not on dices.
No matter what you do the house edge will be the same. No way to change it
Topic: Does martingale really works? - page 71. (Read 123303 times)
finally broke down to do a little more math.
With a martingale strategy, if you win x in a row you win x bets.
If you lose x in a row you lose 2^(x-1) bets.
Even with 50/50 odds and 0 house edge you can see why this is a bad idea. The odds of winning x in a row and losing x in a row are exactly the same, and the downside gets exponentially bigger as x gets bigger, it's not a smart bet.
The other thing to remember, especially if you are running simulations and using autobots, is that even though long losing streaks are unlikely, using simulations/bots gives you a lot more chances to hit that unlucky streak, which leads to a lot more chances to get fucked over (because that's what happens when you hit an unlucky streak while using martingale).
With a martingale strategy, if you win x in a row you win x bets.
If you lose x in a row you lose 2^(x-1) bets.
Even with 50/50 odds and 0 house edge you can see why this is a bad idea. The odds of winning x in a row and losing x in a row are exactly the same, and the downside gets exponentially bigger as x gets bigger, it's not a smart bet.
The other thing to remember, especially if you are running simulations and using autobots, is that even though long losing streaks are unlikely, using simulations/bots gives you a lot more chances to hit that unlucky streak, which leads to a lot more chances to get fucked over (because that's what happens when you hit an unlucky streak while using martingale).
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run
their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run
I do not really know why martingale not always run smoothly, now I better play single bet, I'm really comfortable with it. and not immediately lose all my balance in a heartbeat (like martingale)
Right play with the method of martingale it is better to use a single play than by playing auto play because with the single mode we can change the roll from high or low.
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run
their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run
I do not really know why martingale not always run smoothly, now I better play single bet, I'm really comfortable with it. and not immediately lose all my balance in a heartbeat (like martingale)
With only 15 units, you only need to lose 4 in a row to bust (let's say 5 in a row in case you have a few successful rounds).
You need 15 successful "runs" to double up. It's not that hard to lose 4 or 5 in a row.
You need 15 successful "runs" to double up. It's not that hard to lose 4 or 5 in a row.
it doesn't work, it is a matter of luck that your get money with that strategy
As what I experienced, martingale is really work.
it works at the beginning and it busts at the end
I still use martingale but not for a long time, once I get enough profit I stopped it, and try another method.
it works at the beginning and it busts at the end
I still use martingale but not for a long time, once I get enough profit I stopped it, and try another method.
With martingale, you can play a bet with very low losing probability but it won't change the EV or help you beat the house edge.
yes it works perfectly provided the game is fair.
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run
their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run
Martingale never works in the end. You can get a short term profit and make a little bit of money but you will eventually hit a big enough losing streak and will lose all your money.
Last time I tried Martingaling I had 16 consecutive lost rolls and eventually busted in the end. I am not sure what the outcome would be if I had a bigger bankroll. Possibly the same 
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust
Theoretically. The house edge will always make a difference, though, as it means out of 100 rolls, you should only get, say 48 wins, rather than 50. This means you will bust much faster than without one. The theory remains the same, yes, but the house edge decreases the chances of hitting your goal significantly.
There's an interesting question you've missed. The house also doesn't have unlimited bankroll.
Question is: Should the house have at least the same size of bankroll as you, for the chances to bust you to be in the house favor? Assuming 0 house edge, of course.
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust
Theoretically. The house edge will always make a difference, though, as it means out of 100 rolls, you should only get, say 48 wins, rather than 50. This means you will bust much faster than without one. The theory remains the same, yes, but the house edge decreases the chances of hitting your goal significantly.
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.
I think martingale won't work for the long run, martingale losses tend to unlimited, you can only limit them by cutting. martingale is foolproof in the sense that you can only lose in the end, if you don't intervene with cutting losses in some way
i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in
how much losing streak if use marti with 50 chance to win? you ever experienced in justdice
i never use martingale actually
i never use martingale actually
Jump to: