Topic: Does martingale really works? - page 63. (Read 123303 times)

"near 50/50 chance" means that it slightly favors the house. this is enough to make sure that the house comes out ahead of all of these schemes.

I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows:

1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32...

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

Martingale is working fine. yeah working fine to bust your money lol.
people lose their money in gambling because martingale.

Even Rockfeller didn't have infinite money and casinos have betting limits anyway.

well theres no infinite sadly right??

how about using preroll on dice so we can get some starter to save some money? so it will hold last longer

And it also works when you play for the last amount of time. It kills your bankroll when you play ---> infinity.

Martingale distributes wins/losses differently.  You have more wins for smaller amounts, and few losses for huge amounts.  That literally about all it does.

You skipped the bet of 16. You can do that if you like, but how do you know to go straight from 8 to 32?

The martingale sequence does indeed give you the same amount in profit - it gives you the same amount as your first bet:

1 = 1
-1+2 = 1
-1-2+4 = 1
-1-2-4+8 = 1
-1-2-4-8+16 = 1
-1-2-4-8-16+32 = 1

Get it? The winning bet is one more than the sum of the losing bets.

Even if you have an infinite amount of money, a casino won't allow you to indefinitely raise stakes (there is a limit on the size of stake either openly declared or hiddenly employed). But you can always buy the casino itself (and then ruin it)...

Martingale works if you have infitnite money, which you dont (unless you are a rockefeller). Can work for a while but get out fast, the odds are against you...

I meant profit indeed right from the start...


Now I understand what that poster wanted to say. But this is not how martingale is being used (which I assumed). You set your odds in such a way that each winning bet covers all the accumulated losses from the previous losing bets in a row plus gives you the same amount in profit (in the simplest case).

For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17

It's hard to assume you're wrong because it's not clear what you're even saying. You talk about "reaching 0.01 BTC" but aren't clear whether you mean betting that amount or having that amount of profit.

1. Each complete martingale sequence starts with a bet of 1 satoshi, doubles on loss, and finishes when you win a single bet. Can you see that each complete sequence nets you a profit of 1 satoshi? For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1

2. If you agree, do you see that in order to make a profit of 0.01 BTC you will have to run a million martingale sequences, since each one wins 1 satoshi, and 0.01 BTC is a million satoshis?

3. If you agree, do you also accept that the average length of a martingale sequence is 2 bets?

4. And if so, do you agree that a million sequences of average length 2 will have a combined length of 2 million?

And if so, what's the problem?

Maybe you can let us know at which point (1 through 4) you start to disagree.


I've been repeatedly asserting that for most purposes Martingale betting is a bad strategy, and outlining one of the few cases where it helps.


That's not true. Players are sometimes able to overcome the edge for short periods of time. At one point Just-Dice had made a net loss of around 6000 BTC. It recovered, and ended up with a large profit, but it's not true to say that the edge is enough to ensure profit ALWAYS. Just EVENTUALLY, given enough play.


That's not true either. A casino could have a zero house edge and still have a chance of being profitable either by getting lucky or through other revenue sources such as selling ad space.


There are various ways to "beat the house", as used by advantage players. Taking advantage of deposit bonuses, only playing when the progressive pot is over a certain size, counting cards at blackjack, etc. They all take discipline and you'll often get cut off by the house if you do it too much.

^^ You always have to remember that the more bets, the bigger effect the house edge. So 1 sat martingale is a bad idea

theres  either an awful lot of stupidity on this thread

or maybe its  just gambling site owners trying to encourage fools to lose their money

any house advantage no matter how small it looks  is enough to keep them  on top ALWAYS

the only way casinos could remain profitable is by having a slight or not so slight advantage depending on the bet ........if there was a simple working strategy to " beat the house "  everyone would just use  it and casinos  would bleed money until they were in the red .........

Okay, let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong. How did you get that number, that is 2 million bets to get a profit of 0.01 btc using martingale and the base bet set at 1 satoshi? You double your stakes until you win, then jump back to the base bet of 1 satoshi and restart...

I dont know what you mean, it takes 2 million bets using martingale at 1 sat base bet to get 0.01 PROFIT not to reach 0.01 as a bet

Its hard to stop when you are winning, and thats the point where everyone looses

That's exactly what was my first thought actually...


Here we go again. How could it possibly require insane amounts of bets to reach 0.01 if it only takes 20 steps on a losing streak to get there (which happens now and then)? And I don't say that you could easily get 0.01 btc in profits even without coming close to betting 0.01 btc...

He's talking about using Martingale betting, where you double your stake until you win, then reset to the base bet size.

The two strategies (flat betting vs. Martingale) give vastly different probability distribution functions:

* flat betting gives you a high probability of losing a little and lower probabilities of doing slightly better or worse than that; it looks like a bell curve centred on a loss of 1% of the amount you stake

* martingale betting gives you a high probability of winning a little, and a low probability of losing a lot; there are two separate non-zero areas on the curve

Here's an image showing what I'm talking about:



The blue area is centred around a small negative number, with its tail crossing into positive numbers.
The red area shows a high chance of winning a little and a low chance of losing a lot.