Well, that's how I look into and base from my and others experience. But, I'm not telling that it's not effective to others and that's why I've said I can't prove it as a good strategy but maybe others can.
Others with bottomless wallets can prove it
With Dogecoin, you can easily turn a very limited balance (say, 100 dollars) into a virtually unlimited one
If you just want to prove something, that's good to go. But if you are playing for the money and the fun, which are the two things that gamblers are usually after, that would simply be a waste of time. For that 100 bucks to turn into an unlimited funding, you will have to play autobet and opt for ∞ while placing as little as 0.0000001 DOGE for the first roll.
Otherwise, this Martingale strategy is just an impatient and poor attempt to recover your base loss. I have used it and will definitely use it again but there will surely be a certain limit. You simply cannot chase that few Sats forever and up to the point of betting 1 full BTC. That would be extremely ludicrous
If I got you correctly, you refer to the variety of martingale described in the Wiki article (let's call it plain vanilla martingale). If so, then I agree with you, it is as ludicrous as utterly useless. But this is not the only way to implement it. Personally, I set it up in a way that allowed me not only to get back what I had cumulatively lost at the end of the losing streak but also earn as much. More specifically, I was continually increasing the multiplier as my balance grew, so eventually I ended up with a payout over 130%, i.e. at each winning roll I took home more than twice the total amount lost in the preceding rolls
), your stats prove that 30 million bets isn't enough for the house edge to prevail over possible luck
