Pages:
Author

Topic: Martingale isn't that bad - page 2. (Read 2000 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
April 10, 2015, 08:12:42 AM
#43
Its actually quite a common fallacy/delusion that breaking down your "one big bet" to like 5 smaller bets and use martingable is somewhat "safer" player to get the desired result. Probably has something to do with the human psychology of avoiding that devastating loss on the 1st all-in bet.
sr. member
Activity: 616
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 06:57:04 AM
#42
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time
don't come up with a 0% house edge, i'm talking about a 2% house edge, for every strictly positive house edge martingale is better than a yolo bet if you have a clear goal
sr. member
Activity: 616
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 06:49:44 AM
#41
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?

No idea why XinXan talks about 0% house edge, but the 86.375% numbers is slightly off under the 2% house edge assumption.

The chance to win a x2 bet under 2% house edge is 49%.
The chance to lose it thrice is 51% ^ 3 = 13.2651%.
So the chance to make it 8 btc from 7 btc successfully is 1 - 13.2651% = 86.7349%.

The number 85.75% is correct by the way.
i exchanged the 3 and 7 by accident; Thanks by pointing this out
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1001
April 10, 2015, 06:32:37 AM
#40
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?

No idea why XinXan talks about 0% house edge, but the 86.375% numbers is slightly off under the 2% house edge assumption.

The chance to win a x2 bet under 2% house edge is 49%.
The chance to lose it thrice is 51% ^ 3 = 13.2651%.
So the chance to make it 8 btc from 7 btc successfully is 1 - 13.2651% = 86.7349%.

The number 85.75% is correct by the way.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
April 10, 2015, 05:50:56 AM
#39
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 05:50:15 AM
#38
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time
This is also false. The distributions are not the same, even though the end effect is the same.

Consider one family with a 1.80m tall father, 1.60m tall mother, and a 1.70m tall son. The "expected height" of the family is 1.70m.

Consider another family with a 2.00m tall father, a 1.60m tall mother, and a 1.50m tall child. The Expected height is also 1.70m, but obviously the distribution is different.


It's the same thing with gambling strategies. The EV is the same, but distribution is different. In the case that you want to win 1BTC and EXACTLY 1BTC, no more, no less, with EXACTLY a 7BTC bankroll*, there are two optimal routes**:

1. Bet all-in at high odds
2. Martingale with a BASE BET of 1BTC.

These result in the same odds for earning exactly 1 BTC. Any other variation of the martingale would result in a lower chance.

*Any difference in ANY of the variables would change this conclusion.

**There are possibly other routes that would arrive at the same % chance, but these are not within the topic of martingale vs all-in.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016
April 10, 2015, 05:33:43 AM
#37
I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.



NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll

No no im not saying it is a winning strategy but it can work very well Smiley

Yes indeed it is, some strategy are design to win over the house, but no doubt that the tiny chance to hit a red streak will always be there, From what I saw in the site, its seems line snmp is coming back with his martingale strategy but it seems he keep on going , sooner or later there will be a chance where he will bust all of his winning
full member
Activity: 166
Merit: 100
April 10, 2015, 05:11:42 AM
#36
I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.



NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll

No no im not saying it is a winning strategy but it can work very well Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1016
April 10, 2015, 04:56:32 AM
#35
I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.



NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
April 10, 2015, 04:46:38 AM
#34
Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

The best strategy is to minimize your wagered amount, which in turns maximize your EV (still negative anyways).
And putting all your balance on a YOLO bet is never the best strategy.

Check https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10529739 to see a series of bets that gives you 49.65% to double 1 btc in a 1% house edge dice site. For comparison, an all-in x2 bet gives you 49.5% success rate.
full member
Activity: 166
Merit: 100
April 10, 2015, 04:31:29 AM
#33
I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
April 10, 2015, 03:28:46 AM
#32
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073
April 10, 2015, 03:22:06 AM
#31
The Martingale system has never worked for me... I think I chicken out too quickly, when the numbers gets too high.  Sad

In the beginning some of the faucets with a multiplyer option had no Martingale counter and I got some profit... then I got greedy and they implemented a counter and I lost it all.

It's always fun, when you beat the system... and then it goes BANG!  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 03:19:41 AM
#30
Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said
I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.

i think he/she just mean that with 7BTC, if you want to make it to 8BTC it would be better to make a martingale until you reach 1BTC profit instead of yolo bet
You're still not understanding me. I don't know why you guys don't understand such a simple point.

Martingale with 0.1BTC as the minimum bet does NOT YIELD THE SAME RESULT as martingale with 0.2BTC as the minimum bet. So to say that "martingale has an X% chance" is wrong.

Martingale works great until it doesn't.  I agree with waterpile that the key is to set your win target and stick to it.  That seems to be what trips up most gamblers.

I like the idea of comparing it with one all in bet.  It seems that dooglus did something along these lines awhile back.  IIRC he found that you were actually better off betting smaller amounts at high odds rather than one all in bet.  This makes sense if you think about it, your expected value is the same but your amount at risk is lower.  But I'm not sure if that extends all the way to martingale.  Your calculations suggest it might.

Regardless, good luck!
Either you're confused yourself, or you just didn't express yourself properly.

Expected value factors in risk. Expected value includes everything. You aren't better off under any strategy, they're all the same.

What changes is the distribution of possible outcomes. With bets of smaller amounts, you have a higher chance of losing smaller amounts, but also a higher chance of winning lower amounts. With larger bets, you have a higher chance of losing larger amounts but also a higher chance of winning larger amounts.

That's all. There's no "better". It just depends on the individual's definition of "better".
legendary
Activity: 2604
Merit: 1036
April 10, 2015, 02:35:01 AM
#29
You need a safety cushion of at least 20 consecutive lost bets to not destroy your whole bankroll and bet according to this to at least have a chance in my experience.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
April 10, 2015, 02:33:08 AM
#28
Martingale works great until it doesn't.  I agree with waterpile that the key is to set your win target and stick to it.  That seems to be what trips up most gamblers.

I like the idea of comparing it with one all in bet.  It seems that dooglus did something along these lines awhile back.  IIRC he found that you were actually better off betting smaller amounts at high odds rather than one all in bet.  This makes sense if you think about it, your expected value is the same but your amount at risk is lower.  But I'm not sure if that extends all the way to martingale.  Your calculations suggest it might.

Regardless, good luck!
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
April 10, 2015, 02:30:30 AM
#27
Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said
I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.

i think he/she just mean that with 7BTC, if you want to make it to 8BTC it would be better to make a martingale until you reach 1BTC profit instead of yolo bet
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 02:19:00 AM
#26
Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said
I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.
sr. member
Activity: 616
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 01:51:20 AM
#25
Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
April 10, 2015, 01:47:04 AM
#24
felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome


Your calculations are wrong. How did you calculate this?

The thing is, with different martingale systems, the result is different. For example, is your starting bet 1BTC? Or 0.1BTC? Or 0.01BTC? Or 0.5 BTC?

The probability of obtaining a 1BTC win (and only 1 BTC) is different in each of those scenarios.
Pages:
Jump to: