Martingale revisited - page 11. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Gozie51

hero member

Activity: 2660

Merit: 630

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Quote from: klaaas on July 25, 2019, 10:54:00 AM

I doubt if it will work out op but if it works for you and keeps you in the green on the end go for it.

It is certain that martingale if not careful with, has a way of coming back to leading to losses. The thing is to be careful with. It is always nice if profit is coming out. Grin

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: Decimation on July 25, 2019, 09:22:03 AM

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

Exactly. Somehow people tend to think that there's a relationship and that's why all Martingale-like strategies are doomed to fail.

robelneo

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1225

Enjoy 500% bonus + 70 FS

Quote from: swogerino on July 25, 2019, 09:05:22 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 25, 2019, 08:41:46 AM

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong.

I sometimes do that, you can do that if you have control and you made up your mind that this is the strategy that you want to implement, sometimes you get lucky sometimes you get busted people who do this are people who wants to extend their time enjoying the game .

klaaas

hero member

Activity: 1568

Merit: 544

Quote from: Decimation on July 25, 2019, 09:22:03 AM

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

Not for the likeliness you will hit a winner but could be a sign to adjust your payout to lower values or start over with lower bets.

I doubt if it will work out op but if it works for you and keeps you in the green on the end go for it.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jackg on July 25, 2019, 08:54:29 AM

I don't think you seen to get the mantra of the house always wins with dice and most games thst can't really be given a successful strategy and don't require much skill. Are you talking about increasing win amount on loss so you stake 1mbtc for example and Los at 1-2 so you go 1-4 and lose, 1-5... Etc?

Nope, you keep everything the same, only increase your balance (by whatever means)

Quote from: swogerino on July 25, 2019, 09:05:22 AM

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong

You are not wrong conceptually

In fact, you are totally correct, but that's not the point. Constantly moving that moment farther into the future is the point. You don't need to live forever, you just need to last long enough. If your "escape velocity" (metaphorically speaking) exceeds the velocity with which each roll takes you closer to the TOD (I know that rolls are independent of each other, but still), doesn't it effectively turn you into an immortal? Indeed, you can't win enough through martingale alone but if you continually keep adding to your balance (even if for the sake of experiment only), that would pretty much cut it (at least as I see it)

Quote from: Decimation on July 25, 2019, 09:22:03 AM

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next

No one challenges that

Decimation

member

Activity: 244

Merit: 43

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

swogerino

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 1247

Bitcoin Casino Est. 2013

Quote from: deisik on July 25, 2019, 08:41:46 AM

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong.

jackg

copper member

Activity: 2856

Merit: 3071

https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory

I don't think you seen to get the mantra of the house always wins with dice and most games thst can't really be given a successful strategy and don't require much skill. Are you talking about increasing win amount on loss so you stake 1mbtc for example and Los at 1-2 so you go 1-4 and lose, 1-5... Etc? If so then it might work for a short while but there's little chance you'll win at 1-100 if you get that high. You also risk running out of places to move too also... If you max out the odds all you can do is double the bet amount or start over...

Try it with 1000 Satoshi if you like just to see if it does anything but I doubt it will.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Topic: Martingale revisited - page 11. (Read 2554 times)