I have also used this kind of strategy too and the result is the same with most gamblers who used this kind of strategy too. Losses everywhere
. 
Topic: Does Martingale strategy increase your chance of winning? - page 4. (Read 991 times)
I have seen this kind of strategy that has been discussed here many times already and many have tried to use this strategy already.
I have also used this kind of strategy too and the result is the same with most gamblers who used this kind of strategy too. Losses everywhere.
I have also used this kind of strategy too and the result is the same with most gamblers who used this kind of strategy too. Losses everywhere
. About the pitfalls of Martingale money management strategy read here: http://sportstatist.com/the-pitfalls-of-martingale-money-management-strategy/
The book/article author himself being a loser when apply this strategy thus wrote the book base on his own experience, research and references. One thing we may never know which is a successfully guy know his way will never publish a book or article about it because it will not be welcome and expose the strategy to be defended.
To a certain extent, Martingale works. But you need to have a really deep pocket. Without which, you better avoid using Martingale as it will only dry up your wallet pretty quick.
What do you mean by deep pocket? Do you mean 10 BTC, 1,000 BTC or 1,000,000 BTC?Assume that some one have 1000 Bitcoin. How much do you consider the initial bet?
1 Satoshi? Do you know how long does it take to earn a certain percentage of profit? (Even if you consider the initial bet 1 Satoshi, according to calculation your balance will be finally zero.
1000 Satoshi? It id same as the example I made in thefirst post.
I am fully aware that Martingale is mathematically impossible. That is a given. There no argument about it. If you interpret my saying "To a certain extent, Martingale works." as something that a gambler can do repeatedly until god knows when, then I have to say one has to have a bottomless pocket for it.
What I'm trying to say is that it has worked. I have used it, probably you have also used it, and a lot of people have also used it and I am quite certain that for a time it worked on our favor.
If the winning chance is smaller then using martingale strategy then it won't increase your chance winning but your chance of earning profit may increase. If you play on a gambling site and you can set the winning percentage then it's clear that the winning percentage will never be increase.
As a strategy and money management system, horrible, you are guaranteed to lose or make very unimpressive percentage returns.
However, in short term scenarios when a revert to mean is highly expected, a grid system or a modified martingale can be applied with pleasant results; for example it's a popular approach in FX trading, when after massive moves a currency mean reversion becomes highly likely...
However, in short term scenarios when a revert to mean is highly expected, a grid system or a modified martingale can be applied with pleasant results; for example it's a popular approach in FX trading, when after massive moves a currency mean reversion becomes highly likely...
To a certain extent, Martingale works. But you need to have a really deep pocket. Without which, you better avoid using Martingale as it will only dry up your wallet pretty quick.
What do you mean by deep pocket? Do you mean 10 BTC, 1,000 BTC or 1,000,000 BTC?Assume that some one have 1000 Bitcoin. How much do you consider the initial bet?
1 Satoshi? Do you know how long does it take to earn a certain percentage of profit? (Even if you consider the initial bet 1 Satoshi, according to calculation your balance will be finally zero.
1000 Satoshi? It id same as the example I made in thefirst post.
I am still of the opinion that this martingale strategy is not as bad as it is been portrayed because I have seen a lot of gamblers that have been successful using this same strategy although I really do not understand how they go about it.
The strategy is worse than you think. I guess you are referring to some videos on Youtube. Yes, the strategy works for several times and up to few hours. But you will finally lose.
Any one who is talking about advantages of this strategy is trying to promote its referral link or don't know the strategy.
For those who does not experience using this method, they might think that it will improve their chance of winning because they might think losing x10 in a row is impossible. But, for people like me, I would say it's not a working method, hence it will never increase the chance of winning in dice game, in fact, I would call this a recipe for disaster as it's like chasing your loses until you got rekt.
In as much as I don’t really get the calculation accurately right, I am still of the opinion that this martingale strategy is not as bad as it is been portrayed because I have seen a lot of gamblers that have been successful using this same strategy although I really do not understand how they go about it. There should be a definitive approach to every decision on how to use a strategy and it is not the strategy itself that does the magic, the chance of either winning or losing 10x in a row is dependent on the player, like I said earlier I have little knowledge about this strategy and I am definitely not in the position to talk about it, I don’t use strategies and I prefer to have my game played not minding if I make loses or win.
You are open minded and is a good thing.
The only strategy to win is martingale (with modification of course) in which earn back everything on a win after a long losing streak. The thing is how one can manage to use the same capital to stay the longest i.e: with 1BTC he stay alive after 10,000 bets on the first try, 1,000,000 bets on the second try, 100,000,000 bets on the third try, and so on....who know if he managed to find out some behaviours of the random system and managed to get along with it (regaining of previous tries and possibility of profit after that).
A good thing for us today is the computer, in which almost everything can be simulated fast enough in which events will occur in 100 years (total bets) can be simulated in few weeks instead thus open the opportunity to find out something on this system.
About the pitfalls of Martingale money management strategy read here: http://sportstatist.com/the-pitfalls-of-martingale-money-management-strategy/
The book/article author himself being a loser when apply this strategy thus wrote the book base on his own experience, research and references. One thing we may never know which is a successfully guy know his way will never publish a book or article about it because it will not be welcome and expose the strategy to be defended.
About the pitfalls of Martingale money management strategy read here: http://sportstatist.com/the-pitfalls-of-martingale-money-management-strategy/
For those who does not experience using this method, they might think that it will improve their chance of winning because they might think losing x10 in a row is impossible. But, for people like me, I would say it's not a working method, hence it will never increase the chance of winning in dice game, in fact, I would call this a recipe for disaster as it's like chasing your loses until you got rekt.
In as much as I don’t really get the calculation accurately right, I am still of the opinion that this martingale strategy is not as bad as it is been portrayed because I have seen a lot of gamblers that have been successful using this same strategy although I really do not understand how they go about it. There should be a definitive approach to every decision on how to use a strategy and it is not the strategy itself that does the magic, the chance of either winning or losing 10x in a row is dependent on the player, like I said earlier I have little knowledge about this strategy and I am definitely not in the position to talk about it, I don’t use strategies and I prefer to have my game played not minding if I make loses or win.
hero member
Activity: 2912
Merit: 541
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
It definitely not. If you only know that you could win for the next bet, it will be helpful but we are just depending on our luck and might possible that we are just doubling our losses. I don't use this kind of strategy, not even I often to gambling but it feels not a way we have to recover our losses from the first loss.
We never know what we can win or not in the next bet, that is the truth. As you say, luck will be the most important thing that we must have in gambling games. No matter the strategy we use in gambling, I am afraid that we only risk our money, especially if we get a loss in every round in those games. If that is happening to us, I think it is better to quit the games and leave the site for some time. That will help us to refresh everything.
To a certain extent, Martingale works. But you need to have a really deep pocket. Without which, you better avoid using Martingale as it will only dry up your wallet pretty quick.
The OP demonstrates that if you have a full 1 BTC and you start betting with a single Satoshi, you can make use of Martingale up to 26 times. You are unbelievable unlucky if for 26 consecutive bets you will not win a single one. That is statistically improbable.
Yeah, I know that martingale works, but I think not many gamblers can win with martingale. I don't want to use big money in gambling because that means I give the money without having a chance to win or recover if I lose the money.
If I have 1 BTC, I will not risk 1 BTC in gambling because I know that I don't have luck or chance to win even if other people say that I will win the money.
It definitely not. If you only know that you could win for the next bet, it will be helpful but we are just depending on our luck and might possible that we are just doubling our losses. I don't use this kind of strategy, not even I often to gambling but it feels not a way we have to recover our losses from the first loss.
We never know what we can win or not in the next bet, that is the truth. As you say, luck will be the most important thing that we must have in gambling games. No matter the strategy we use in gambling, I am afraid that we only risk our money, especially if we get a loss in every round in those games. If that is happening to us, I think it is better to quit the games and leave the site for some time. That will help us to refresh everything.
To a certain extent, Martingale works. But you need to have a really deep pocket. Without which, you better avoid using Martingale as it will only dry up your wallet pretty quick.
The OP demonstrates that if you have a full 1 BTC and you start betting with a single Satoshi, you can make use of Martingale up to 26 times. You are unbelievable unlucky if for 26 consecutive bets you will not win a single one. That is statistically improbable.
hero member
Activity: 2912
Merit: 541
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
It definitely not. If you only know that you could win for the next bet, it will be helpful but we are just depending on our luck and might possible that we are just doubling our losses. I don't use this kind of strategy, not even I often to gambling but it feels not a way we have to recover our losses from the first loss.
We never know what we can win or not in the next bet, that is the truth. As you say, luck will be the most important thing that we must have in gambling games. No matter the strategy we use in gambling, I am afraid that we only risk our money, especially if we get a loss in every round in those games. If that is happening to us, I think it is better to quit the games and leave the site for some time. That will help us to refresh everything.
I guess this means the casinos believe martingale actually works hence the use of maximum bet size? If this is the case, the Op could try martingale on casino without maximum bet size. He could be lucky you know? .
They dont it is just they have a limited bank roll themselves and cant cover the risk, every casino has some limit to the bet size it can take just because its an open bet they can lose.
Martingale gives no ongoing strategic advantage, its just a play on luck that despite disadvantaged odds due to house advantage that eventually a person will gain in some way momentarily. If they stop betting on that moment and walk away until another day then its called a profit. Its more of an urban myth then actual reasonable way to play, I guess it could be argued that vs having no strategy at all that this is at least some organised method but I dont think its worth doing or believing in.
The most likely outcome is a big loss because the casino is bigger and can last longer then you can. There are sometimes slight mathematical possibilities that yield an odds advantage, it has occurred that people worked it out maybe even a roulette wheel that yields some numbers too often. That can happen and its increasing chances but this Martingale method is not proven or ever likely to be.
It definitely not. If you only know that you could win for the next bet, it will be helpful but we are just depending on our luck and might possible that we are just doubling our losses. I don't use this kind of strategy, not even I often to gambling but it feels not a way we have to recover our losses from the first loss.
For those who does not experience using this method, they might think that it will improve their chance of winning because they might think losing x10 in a row is impossible. But, for people like me, I would say it's not a working method, hence it will never increase the chance of winning in dice game, in fact, I would call this a recipe for disaster as it's like chasing your loses until you got rekt.
Keep chasing your loses will ruin your bankroll. Martingale strategy might work for those who knows how patience works inside this activity. Whenever you use this method, always pay attention with how you find your little advantage against the house. Never to be greedy, Martingale will be a trap for you to keep losing your money while using this strategy. Be very careful and be emotionless while playing the game to avoid making mistakes.
I think since majority of gamblers are very impatient, there is really no need for any kind of strategy. It is better for everyone to play and either depend on their skill or luck because at the end of the day, there will still be contradictions. Some would confirm that the strategy is favorable while to some its trash.
For those who does not experience using this method, they might think that it will improve their chance of winning because they might think losing x10 in a row is impossible. But, for people like me, I would say it's not a working method, hence it will never increase the chance of winning in dice game, in fact, I would call this a recipe for disaster as it's like chasing your loses until you got rekt.
x10? I did even up 23x losing streak in dice with the minimal base bet amount on using up martingale.Sooner or later on using up this method it will just bust up your entire balance on an instant when a long losing streak hits you.No matter how big your bankroll is but there were people who do really force out therselves to use up this strategy because of believing that this could work.
That's too unlucky, I also never experience that long cold losing streak in my life as a gambler, and to those who believes that martingale strategy will work in dice, they will just realize in the end that they were wrong, it's only sad that they have to learn the hard way.
Martingale strategy in dice will only work if you have an infinite bankroll. That's a real talk man.
So long as there is no upper limit on bet size, and you have unlimited balance, then you should eventually win using the martingale method.
However, given that the house edge exists it is like comparing two infinite states, where one infinite is marginally bigger than the other.
Because of this, even with infinite balance and no bet size limit, the house is still more likely to get a lucky run that somehow empties your limitless balance.
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
However, given that the house edge exists it is like comparing two infinite states, where one infinite is marginally bigger than the other.
Because of this, even with infinite balance and no bet size limit, the house is still more likely to get a lucky run that somehow empties your limitless balance.
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
Quote
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
I guess this means the casinos believe martingale actually works hence the use of maximum bet size? If this is the case, the Op could try martingale on casino without maximum bet size. He could be lucky you know? .
That's true, majority of the casinos would not have more than i.e 10k btc, but many whales have that or much more than that. That why house edge and max win/bet are put in. If you search back the Freebitco.in site, in which initiallly their house edge is 0 and they got drained so fast thus 5% edge introduced and did not changed by then.
So long as there is no upper limit on bet size, and you have unlimited balance, then you should eventually win using the martingale method.
However, given that the house edge exists it is like comparing two infinite states, where one infinite is marginally bigger than the other.
Because of this, even with infinite balance and no bet size limit, the house is still more likely to get a lucky run that somehow empties your limitless balance.
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
However, given that the house edge exists it is like comparing two infinite states, where one infinite is marginally bigger than the other.
Because of this, even with infinite balance and no bet size limit, the house is still more likely to get a lucky run that somehow empties your limitless balance.
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
Quote
Beyond that, most casinos have a max bet size or win amount that will eventually rekt you when using martingale.
I guess this means the casinos believe martingale actually works hence the use of maximum bet size? If this is the case, the Op could try martingale on casino without maximum bet size. He could be lucky you know? .
Your test result on the same calculation method for martingale, in which after you lose, multiply by x. That's one of the way to do martingale and known to be failed early.
Check the following stat of my own martingale method (not publicity exist yet and no i don't publish it) and tell me how it can survive (21 million bets+).
https://imgur.com/a/1SIspbc
If you want to prove more, I will get a screenshot after it reach 100m bets, keep follow up since it's real betting thus taking like 10-11 months to have that.
Check the following stat of my own martingale method (not publicity exist yet and no i don't publish it) and tell me how it can survive (21 million bets+).
https://imgur.com/a/1SIspbc
If you want to prove more, I will get a screenshot after it reach 100m bets, keep follow up since it's real betting thus taking like 10-11 months to have that.
You've earned 40$ after 21m bets while risking 750 $ if martingale will go too far? With regular martingale ~30% gamblers are lucky enough to double. You are far from doubling. Even if you will double your portfolio (earn 15 times more than you have already earned) you could be in those 30% lucky gamblers - it does not proof that your strategy is working. In fact if you will proof that it works you will open door to new mathematics in which 1+1=/2 because simple math proofs that it is impossible to beat casino.
You may mistaken from budget vs wagered amount, my budget is 1 LTC which is 66$ or at the time I input in @100$. With that 66$ and wagered 750$, it's performance is far better than the house edge, which is 40/750 = 5.3% earning per whatever wagered amount goes, and the drawdown is not even reaching 50% of it (aka 33$). So current capital is 66$+40$ = 104$.
But you have based on dollar cost averaging thus not applicable in this case, since the site translate everything into BTC for stat and the real stat is: 1LTC budget, 0.72876726 LTC profit after 8.83229109 LTC wagered or 72% profit per budgeted amount, or 8.25% per wagered amount. The key is the later percentage in which it keep following the wagered amount (not capital) the more it wager, the more it earn and as long as this percentage is greater than the house edge of 1%, it alive as long as it should be because it is harder to lose since the profit increase, and the running balance keep increase as well as drawdown is less than 50%.
Majority of the tests out there do not take into account the earning rate (running current balance) but only calcualate base on original balance. They missed the "moving variable" which is the earning (or profit), as long as it go faster than what is required to win a rare streak, it's still success.
For test, yes I did test but simulated of each win/lose bet including the earning too which is "bottom up" to get the final summarization, not by simple formula base on few variables which is "generic" or "top down". If you ever hear of bottom up or top down estimation/calculation, you will know that bottom up method yeid a more accurate result than the other. And the number of test I've done (which is the most important factor that affect the result) is 200 millions at least, as well as time taken to do so is few weeks, not by a simply click where the computer give the result immediately.
Jump to: