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.
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.
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.