Topic: Martingale revisited - page 10. (Read 2536 times)

Thanks for taking the time and explaining in simple words. Yes, this makes sense and it's actually consistent with some of my expectations, which I couldn't explain by math/statistics.


Actually here's something else that stops the show: all casinos have a maximum bet (@DarkDays also wrote this). So if you go by Martingale with infinity amount of funds, if you get a big enough losing streak you just have no means to recover.
Even if we go into an utopian theory (infinite funds), I think that the max bet needs to be "added into equation"...

Why does martingale need to be revised in the first place? It's been around forever, and the way it works is very simple. It's fun to think that there is an ultimate strategy, but there just isn't one. Even if you have an unlimited bankroll, the odds don't change. Assuming you are in a vacuum you will have a 50/50 chance to double or lose everything, no matter how you look at it. Sure it can work short term, or not work, but you are most likely better off just randomly betting.

What what exactly if I may ask?

You don't change the starting amount specifically to lengthen as much as possible the losing streak that is going to kill your balance. If you just add winnings to your balance without changing anything else, you do just that, i.e. extend your survival times. The problem is, though, these winning are nowhere near enough. They are not enough either to earn you decent profits or to extend the losing streak sufficiently. So you are kinda stuck between the upper and the nether millstones. That's basically why martingale is not a working strategy (in the long term)


How can it make practical sense if you never have unlimited funds in real life?

That greed place your position always to be in the negative side, whatever system you tried if your attitude towards this activities are being occupied by emotions then there's no way that you can win over the house, martingale will work alone only if you can control your emotions and you can quit much earlier to avoid greed to control your stay.

Martingale won't work, ever.

It's because one of two things will happen. Either you will

1. Run out of money before you can make another bet again

2. The 'max bet' of the casino will be in place so you're unable to keep 2x'ing your bet.

It's just that simple. There's no way to revisit this sort of topic because it always ends the same way.

The idea of keep "extending" the loss is ugly. Why don't you try the stop-win feature on the auto mode? I found this helpful for martingale strategy. The problem with martingale is greed! It "forces" you to play longer than you should and eventually lose everything.

I prefer the fixed propositions over the time and risk taken within a Martingale system or perhaps any similar system, they all want me to manage it.   I far prefer the risk of an options strategy, or any kind of arbitrage where risk and losses are pre defined and set, not unlimited.

I actually tried it before, not changing the minimum or even taking it back to zero until the red streak is over but same thing still happen, I lost. Like you've said you are just postponing the final moment. It doesn't make any advantage or gives a little percentage on your side. You only wasted time.

Buying weekly lotto ticket is worse tha gambling with martingale strategy, even you started with 1 sat. But you have to wait around 4 secs for each your bet with 1 sats for starting bet, which only wasting your time.

Try it with the lowest bet possible is a good idea, then directly compare that strategy success to all other strategies.   It should be the case that almost any other route allows greater chances of success with less turns taken to deliver it on average.     The problem with martingale is that it encourages far too much risk, its allowing far too great a loss to occur potentially,   The best gamble at all would involve only limited allowance for losses, evn someone who buys a weekly lotto ticket has a better idea because their downside is so simple and small.

You can't just keep adding balance to your final roll as almost all casinos have a maximum bet size, this means once you get to a large bet sum, you will hit against this ceiling and be unable to continue the strategy.

This will essentially lock in all your previous losses and stop you from being able to double up. You would then need to bet smaller amounts and get unbelievably lucky to then recoup all your past losses.

It is set in a way but if you end early or just do it for a short time, you could still profit.

Revisiting a technique wouldn't change anything. It would be that it slightly vary to the original strategy, but it is still the same overall. I don't think it is always worth discussing but let us see.

Wouldn't ”reinvesting” everything make your risk so freaking high? I don't want to see that and will not do that, especially in gambling. I don't understand that you are saying to reinvest everything but don't change the initial bet amount? What?

Martingale is a strategy; I think it makes sense already but not because it makes you profitable but because of the unlimited funds that are assuming you have.

Martingale is simply a method of getting back losses but not a method to earn. Why? Because what ever you do, you cannot trust anything but luck. Although you recover your losses at first, there are always comes a time that you dont have enough resources to cover it up. Imagine spending huge amount of momey just to cover loses but not earning through it. What a waste of time and money and thinking of that makes it as stressful as when you are already doing it.

As rolls are independent of each other, the chances will always remain the same for each roll (unless you change the odds manually, of course). In other words, if you have 20 reds in a row, the odds to see red for the 21st time remain absolutely the same as for the first roll in the sequence (and any other roll in that sequence). It is the odds of seeing longer sequences that diminish with the length of the sequence

But that's not my point. My point is, an increase in your balance allows you to survive longer losing streaks, which should be obvious (provided everything else remains the same). So if the balance increases faster than the number of rolls you make (as more rolls means a higher chance to encounter a fatal sequence of reds), we can have a situation where you can play indefinitely long while odds for losing everything will actually be decreasing with time

That would be the case for one infinity (your balance) outrunning another (number of rolls)


You add winnings to your balance until you are satisfied with the results. Then you withdraw all and call it a day (or night, depending on your gambling preferences)


It is more of a theoretical discussion as you will lose faster than your balance will get increased through winnings alone. Or you will be earning dust and basically wasting your time (but to each their own)

One amongst many revivals of the discussion =). I'd like to point out one big flaw of this idea though: that for your extended martingale, you need a casino able to take very high bets.

Bitcoin casinos in general, at a min bet of 1 satoshi, should allow for at the very least a losing streak of 29 -- that would mean being able to place and win a ~50% chance bet of 1.34++ BTC.

The max bet I know of at that chance is 40 BTC at 999dice. So increasing your bankroll beyond 40 btc isn't even possible anywhere online. So it's not a financial restriction on your part, but on the part of the house

OP the problem is that every strategy fails on long term, imagine you start gambling now with your strategy, gain some profit, then what to do? There are two options: 1. Withdraw money from casino and never return to it back 2. Withdraw money and then continue gambling sometimes. If you choose second one, you'll lose in overall because strategies fail on long term, it's just like that mathematically.

Some people think that the martingale system is the right way to restore the loss we have gotten in a game. For me, this system can only add to our deterioration in the game.

I never thought that folding doubled the stake to get back losses. However, if the system feels it can help you, then please try. For me, this system will only make it difficult for yourself to make a profit.

I agree.


I didn't understand this part (and I even tried google translate help me on this!).
I know that the statistics tell that after each losing bet the chance for the next bet to be a winner increases.
But while I don't know the statistics so well, I think that the things may be different when more players play in the same time (what happens when we do the same statistics for the house versus all the players online).


Also I tend to favor (my) reality versus all the statistics. And I've seen casinos where certain type of bets seem to have better odds (eg. on casino X hi-lo game the "high" bets made me win more often than the low, or casino Y I tend to have longer losing streaks), which may mean differences in implementation, differences that may invalidate the general statistics. Of course I may be wrong, of course I cannot prove anything but it makes me favor the opinion that the general statistics simply don't apply.

There seems to be a misunderstanding

Purely mathematically, there are different kinds of infinities with the inference being that some form of infinity can be greater than another. More specifically, if the losing streak which gets you busted grows faster than the number of bets you have made so far (as the former obviously depends on your balance and its increase with time), statistically, you are unlikely to lose even over an indefinite time scale. Well, that's what I think but you may have a different opinion while everyone else is welcome to chime in on this


And there is a limit on how much you can bet. The house edge alone won't suffice if you are not financially restricted

if it makes you wager more then it makes you lose more , the opposite is right as well
if you like this method then stick to it when you are gambling and have fun with it , but don't expect it to make you any profit in the long run

as long as house edge exists it's impossible to have a profitable bet mathematically