Topic: Losing a martingale is easier than you think (Read 2292 times)
loosing with a strategy called martingale is really easy on dice games therefore i never use it to play any games that involve money with it, hopefully no one will choose to use it too much
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance 
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Could you please share your martingale setting and how long you made that 0.1 just from 0.0002? It is too good to be true, but nothing impossible when you have a great luck.
https://i.imgur.com/NuK7IRz.png Seems like my luck has depleted.
you win x50 of your deposit and do not withdraw it.
"Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1 "
People are always greedy
https://snapr.pw/i/466209017c.png I think I should stop betting now.
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Could you please share your martingale setting and how long you made that 0.1 just from 0.0002? It is too good to be true, but nothing impossible when you have a great luck.
https://i.imgur.com/NuK7IRz.png Seems like my luck has depleted.
you win x50 of your deposit and do not withdraw it.
"Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1 "
People are always greedy
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Could you please share your martingale setting and how long you made that 0.1 just from 0.0002? It is too good to be true, but nothing impossible when you have a great luck.
https://i.imgur.com/NuK7IRz.png Seems like my luck has depleted.
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Could you please share your martingale setting and how long you made that 0.1 just from 0.0002? It is too good to be true, but nothing impossible when you have a great luck.
Whatever strategy he used, he had less than 1/500 chances of getting this goal
I went through the formulas and the approximations given in your link.As the started paragraphs said,its very difficult to determine the winning streaks so whatever answers are derived ,they're on basis of some formulas and approximations.Doesn't necessarily have to be accurate in the gambling case,because the formula assumes find the probability of of a consecutive event at N number of times when the given sample space is "S" which is known.Gambling is quite different,the sample place formerly is not known and there are multiple events .
That's true, but seems like you read only the physicist response.
Here what the mathematician said:
"
Mathematician: Want an exact answer without all the hard work and really nasty formulas? Computers were invented for a reason, people.
We want to compute S(N,K), the probability of getting K or more heads in a row out of N independent coin flips (when there is a probability p of each head occurring and a probability of 1-p of each tail occurring). Let’s consider different ways that we could get K heads in a row. One way to do it would be to have our first K coin flips all be heads, and this occurs with a probability p^{K}. If this does not happen, then at least one tail must occur within the first K coin flips. Let’s suppose that j is the position of the first tail, and by assumption it satisfies 1 \le j \le K. Then, the probability of having K or more heads in a row in the entire set of coins (given that the first tail occurred at j \le K) is simply the probability of having K or more heads in a row in the set of coins following the jth coin (since there can’t be a streak of K or more heads starting before the jth coin due to j being smaller or equal to K). But this probability of having a streak of K or more after the jth coin is just S(N-j,K). Now, since the probability that our first tail occurs at position j is the chance that we get j-1 heads followed by one tail, so it is p^{j-1} (1-p) . That means that the chance that the first tail occurs on coin j AND there is a streak of K or more heads is given by p^{j-1} (1-p) S(N-j,K). Hence, the probability that the first K coins are all heads, OR coin one is the first tails and the remainder have K or more heads in a row, OR coin two is the first tails and the remainder have K or more heads in a row, OR coin three is the first tails and…, is given by:
S(N,K) = p^{K} + \sum_{j=1,K} p^{j-1} (1-p) S(N-j,K)
Note that what this allows us to do is to compute S(N,K) by knowing the values of S(N-j,K) for 1 \le j \le K. Hence, this is a recursive formula for S(N,K) which relates harder solutions (with larger N values) to easier solutions (with smaller N values). These easier solutions can then be computed using even easier solutions, until we get to S(A,B) for values of A and B so small that we already know the answer (i.e. S(A,B) is very easy to calculate by hand). These are known as our base cases. In particular, we observe that if we have zero coins then there is a zero probability of getting any positive number of heads is zero, so S(0,K) = 0, and the chance of getting more heads than we have coins is zero, so S(N,K) = 0 for K>N.
All of this can be implemented in a few lines of (python) computer code as follows:"
..the second link I provided is based on this code, not on the " physicist answer" .
I went through the formulas and the approximations given in your link.As the started paragraphs said,its very difficult to determine the winning streaks so whatever answers are derived ,they're on basis of some formulas and approximations.Doesn't necessarily have to be accurate in the gambling case,because the formula assumes find the probability of of a consecutive event at N number of times when the given sample space is "S" which is known.Gambling is quite different,the sample place formerly is not known and there are multiple events .
I mean, honestly I've tried martingale system knowing that it won't work long term but I've used for 20 minutes or so in satoshi mines I remember. I got great results and more than doubled my money. What that means? well I got lucky, but I was at the brink of losing it all many times, so I know if I've kept playing I will lose eventually.
I think this is a system very similar to just bet on black, less than 50%, double your money or lose it all, it's a hailmary attempt. The question is: it better than gambling without a system thinking you will outwin the house? That's what most gamblers do...
I think this is a system very similar to just bet on black, less than 50%, double your money or lose it all, it's a hailmary attempt. The question is: it better than gambling without a system thinking you will outwin the house? That's what most gamblers do...
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.0002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Could you please share your martingale setting and how long you made that 0.1 just from 0.0002? It is too good to be true, but nothing impossible when you have a great luck.
Martingale is fun, yesterday I started with 0.002 at PD, got it up to 0.1, was about to deposit but then a couple of secs later I was at almost 0 balance
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
Keep in mind that this took a long time, with not a very big bet amount, I lost like 7 times in a row or something.
I've never thought about pinning my hopes on any kind of betting system, they're all bull shit imo. The house wins more often than not. Just gamble with small amounts & have fun.
Don't try to rely on any kind of system.
Don't try to rely on any kind of system.
i'm done with these strategy because have been did it several times and mostly my bet result is lose although i do martingale for sport betting but it's does not working for me
Martingale is a great and standard skill for everyone to use because it simple enough for everyone to use it but the problem is how are you going to manage your multiplier and on loss and everything to get some profit? This thing is the hardest part and no one still not be able to set it well unless depends on your luck
Martingale is still martingale.
No matter how you set the multiplier, how much your base bet, how much you increase on loss. It will always end in the same "LOSE", especially if you use an auto betting feature.
Martingale is a great and standard skill for everyone to use because it simple enough for everyone to use it but the problem is how are you going to manage your multiplier and on loss and everything to get some profit? This thing is the hardest part and no one still not be able to set it well unless depends on your luck
Martingale is still martingale.
No matter how you set the multiplier, how much your base bet, how much you increase on loss. It will always end in the same "LOSE", especially if you use an auto betting feature.
That is an interesting calculator, but I am not sure if it is helpful to convince martingale players to stop using it or to acknowledge its risk. I mean, those who know maths and at least believe in math (dooglus and others have explained it numerous times) would understand martingale is no good long ago. But those who don't know or don't believe in math will not believe the calculator either.
Martingale is a great and standard skill for everyone to use because it simple enough for everyone to use it but the problem is how are you going to manage your multiplier and on loss and everything to get some profit? This thing is the hardest part and no one still not be able to set it well unless depends on your luck
it is just a way to play with your $$. however, as what many have said, the house edge is still against you. so you may reduce the house edge by using martingale but in the long run, you still end up losing to house edge.
Martingale is a great and standard skill for everyone to use because it simple enough for everyone to use it but the problem is how are you going to manage your multiplier and on loss and everything to get some profit? This thing is the hardest part and no one still not be able to set it well unless depends on your luck
Everything works till some certain point if you are lucky enough to take your winnings you think that worked for you.Martingale is same it worked for some people but let many without money in the end.
martingale can make you lose at the time you just start it, for example you can easily get 20 losses in a row as no one knows how will betting turn out, it would make you loose everything
Everything works till some certain point if you are lucky enough to take your winnings you think that worked for you.Martingale is same it worked for some people but let many without money in the end.
I am fully aware of this risk of loosing money when playing with martingale.I have lost sometimes when I got 12 red streaks in a row and I was having 0.10BTC divided on 13 streaks but I didn't reach to that long.You can not relay on martingale to win.
LOL, this page is awesome, nice to see so complex math formulas to prove them, but for my personal feeling, it can't be so high almost 20%, only 1% house edge, why so high? 
Martingale is very risky and I saw in a dice site that losing 10 times in a row at 2 odds is not rare. This is why I have stopped using martingale and just do direct betting instead.
I know martingale is a bad strategy for dice games or casino.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
Have you ever seen a sports team lose all their matches in the season? I have: in 2008, the Detroit Lions lost all of their regular season matches... If you had done a martingale on Detroit Lions winning on the Money Line with a base bet of $1, you would had to bet $65536 on the last week (and would had lost that too).
Just to prove that loss streaks happen in sports, although in my opinion, it won't be that likely to occur compared to plain o' dice, if you know what you're doing.
I think Detroit is one exception. There is only one in so many team that you have bet. Btw is that team top rank team? I wonder if people keep betting on low rank team and keep martingale it because it will be stupid enough to choose lower rank team to place your bet
yeah when martiangle eat all my balance 
maybe this method work for short term, because i ever make 0.01 to 0.013 in primedice with martiangle
the important thing is dont be greedy
It works until it doesn't but you cant say when your luck might switch and keep on rolling just in hope of winning is the biggest mistake or gamblers fallacy.maybe this method work for short term, because i ever make 0.01 to 0.013 in primedice with martiangle
the important thing is dont be greedy
You can also hit 40 reds in the beginning rolls.Nothing gives you surety to not to hit.
yeah when martiangle eat all my balance
maybe this method work for short term, because i ever make 0.01 to 0.013 in primedice with martiangle
the important thing is dont be greedy
maybe this method work for short term, because i ever make 0.01 to 0.013 in primedice with martiangle
the important thing is dont be greedy
of course loosing martingale is extremely easy, in order to win big you need to bet big and if you will win big it will fail you in a few rolls, in my opinion its better to avoid it
Loosing in martingale is actually easy right. But some people use their superb duper strategies ( lol loosing chances aare same ) and really make profit. It can be understood as someone blinding up his 2 btc at 2 odds is much likely to loose than someone doing martingale with 0.01 bas bet and 2 btc bankroll.
I know martingale is a bad strategy for dice games or casino.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
Have you ever seen a sports team lose all their matches in the season? I have: in 2008, the Detroit Lions lost all of their regular season matches... If you had done a martingale on Detroit Lions winning on the Money Line with a base bet of $1, you would had to bet $65536 on the last week (and would had lost that too).
Just to prove that loss streaks happen in sports, although in my opinion, it won't be that likely to occur compared to plain o' dice, if you know what you're doing.
i always knew that, thats why i dont like to use it at all, there are a lot of other strategies that might be handy also you can create one yourself
i dont think that it is hard to lose with a martingale strategy, i think that its easier to make a 2x all in than make your balance 2x with a martingale strategy, its just better not to use it in any case
loosing a martingale is really easy, i think its one of the easiest ways to loose all your money you have, i stay away from it and i never gamble my money with strategies
The second link to the calculator comes in handy. I always know it is not that rare to have a long streak but never know how to calculate it myself, and now it becomes very easy for me to do the calculation. Thanks a lot for sharing it.
I'm not sure about the name of this strategy, but it's been said to give you better wins on streaks :
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
I don't know the name of the above strategy but i can help you name it. The losing strategy just like the martingale the math was done long ago and i am surprised people still try and work the method out and even use it.1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
not only martingale is the strategy that will make you loose all the money you have, you should avoid all of them as it will hook you and you will not be able to escape it because of the ideas that you might beat casino
You could not speak the truth more clearly. This is a big part of the casinos profit, gamblers thinking they can beat the house edge with a strategy or method. Before they know it they are addicted and losing everything.
usually people who are trying those strategies are newbies who dont really know how gambling works before losing everything a couple of times what makes them to read more about it
I only gamble what I can afford to lose. This is generally the only rule you need to follow when gambling. Newbies are people who consider gambling some sort of job, and think that there's at least one strategy out there that will always work out for them. So, if you think you know how "gambling works", I feel sorry for you.
I'm not sure about the name of this strategy, but it's been said to give you better wins on streaks :
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
I don't know the name of the above strategy but i can help you name it. The losing strategy just like the martingale the math was done long ago and i am surprised people still try and work the method out and even use it.1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
not only martingale is the strategy that will make you loose all the money you have, you should avoid all of them as it will hook you and you will not be able to escape it because of the ideas that you might beat casino
You could not speak the truth more clearly. This is a big part of the casinos profit, gamblers thinking they can beat the house edge with a strategy or method. Before they know it they are addicted and losing everything.... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The number 19.33% you get is close enough, but it is not correct. With a house edge of 1%, you actually have 50.5% chance to lose a 2x bet, and hence the actual chance for you to get 8 losses in a row in 100 bets is 18.15141%. It seems you have used 51% in your calculation which would implies a 2% house edge instead of 1%.
Thank you for pointing it out
I'm not sure about the name of this strategy, but it's been said to give you better wins on streaks :
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
I don't know the name of the above strategy but i can help you name it. The losing strategy just like the martingale the math was done long ago and i am surprised people still try and work the method out and even use it.1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
That sounds like the reverse martingale aka anti-martingale. For your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)#Anti-martingale Anyway, as KingZee said, it does not work in the long run either, or I should say nothing works in the long run in dice.
I'm not sure about the name of this strategy, but it's been said to give you better wins on streaks :
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
I don't know the name of the above strategy but i can help you name it. The losing strategy just like the martingale the math was done long ago and i am surprised people still try and work the method out and even use it.1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
not only martingale is the strategy that will make you loose all the money you have, you should avoid all of them as it will hook you and you will not be able to escape it because of the ideas that you might beat casino
You could not speak the truth more clearly. This is a big part of the casinos profit, gamblers thinking they can beat the house edge with a strategy or method. Before they know it they are addicted and losing everything.
I'm not sure about the name of this strategy, but it's been said to give you better wins on streaks :
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
1) Whenever you lose, keep the same base bet.
2) When you win, raise your bet by an increment higher than the base bet.
Using this strategy, if you lose 5 times in a row, you only need 2 - 3 more bets to make up for your winnings. And losing 5 times in a row, only costs 5 times the base bet. While on a martingale, losing 5 times in a row can cost you your whole bankroll.
not only martingale is the strategy that will make you loose all the money you have, you should avoid all of them as it will hook you and you will not be able to escape it because of the ideas that you might beat casino
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
i must agree with you, i used to use martingale strategy when i just found out about dice gambling websites and i decided to quit it because it always made me lose, just dont use it The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The number 19.33% you get is close enough, but it is not correct. With a house edge of 1%, you actually have 50.5% chance to lose a 2x bet, and hence the actual chance for you to get 8 losses in a row in 100 bets is 18.15141%. It seems you have used 51% in your calculation which would implies a 2% house edge instead of 1%.
of course loosing martingale is extremely easy, in order to win big you need to bet big and if you will win big it will fail you in a few rolls, in my opinion its better to avoid it
This is a strategy high risk to use with small amount. But for me in gambling no strategies
It is depends on luck and dont be greedy if you got a profit or you will lose it.
of course loosing martingale is extremely easy, in order to win big you need to bet big and if you will win big it will fail you in a few rolls, in my opinion its better to avoid it
If you place minimum bets and this way martingale works then too there is no use of it.If would be good if this martingale strategy works for both minimum and big bets.It really didn't work for me never.
I already say that martingale doesn't work if you keep playing in long sessions.I always loose whenever I tried martingale.All you need is just luck because if you are lucky enough you will get many green streaks in random bets.Quite a few times I won and all the time was when I placed random bets.
I know martingale is a bad strategy for dice games or casino.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
But you can make profit with martingale with sportbets.
I use martingale and bet on number of goals.
Betting min amount using this strategy with a nice bankroll that can survive 30 straight losses. do that for 1 month straight
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
That's why I posted the calculator. With an house edge of 1%...
The probability of a streak of at least 30 consecutive successes in 2592000 trials is 0.07%
This very good chance of winning, but you still need roughly 25+ btc bankroll to win 0.0259 btc... it's like plain betting
Betting min amount using this strategy with a nice bankroll that can survive 30 straight losses. do that for 1 month straight
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
2,592,000 satoshis is roughly only $11 USD; your electricity probably costs more than what you will make. Also, you can't count on making 1 satoshi a second, as you might lose a few times. This strategy would work in theory, but it is probably not worth it.
Betting min amount using this strategy with a nice bankroll that can survive 30 straight losses. do that for 1 month straight
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
Example
1satoshi/second x 60sec = 60sat x 60 Minutes = 3600sat x 24 hours = 86,400sat per day x 30 = 2,592,000 sat
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
Martingale can work, it really depends on luck and your bankroll. While what you say is true, the 8 loosing streak can come very fast but to make profit you need to survive longer than 8 losses. I believe there was a player on BitDice some time ago who played martingale on something like 48.5% or something like that. He played for months and won over 100 BTC in the end, i think close to 200.
"martingale can work" but it's incredibly stupid.
Here's a fun math problem to figure out why it's dumb. Calculate the odds of winning, x in a row. Calculate the odds of losing x in a row. They are exactly the same if you are flipping a coin. Now calculate how much you win if you win x in a row, and compare that to how much you lose when you lose x in a row (which has the same odds on flipping a coin, and will actually be easier to do on a dice site with 2x payouts). See how incredibly different those numbers are? Why would anyone think that's a good idea?
There is no such thing as a "good idea" in gambling nor a strategy that is proven to work. I just brought out an example of someone who did successfully win using the strategy playing almost all the time over the course of 2 months using autobet. It can work but that does not mean it will.
martingale works for me but i cant make lots of profit just few cents really dont understand the calculation but
Im always using martingale as my strategy even if i got a small profit i will accept it as my winning profit..
And i use it in other dice site again and try to gain a small profit..
Im always using martingale as my strategy even if i got a small profit i will accept it as my winning profit..
And i use it in other dice site again and try to gain a small profit..
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
Martingale can work, it really depends on luck and your bankroll. While what you say is true, the 8 loosing streak can come very fast but to make profit you need to survive longer than 8 losses. I believe there was a player on BitDice some time ago who played martingale on something like 48.5% or something like that. He played for months and won over 100 BTC in the end, i think close to 200.
"martingale can work" but it's incredibly stupid.
Here's a fun math problem to figure out why it's dumb. Calculate the odds of winning, x in a row. Calculate the odds of losing x in a row. They are exactly the same if you are flipping a coin. Now calculate how much you win if you win x in a row, and compare that to how much you lose when you lose x in a row (which has the same odds on flipping a coin, and will actually be easier to do on a dice site with 2x payouts). See how incredibly different those numbers are? Why would anyone think that's a good idea?
Do you think this will work, play in 10 different casino and apply the strategy, set a bankroll for each with 20k satoshis and bet the minimum of 1sat.. leave it running for 24 hours. what are the chances that you will still loose in the end,
" In the end" , You have 100% losing chanche
You don't have to do the math for gambling as long as the casino has positive house edge, because you'll lose in long run.
Big bankroll, low base bet, luck & strategy can reduce the risks, but i think it can't help much.
Skill-based gambling is place where you can win easily if you really know how to do/speculate
Big bankroll, low base bet, luck & strategy can reduce the risks, but i think it can't help much.
Skill-based gambling is place where you can win easily if you really know how to do/speculate
after this posting it would be good to lock the thread because this posting says it all. thank you mate
Do you think this will work, play in 10 different casino and apply the strategy, set a bankroll for each with 20k satoshis and bet the minimum of 1sat.. leave it running for 24 hours. what are the chances that you will still loose in the end,
Chances are still very high. Probably better to put all your satoshis in one casino, so you can have a bigger loss streak. martingale is only a lose of time, because can is good for low bet, like 1-10 satoshi . If i start my betting to 10.000 satoshi with margingale i get have more bitcoin to invest and the bankroll of dice get is very high for accept big bet.
i see to more dice with faucet, more user start martingale from 1 satoshi and the site is more slow for all this bet
10k starting on this strategy is really high for me, for those with bankrolls this would be feasible i see to more dice with faucet, more user start martingale from 1 satoshi and the site is more slow for all this bet
martingale is only a lose of time, because can is good for low bet, like 1-10 satoshi . If i start my betting to 10.000 satoshi with margingale i get have more bitcoin to invest and the bankroll of dice get is very high for accept big bet.
i see to more dice with faucet, more user start martingale from 1 satoshi and the site is more slow for all this bet
i see to more dice with faucet, more user start martingale from 1 satoshi and the site is more slow for all this bet
Do you think this will work, play in 10 different casino and apply the strategy, set a bankroll for each with 20k satoshis and bet the minimum of 1sat.. leave it running for 24 hours. what are the chances that you will still loose in the end,
The meaning of doing math is to understand why plain betting is just better than martingale...
You don't have to do the math for gambling as long as the casino has positive house edge, because you'll lose in long run.
Big bankroll, low base bet, luck & strategy can reduce the risks, but i think it can't help much.
Skill-based gambling is place where you can win easily if you really know how to do/speculate
Big bankroll, low base bet, luck & strategy can reduce the risks, but i think it can't help much.
Skill-based gambling is place where you can win easily if you really know how to do/speculate
Martingale can work, it really depends on luck and your bankroll. While what you say is true, the 8 loosing streak can come very fast but to make profit you need to survive longer than 8 losses. I believe there was a player on BitDice some time ago who played martingale on something like 48.5% or something like that. He played for months and won over 100 BTC in the end, i think close to 200.
We all know someone who played and won some insane money. The question is: is martingale really that helpful in reaching this goal? And my answer is: not really.It is as you said yourself - if it depends on luck and bankroll then how much of it is real strategy left?
That can be say'd about the whole gambling scene, especially dice. Like every strategy it works till it no longer does and thats that, not more to say about it to be honest. Martingale also seems to be the favorite of many gamblers, be it regular martingale or a modified version (even reverse martingale)
Martingale can work, it really depends on luck and your bankroll. While what you say is true, the 8 loosing streak can come very fast but to make profit you need to survive longer than 8 losses. I believe there was a player on BitDice some time ago who played martingale on something like 48.5% or something like that. He played for months and won over 100 BTC in the end, i think close to 200.
We all know someone who played and won some insane money. The question is: is martingale really that helpful in reaching this goal? And my answer is: not really.It is as you said yourself - if it depends on luck and bankroll then how much of it is real strategy left?
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
Martingale can work, it really depends on luck and your bankroll. While what you say is true, the 8 loosing streak can come very fast but to make profit you need to survive longer than 8 losses. I believe there was a player on BitDice some time ago who played martingale on something like 48.5% or something like that. He played for months and won over 100 BTC in the end, i think close to 200.
I always said that: don't rely on martingale as full proof strategy to carry you every game.
It was proven long time ago and and since then many times , that martingale (in any variation, really) is only viable with infinite bank roll which is impossible to achieve.
You can have some luck with it in short session, but then you can be lucky without it too.
It was proven long time ago and and since then many times , that martingale (in any variation, really) is only viable with infinite bank roll which is impossible to achieve.
You can have some luck with it in short session, but then you can be lucky without it too.
I have done many approaches on that martingale strategy, We will need a large bankroll to survive a 8 losing streak and up. but in the end you will only win the base bet. 
No. You wins n time the base bet. This calculations tell you that if you bet 1 and you want to make 100 profit, with a 2550 bankroll (so you can afford 8 strike loss) you have 19.3% chances of getting busted before making your goal!
I have done many approaches on that martingale strategy, We will need a large bankroll to survive a 8 losing streak and up. but in the end you will only win the base bet.
... indeed, with an house edge of 1% and betting 2x, you have 19.33% of chances to encounter an 8 losing streak in your first 100 bets. 1/5, not so hard...
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
The math behind this is really hard, I struggled a bit to find it out and I definitely can't understand it, but for people who can here's the link:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/
And, for lazy people like me, here you can find a calculator:
http://maxgriffin.net/CalcStreaks.shtml
I'm just sharing, because I was asking thiis question myself for a time, and now I found the answer
Jump to: