Topic: Does martingale really works? - page 66. (Read 123303 times)

Because you are misusing words. The notion of rate assumes a gradual scale, as in more profit - less profit (but still profit). In the simplest case, success rate is a ratio of winning rolls to losing rolls, but, as I said before, this per se doesn't ensure either profit or loss. You could be winning even if your success rate was just 1 percent.

Consistently bringing profit = 100% success rate. Hence "consistent" instead of "intermittently." Why just reiterate what I said, using different words?

The system works if it consistently brings profit, this is the only viable criterion. Whether it has a 100% success rate or just 1% (yes, one percent) is ultimately irrelevant...

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

indeed.. martingale maybe only work once in a while, not in a long time ...
i only use a martingale if i am sure the results 2-3 times roll over after lost i will get win

sometimes it works on me, but sometimes martingale killing me.
so i think martingale method its just wasting your money.

Yeah, very impressive. I don't even think that deep when it comes to betting, although I have been trying a strategy called modified martingale and it works better than the original one. Not full proof still but I have had less losses with it.

the pattern will change when we change the seed?
didn't know about the seed but i can read the pattern when i have hi and low, not exactly 100% but when i do to "big bet" yeahh mostly i got won

yes I have heard the news of the people in this forum. I am also confused as to why I always want to come and play in 999dice, but sometimes I make a profit also there, though not large only 0005 - 0.05

999dice is a scam, how do people not know this yet.

yes I've done that in 999dice, I always change my seed every play. when a great game I always persist in the seed, but when I lose, I tried to change the seed and the results are pretty good.

I did not know it was really influential or not, or is it just my luck

although sometimes I finally lost, because too much change seed 

Thank you very much. This pretty much confirmed my suspicion I had.  =)

we cant say thats its work or not, because all depend on the luck? why?

if you have bad luck you will get red streaks,,we will never know what the outcome or the result..right?

Amazing explanation, Dooglus.

Wow, that's a really good explanation, I understand it better now

That's a very informative explanation. So basically, the more iterations you have, the "safer" it would be (i.e., going at 1 satoshi would be a lot more successful than going with 10000 satoshi per roll)?

If you bet your whole bankroll on a single bet in a 1% house edge casino, your expected loss is 1% of your bankroll.

If instead you split your bankroll up into a series of bets, starting small and increasing on loss, you can reach the same goal with a slightly higher chance of success. You didn't change the house edge, you just expect to risk less, and so expect to lose less

For example, the guy earlier talking about how much you need to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino.

Let's assume the house edge is (100/37)% like it is in roulette.

That means that the probability of winning a bet times the payout for that bet is 36/37.
"chance * payout = 36/37"

For example, when you bet on red, the payout is 2x. The chance of winning is 18/37 (there are 18 reds and 37 numbers). 2 times 18/37 is 36/37.
When you bet on a single number, the payout is 36x. The chance of winning is 1/37. 36 times 1/37 is 36/37.
And it's the same for all the possible bets.

So if we want a 99% chance of winning $50 from a single bet on roulette:

  chance = 0.99
  chance * payout = 36/37
  payout = 36/37/0.99 = 0.9828x

So if we want a 99% chance of winning a single bet, the house will pay us back less than our stake if we win. You can't have a 99% chance of making a profit on a single bet when the house edge is bigger than 1%.

So we're going to have to split the bet into a two-step martingale sequence.

It turns out that you only need $8839 (*) to have a 99% chance of winning $50, and here's how:

We'll bet at 90% (we have to imagine they offer any percentage you like, like dice sites do).

The 90% chance bet has a payout of 36/37/0.9 = 1.081081x

First bet $616.67 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 616.67 back.
1.081081 * 616.67 = 666.67 and we've made our $50 already, so stop.

If we lose that first bet, bet the remaining 8839 - 616.67 = $8222.33 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 8222.33 back.
1.081081 * 8222.33 = 8889.00, and if we take off the 616.67 we lost on the first bet we get 8272.33, and we've made our $50 again.

So if we hit either the first or 2nd bet, we're $50 up, and if we lose both we're $8839 down.

There's a 10% chance of losing each bet, so a 1% chance of losing them both, so a 99% chance of winning one of them.

ie. we only need $8839 to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino game with the same house edge as single-zero roulette.

Note that if we put all $8839 on a single bet to win $50, the payout would need to be (8839+50)/8839 = 1.00566x
and so the chance of winning would be (36/37)/((8839+50)/8839) = 96.75%

So again, we see that trying to win $50 starting with $8839 has a lower chance (96.75%) if you make a single bet and a higher chance (99%) if you split it into two bets, and do a mini 2-step martingale progression. And that's because 90% of the time you only have to make the small first bet, and so you're betting less, and so on average you lose less.


(*) set p = 36.0/37/0.9 - 1, then the amount you need is 50*(2*p + 1)/(p*p) = $8838.888888

(The two bet sizes are really 616.66666 recurring and 8,222.22222 recurring)

If you get him to post an anwser, please PM me. Thank you!

I'll probably need to get in touch with Dooglus and see his opinion on this. He's pretty solid when it comes to figuring these things out and if he has time, should be able to see what's wrong.