Topic: Does martingale really works? - page 48. (Read 123318 times)

Since you can obviously code, why don't you code some exact simulations of your playing method and run it few thousands times in a loop to get some basic stats, like how many times you'll get to your goal, and how many times would you bust? It may save you some time and money to try it live with the bot on JD.

Tiger, i am so sorry u loss. i know u put so much time and effort into this.


i think u can figure out what works best for the next run. good luck and i'll be rooting for ya

Just for fun, I'll add my thoughts to the thread.

Dooglus was spot on with the details of the 'method' used, but I'll recap so you can judge my sanity.

I decided to try this 9% martingale technique to see if I could reach 10k clams before I busted. That should make it pretty clear I was very much aware that busting was inevitable. (I guess  )

First, I created a little bot that would bet on 40 accounts up to 10 clams at 9% over 110 losses. At this point, I would get a message on my phone and JD chat that would alert me of a bust. I would then transfer 100 CLAM to the bot that busted from one of my primary accounts. At that point, I would just hope lady-luck was on my side and bet cautiously.

I had countless people tell me to quit and take my winnings and run. However, I see no thrill in that and I was on a mission to 10k. Someone asked how much I lost, my answer is 5.5k. Once clams are won, they are yours to lose. (About 4k of that was profit. I had won a little over 1k from a previous failed martingale I finished up.)

Dooglus, I still think the system can be beat. 

I'll accept your challenge of 'put your money where your mouth is' and give it another attempt soon. I have already started simulating millions of bets with a modified strategy and maybe this time I'll get the 10k.

Oh, and I wouldn't think of playing anywhere other than Just-Dice.com!


(If there is anyone out there with a brilliant plan of attack, jump on JD and message me and I will code up a bot to carry out the plan.)

-TigerTatas

Sigh. This again?

The amount you expect to lose is proportional to the amount you expect to wager. Doing a "whole bet" you expect to lose a percentage of your whole bankroll. Running a single equivalent martingale sequence summing to your whole bankroll but stopping the first time you win will expect to risk less, and so expects to lose less.

i used to use martingale method for a long time in my gamblings, and my conclusion after all those bets that i made with this method is that you ARE going to lose in the end.

and when the loss comes at the end of martingale method it hits you hard, and leaves you with no money.

now i just do regular betting for the thrill and fun of it.

True, you may lost most of the time. Because you lost once you lost all, even you win many times before. For personality, luck is the only thing.

You might be surprised to hear there's a new dice site with NO limit to the bet size, and NO house edge (until the end of the month):



Unbelievable?

They claim to have a 5-figure amount of BTC available to back their bets, but apparently don't intend to prove it until after the 0% edge offer expires:


Interesting stuff, no?

It's not so much about "better" odds but about different odds. For example, consider two games:

First game:
99% chance, win $1
1% chance, lose $100

Second game:
99% chance, lose $1
1% chance, win $100

Neither of these games has "better" odds than the other. But they have very different odds.

Well martingale is just the most famous, thats why is widely agreed to be a bad method but in reality all methods are bad, there is no better strategy than others. The only better strategy is to do a whole bet instead of small bets wich gives you slightly better odds.

That's really pretty silly. The whole point of Martingale is to make the probability of a loss low. You pay dearly for the benefit. By repeating a Martingale operation over and over, you increase the probability of a loss. As a result, you've paid dearly for a benefit that you're not getting. Why would you do that?

If you want to use a progressive betting system properly, you choose two of the following three things:
1) How much you want to win.
2) How much you are willing to lose.
3) What the probability of winning is.
Then you compute the third thing and execute the optimal betting strategy to achieve those objectives.

If you then repeat the process, you've shown that when you picked two of the three things above, you gave the wrong answer. So you designed an optimal betting strategy for a situation other than yours. Why would you do that?

All that will do is increase the total amount that you bet, and the house's edge is proportional to the total amount you bet. So you're basically giving money to the house.

Perhaps, but it's going to be tiny. I'm sure with enough 100 satoshi bets and no martingale you could eventually get a high enough variance to make a profit anyway - but it's just that - variance. It's nothing to do with the actual tactics. You also have to think of time constraints as most auto-betters won't allow you to bet *too* quickly and if you're betting manually then there's an obvious inefficient use of time on your part there.

i believe you would probably just break even or incur a loss if a series of 20 same colour bet happens to follow with an opposite colour and another 20 same colour.

how much FAIR they may say their system is, the casino wont accept losses

for example : I have BTC 1 , and I'm doing auto bet with 100 satoshi and leave it alone for a whole day. I think I can make a profit through this method

Martingale is widely agreed to be a method that has massive design flaws (well, most methods do due to the gambler's fallacy) and is not going to benefit you unless you have, indeed, an infinite bankroll. A large bankroll is not sufficient and betting limits do also exist. Basically, the only time martingale works is if you have no reason to use it all.

Just avoid it, yeah?

If you don't have an infinite bankroll (and no betting limits), eventually you can hit a losing streak so big that you can't afford to make the next bet, or the casino won't let you make the next bet because the limit is too high.

If you have an infinite bankroll, there's no reason to bet at all.

martingale is a freaking trap. what happens when you reach the betting limit? what happens when you cannot double since your pocket is under 49% of the amount lost? best way to try roulette is look for the pattern,

play 1000 bet at 0.000001

look for the pattern, write everything down.

then look for a weak point where you see 1 bet repeating. bet half your wallet on red or black keeping something on the 0 just in case.

you at least covered 67% of chances

With house edge, Martingale is doomed to fail.

I'm really still confused about it
some people say u should have a big bankroll , and others say you need infinite bankroll
I heard about large streaks which I guess no one can pass it without literally infinite bankroll
I guess martinagle is proving the fail everyday 

I don't think a casino exists that doesn't have some limits set in play. Otherwise a billionaire could just walk in and empty the house in like 3 bets. You have to remember casinos are also playing the numbers game - they don't mind having less big betters and larger bet volume - they make their money from the -EV gambler's take on. The only exception would be games like poker where their rake would obviously be larger with larger pots and therefore high rollers. But once again in games like poker they assume 0 risk - it's a unloseable proposition.

well, technically if you have an infinite bank roll you can always profit.  That's why high rollers are so dangerous in casinos where there are no limits.  But... there usually are limits.