Topic: Martingale revisited (Read 2527 times)
10% compound is a kings fortune in not alot of time really, its unlikely such a gain is possible reliably. Of course gambling anything is possible but even 1% a day would quite nice after a while. There is no such advantage given using this system, it can be calculated with maths so far as I know. I might look for a link later to show this.
10% daily profit in my opinion is pretty good. Not playing all day is also a matter to consider. It would be very good if we have more capital to implement this strategy
Actually, I don't think you can safely earn 10% daily (like day in and day out) with martingale
To make your martingale endeavor really lasting, you should be looking toward exploiting variance, and that means waiting for outliers. However, the ones that are within your safety range don't come very often, perhaps, 1-2 weekly (yeah, it means using autobet). So the best you could reasonably hope for is more like 10% monthly. If you are looking for more aggressive approaches striving for bigger wins, you risk busting sooner than you would otherwise expect
It depends on how you use this strategy
If you follow it mindlessly, then you are certainly guaranteed to bust. But in this regard, it is not much different from any other complex strategy in any other area, in gambling or elsewhere. When used wisely, your chances of running it successfully within a certain amount of time can be higher than losing. Given this, you can't really say that it is guaranteed to not work in the long term as long as "long term" is finite and accounted for
You might be right because something that is forced can end in failure.If you follow it mindlessly, then you are certainly guaranteed to bust. But in this regard, it is not much different from any other complex strategy in any other area, in gambling or elsewhere. When used wisely, your chances of running it successfully within a certain amount of time can be higher than losing. Given this, you can't really say that it is guaranteed to not work in the long term as long as "long term" is finite and accounted for
Martingale strategy can actually increase the chances of winning, but it can also increase the opportunity to spend all available capital in a number of roll. One effort to prevent capital from running out of this strategy is on the number of bets. Set the bet value on the smallest unit and start this strategy and reduce the chances of winning to get a higher multiplication. Also I think we must have a consistent target and time. 10% daily profit in my opinion is pretty good. Not playing all day is also a matter to consider. It would be very good if we have more capital to implement this strategy.
While martingale is guaranteed to not work in the long term even allocating a daily budget for gambling is guaranteed to work either
It depends on how you use this strategy
If you follow it mindlessly, then you are certainly guaranteed to bust. But in this regard, it is not much different from any other complex strategy in any other area, in gambling or elsewhere. When used wisely, your chances of running it successfully within a certain amount of time can be higher than losing. Given this, you can't really say that it is guaranteed to not work in the long term as long as "long term" is finite and accounted for
Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back. Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
While martingale is guaranteed to not work in the long term even allocating a daily budget for gambling is guaranteed to work either.When it comes to gambling strategies there is really none because almost all the kind of games needs a good dose of luck in order to win.
martingale isnt for beginner because it needs calculations before you apply it , not an exact calculation but just a close measurement to ensure that you can possibly hit your target payout before you got busted . till now i cant leave martingale .
(...)
Maybe it's not for the beginner but I think it's not that hard to use martingale or to calculate how much stake/money that you need to put to get your lost money back.(...)
(...)
i remember i rested for a while of using it but i still find myself coming back on it because i think i can win here in a less risky way than compare to flat betting which you can also end up too easily or too fast .
Are you using martingale for sports/esports betting? If so, actually I think martingale strategy isn't suitable for sports/esports betting since it's not easy to find good odds on a specific match. i remember i rested for a while of using it but i still find myself coming back on it because i think i can win here in a less risky way than compare to flat betting which you can also end up too easily or too fast .
Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back. Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
martingale isnt for beginner because it needs calculations before you apply it , not an exact calculation but just a close measurement to ensure that you can possibly hit your target payout before you got busted . till now i cant leave martingale .
i remember i rested for a while of using it but i still find myself coming back on it because i think i can win here in a less risky way than compare to flat betting which you can also end up too easily or too fast .
~
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either
Those were my thoughts too, when I was reading your post, but then I decided to not discourage you because imo any test is better than none. 1M can also be not enough, but definitely better than 100k
Truth be told, I didn't cherish a lot of hope, either
Regarding stats, I remember a former Canadian casino operator or owner posted some of the stats that might be of interest to us. If I remember correctly, he said that there had been only one occasion when someone lost on a 50% win chance in a streak of 24 rolls out of a few billion bets recorded. The post should be still somewhere in the 2014-2015 threads on this board or its parent. Don't know if he is still active on the forum, though
Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back. Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner. Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.
~
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either
Those were my thoughts too, when I was reading your post, but then I decided to not discourage you because imo any test is better than none. 1M can also be not enough, but definitely better than 100k.
There are sites showing probabilities of winning with particular pocket cards, based on millions real games played, not simulated ones, for Texas hold 'em poker. Dice sites where tens of billions bets were made, could, theoretically, provide similar stats too. But there is no such data on the Internet, as far as I can tell.
I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition
Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!
I'm already running certain tests
But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all
Very interesting. Are you going to cover ranges below 1% win chance as well?
It didn't work out
Long story short, the results were totally inconclusive. I started with exactly 37% win chance and almost instantly hit a losing streak of 26 rolls:
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either
I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition
Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!
I'm already running certain tests
But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all
Very interesting. Are you going to cover ranges below 1% win chance as well? Asking because those are my fav ranges. I can't say that I'm in positive profit overall, but I do win those bets pretty often, like this one, 3 days ago:
Regarding 37% win chance being the lowest one can run martingale successfully with, I thought the same thing when I was only starting with dice. At first I was betting with 49.50% many times, not even knowing that changing the win chance was possible. Then, after I learned how to change it, I was playing with various win chances and was like, "Man, what kind of fool would bet with lower than 20% win chance?!" It appears that I have become that fool eventually.
The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice
That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.
There is no need for any experience when trying martingale,it is all boiled down to doubling your bet after every lost bet.In theory it should work if you have an infinite bankroll
It is ironic how fast people are to point out that you need an infinite bankroll for martingale to work out
However, they forget that this holds true only for as infinite timeframes. As soon as we are talking about particular spans or periods of time (like a month or a year), which is always the case in real life, what it actually boils down to are the odds of surviving a losing streak of a certain number of rolls for this strategy to work out on average
It is not even so much interesting to explain the specifics of this approach (cause they are pretty simple, and you don't exactly need a master's degree to figure them out) as to get to understanding why people go on and on about martingale being a losing strategy. Any strategy in any domain will end up with a disaster if used mindlessly
The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice
That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.
There is no need for any experience when trying martingale,it is all boiled down to doubling your bet after every lost bet.In theory it should work if you have an infinite bankroll then you can double your bet after every losing bet and you will eventually hit a winning bet.The problem is that this is only theory,for the practice there a lot of answers not only in this thread but also many others that martingale it will fail.
I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition
Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!
I'm already running certain tests
But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all
~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?
Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?
I think one billion bets will be enough to see the pattern
Unless you bust in the process, of course. Indeed, you can set the increase on loss to 0, so that to avoid busting altogether, but it may take too long. Anyway, we don't necessarily need to run so many bets to draw some conclusions, and it is probably worth a try after all (I may run some tests)
I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition
Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!
But seriously, we need more those tests, I guess. For example, with my type of betting, my magic number is 10%. I mean, if I play dice with higher than 10% win chance, I always lose in the end. That's why I prefer something like 1%, 0.1% or even 0.01%. Like I won several day ago:
No big money, but surely big fun!
~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?
Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?
I think one billion bets will be enough to see the pattern
Unless you bust in the process, of course. Indeed, you can set the increase on loss to 0, so that to avoid busting altogether, but it may take too long. Anyway, we don't necessarily need to run so many bets to draw some conclusions, and it is probably worth a try after all (I may run some tests)
I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition
~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?
Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?
Now we should find out for how many losses in a row we must be immune when betting with, say, 1% win chance to have the same expectancy of busting(once in 2 billion bets), and that's it, don't you think?
That's the problem that I'm trying to address
You again assume linear relationship but you miss the larger picture. It is not about averages at all (in this case) as the whole thing with the approach practiced and discussed here is about outliers. However, outliers are the opposite of averages. Put differently, you can't apply stats to outliers as stats is just a substitute word or placeholder for averages. In practice, you bust specifically because you encounter an outlier that you can't cope with, and averages, whatever they may say to the contrary, won't help you
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it
with which you can catch a nice outlier before getting busted
You are thinking in correct direction
However, you only made so many rolls. As I suspect, to reveal a particular pattern of variance at so low win chances, you would have to literally make billions of bets and not bust in the process. If you bust, all your effort will be spent in vain. With win chances close to 50% we can be damn sure that the variance of variance (let's call it second-order variance) is less random that the first-order variance (this also confronts us with the question as to how truly random is random)
To cut to the chase, with lower multipliers you can safely assume that you will see fewer longer losing streaks than shorter ones. However, with small chances second-order variance may get out of hand, and you will see an entirely different picture. In practice, it basically means that you can't use the approach described here with very small odds as you are set to hit a very long losing streak kind of "all of a sudden" that would likely wipe you out
It's true that with higher multipliers we can expect longer losing streaks, but don't you think that we can estimate how much longer they can be?
For example, on a dice site with 1% house edge:
Odds of losing 42 bets in a row at 40% win chance: Once every 2,078,009,285.66 bets.
I don't know about you, but I would consider a setup when you are immune to 42 losses in a row a pretty safe one in this case.
Now we should find out for how many losses in a row we must be immune when betting with, say, 1% win chance to have the same expectancy of busting(once in 2 billion bets), and that's it, don't you think?
Jump to: