, 2 - you have an unlimited amount of money.
The longest losing streak on roughly 50/50 outcome that I know of, was recorded on Just-Dice and it was over 30 bets long (can remember the exact number).
That being said, I've heard about brick-and-mortar casinos not allowing players to use martingale. So maybe it was somewhat profitable when playing in short-term bursts.
Also, it would be interesting to see more replies regarding the question in the OP.
Nah, enough has been said already. I think we settled that using the Kelly criterion is the only logical way of deciding the stake other than making an emotional decision.
This topic went off the rails a long time ago
OP, please, 
This thread is my gift to bitcointalk's gambling community
Not locking it. Ever.
~ Or maybe to be fair, half truths, you cannot apply Martingale to poker, that assessment is false, it works perfectly in roulette and basically betting on red or black, Martingale essentially requires a 2:1 or 1:2, otherwise is any other strategy.
I never heard or seen someone using Martingale in poker games, if there is, this is the first time. Martingale is a devastating strategy if we don't know the right time to stop and reset. It is indeed good to use in roullete but still if we happen to have a bad session, it can still make a huge impact in our bankroll.
Martingale strategy can be used when playing Video Poker. I'm doing it from time to time, and it's fun. You should try it. As it is always with purely luck based games, there's no guarantee that you will not lose your entire balance following this strategy, but if you are ready to stop in time, or your entire balance is not that big, try it, starting from the lowest bet possible, of course.
Also, it would be interesting to see more replies regarding the question in the OP.
Requirement without equal, the return must always be the initial bet. So if the game meets that in a fixed sequence of bets, martingale can be applied.
So, therefore if you want to add any word before or after Poker, it would be coercive in my idea.
On the other hand, I would not recommend another answer to OP, it is a topic that should have reached page 5.
OP, please,
~ Or maybe to be fair, half truths, you cannot apply Martingale to poker, that assessment is false, it works perfectly in roulette and basically betting on red or black, Martingale essentially requires a 2:1 or 1:2, otherwise is any other strategy.
I never heard or seen someone using Martingale in poker games, if there is, this is the first time. Martingale is a devastating strategy if we don't know the right time to stop and reset. It is indeed good to use in roullete but still if we happen to have a bad session, it can still make a huge impact in our bankroll.
Martingale strategy can be used when playing Video Poker. I'm doing it from time to time, and it's fun. You should try it. As it is always with purely luck based games, there's no guarantee that you will not lose your entire balance following this strategy, but if you are ready to stop in time, or your entire balance is not that big, try it, starting from the lowest bet possible, of course.
Also, it would be interesting to see more replies regarding the question in the OP.
This brings to my mind the following, there are some casinos that have investment options, you should know the Betfury casino well that a few years ago gave the option to buy the BFG, but at the same time caused quite a lot of returns in other crypto, including Bitcoin, what do you think about it? ...
I haven't heard about them, to be honest, but I was away from the crypto space for a few years until recently, so still am a bit out of the loop. I'll try to take a look at them in more detail when I have time.
I do like the concept of investing in the bankroll though. But despite having a mathematical advantage, there's always some trust involved, which usually puts people off.
Ok I understand, Betfury offered something like that when it started, I still remember it, now they have some problems with the casino. Regarding the BFG token, they have a very low price and some investors have complained a lot, but from the market's point of view it's normal .
The BFG on their platform still offers dividends (Staking mode), also on a decentralized exchange called Biswap they offer profitability and Staking plans. We all know that as long as Bitcoin is not in a bullish rally, this token as well as all altcoins will not rise in price. In any case, if you can take a look at it, you can corroborate the information.
on betting poker, blackjack and roulette, today I tried again to apply the martingale strategy to 2 games, namely blackjack and roulette.
In the game of blackjack, I managed to use the martingale strategy, but in the game of roulette, I failed to run out of funds after several consecutive losses.
I concluded that it would be easier and more promising to use the martingale strategy in the game of blackjack. if you want to use this strategy in roulette, you really have to have a big budget.
but if my conclusion is wrong, please let me know.
I have also used the maringale strategy in blackjack and roulette, but I use it more often in roulette because it can provide even greater profits.In the game of blackjack, I managed to use the martingale strategy, but in the game of roulette, I failed to run out of funds after several consecutive losses.
I concluded that it would be easier and more promising to use the martingale strategy in the game of blackjack. if you want to use this strategy in roulette, you really have to have a big budget.
but if my conclusion is wrong, please let me know.
And as you said, it is true that martingale requires a budget or money to bet more compared to using other strategies, but the amount of money needed can make us get bigger profits than the money we spend.
Maybe there are also a lot of gamblers out there who use this strategy because it has proven to be successful if they can survive and believe they can have luck by winning one of the games.
Of course there is nothing wrong with what you have said and I agree with that.
Hey!, please, Mr. Don't fall for lies...Ty.
Or maybe to be fair, half truths, you cannot apply Martingale to poker, that assessment is false, it works perfectly in roulette and basically betting on red or black, Martingale essentially requires a 2:1 or 1:2, otherwise is any other strategy.
I never heard or seen someone using Martingale in poker games, if there is, this is the first time. Martingale is a devastating strategy if we don't know the right time to stop and reset. It is indeed good to use in roullete but still if we happen to have a bad session, it can still make a huge impact in our bankroll.
On the other hand, the budget is really a "easy" problem of understanding to apply the strategy, if we were talking about Fiat, yes, it can be a lot, but in any case you need a bankroll that is expressed in the ratio in which you bet, the bet size.
A Martingale method is like a money-eating machine, it will engulf our bankroll in just a minute.
So if we start from that, it is possible to use 1 Doge is used to apply martingale (?) with a bet size of 0.00000001 (?) and the question here is for you, how many bets can be made applying martingale if the bet is the one mentioned or how many times you can fail so that after an "x" number of bets with that strategy you recover 0.00000001.
If we start with the said bet, in a normal martingale, I think we only need 1 win to recover all our losses but if there is fee, then we need at least 2 wins to recover that initial amount.
Jump to: