Does martingale really works? - page 78.

snuffish

sr. member

Activity: 259

Merit: 250

Quote from: robhimself on August 09, 2014, 04:46:58 PM

Quote from: snuffish on August 09, 2014, 04:37:02 PM

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

Unlimited supply of money wouldn't even help you since sites have maximum bets that you'll hit quickly using martingale.

Yea, but in "theory" martingale would work if you have a unlimited money supply. But not on PrimeDice Tongue

robhimself

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Calling out scams, one HYIP at a time...

Quote from: snuffish on August 09, 2014, 04:37:02 PM

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

Unlimited supply of money wouldn't even help you since sites have maximum bets that you'll hit quickly using martingale.

snuffish

sr. member

Activity: 259

Merit: 250

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

robhimself

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Calling out scams, one HYIP at a time...

All bets have a negative expectation equal to the house edge, regardless of strategy.

MoneyGod

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: deisik on August 09, 2014, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: f3tus on May 31, 2014, 06:56:58 PM

Quote from: jpcfan on May 31, 2014, 06:32:15 PM

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat

and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! Grin

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well? Cool

Russian Roulette is best solution for Martingale and its give success already to many and some still looking for this Cheesy

picolo

hero member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 500

Quote from: deisik on August 09, 2014, 05:43:13 AM

Quote from: f3tus on May 31, 2014, 06:56:58 PM

Quote from: jpcfan on May 31, 2014, 06:32:15 PM

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat

and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! Grin

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well? Cool

Some do : http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/2012/12/26/five-people-who-played-russian-roulette-and-lost/index.html

You can get 10k-100k$ to play in once

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: f3tus on May 31, 2014, 06:56:58 PM

Quote from: jpcfan on May 31, 2014, 06:32:15 PM

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat

and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! Grin

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well? Cool

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Buziss on July 03, 2014, 03:19:48 AM

Quote from: sidhujag on July 03, 2014, 01:10:29 AM

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based. Wink

You just answered your own question.

If you have been reading the thread I talk about the supposition that market=non independent bets.

chaosPT

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Buziss on July 03, 2014, 03:19:48 AM

Quote from: sidhujag on July 03, 2014, 01:10:29 AM

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based. Wink

All game have -ve EV but you just cant feel it Wink

Buziss

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: sidhujag on July 03, 2014, 01:10:29 AM

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based. Wink

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Buziss

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: leex1528 on July 02, 2014, 03:18:48 PM

Quote from: cp1 on July 02, 2014, 03:14:05 PM

Quote from: leex1528 on July 02, 2014, 03:11:28 PM

Your 2nd part, Martingale doesn't always have negative expectancy(I don't think). If you were to play up to 20 hands, and you had enough to cover 20 losses. The odds of you winning just 1 roll, you would have a positive expectancy...

If you're playing a game with a house edge then you always have a negative expected value. Anything else is silly. Consider a game where the site gave the player the edge. Could you think of any way of betting that would give you a negative expected value?

Yep, I could. If you went all in every time you bet to infinity, you are going to lose eventually. Thus, negative expected value.

Yes, even with a house edge you can have a positive expected value(math someone?) Like in my example. 20 losses, or if you had 200 losses to cover, and you only wanted to win 1 base bet. Your expected value should be darn close to the base bet no? Any math people out there, Doog you have been good at this, I could be wrong as well just figured

Looks like you have a misunderstanding on "expected value".

Take your 20-hand martingale as an example.
P(20 consecutive losses) = 0.505^20 ~= 0.000116366%
P(win 1 base unit) = 1-0.505^20 ~= 99.999883633%
EV = P(win 1 base bet) * 1 - P(20 consecutive losses) * 2^20 = -0.22019120361 < 0

So, you have a very high chance to win 1 base unit, but you are still having a negative EV.

Buziss

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cp1 on July 02, 2014, 05:06:11 PM

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play.

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1. Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

Both game has the same EV, but the former one has a house edge of 0.01% while the latter one has a house edge of 1%.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

With infinite balance martingale is never going to break you but what system would? The key is to strike a balance between potential risk and reward and a favourable expectancy over the long haul. Anything else and you are going to learn the hard way.

tspacepilot

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1081

I may write code in exchange for bitcoins.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cp1 on July 02, 2014, 05:06:11 PM

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play.

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1. Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

Correct but I think he showed that the expectancy was better with a 7 series martingale, very slightly. In the end it won't matter in this type of game.

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: cp1 on July 02, 2014, 05:06:11 PM

Both have the same EV

How do you figure?

cp1

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Stop using branwallets

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play.

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1. Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

dooglus

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1333

Quote from: cp1 on July 02, 2014, 03:48:11 PM

I think you need to define what you mean by "better".

If two things are identical except that one has a higher chance of winning than the other, I think it's pretty clear that the one with the higher chance of winning is "better".

It's hard to conceive of a definition whereby it isn't. Unless you think winning is bad, I guess.

Edit: are you thinking that for something to be better than something else it has to be good?

It is better to only lose the tip of a finger to an industrial accident than to lose a whole arm. Neither is good, but the less serious accident is "better" than the more serious accident.

Edit2: and so while I wouldn't recommend industrial accidents, I can say that if you're going to have one, try to have a minor one. Because they are "better" than major ones.

Edit3: lol

cp1

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Stop using branwallets

I think you need to define what you mean by "better".

Topic: Does martingale really works? - page 78. (Read 123303 times)