Topic: Martingale revisited - page 9. (Read 2527 times)

That is precisely the reason why Martingale is used. If possible, you do not use Martingale if you are on a winning streak or generally gaining in your bets. I only use Martingale when I have to recover the loss I got in the previous roll. And if successful, you will go back to your normal bet.

But there might be some people who are really into Martingale despite having successive wins. They are those who are risk-takers enough to either go home afterwards with nothing or with a huge win.


That is all what this is all about. But at least you get to enjoy more rolls before packing up.

The word was double-quoted to avoid possible misunderstanding and confusion. Anyway, if that gives you peace of mind, substitute reinvesting with increasing your balance


It is not only that

All legit casinos have an upper limit on how much you can bet, and many of them have a lower limit as well (which is different from the lowest denomination of the coin gambled). That basically puts an impenetrable barrier, a roadblock of sorts, as to how much you can earn (or lose, for that matter) even if you had a drainless fountain of wealth. Apart from that, your bets are also temporally limited, i.e. you can't make more bets per unit of time as preset by the casino

All that, taken together, severely limits how much you can earn even using the most riskless martingale settings. For example, when you are using doges, which allow you to withstand very long losing streaks practically impossible in real life, you don't need to have insane amounts of money to take advantage of that, but your earnings, while kind of guaranteed, will still be dust anyway. On the other hand, if you just like seeing your balance grow, that's pretty much it

Let me quote it again for you.

See the bolded highlighted parts? Reinvesting, Without changing, Initial Bet amount? I'm just wondering how you could reinvest without changing the initial bet amount? Let's say you have won a lot and you have a profit with it. How is it not changing the initial bet amount? I think it's better to start with a smaller initial bet after winning a lot of rounds using Martingale.

That's the sad truth about it, that's why it's never going to be that profitable and not the go-to strategy for everyone who is gambling. Mainly on dice it is not that ideal but the sportsbooks gambling type, it could work, depending on the match you are trying to bet on is that you know about it too.

I'm not really sure that gambling is for people to make money unless we are talking about professional poker players and their likes, or any other games which apart from luck also involve a certain amount of skill. Chance games are about entertainment only, and if you somehow come to think differently, it may cost you dear. Regarding casino owners caring only about  their pockets, isn't that as true with respect to casino players who equally don't care about the pockets of casino owners?

If you are after money, gambling is the last thing you should be looking into

Please have you ever asked this question because this is exactly what is getting me bothered? If the almighty martingale strategy is no longer or never been a winning strategy, then what is? If nothing can beat the odds so why are we gambling? Considering what you mentioned, if we are really to do an estimate, comparing profits to loses, we would realize we have been losing all along. I am really depressed by this discovery.

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets.

Believe it or not I have tried that alreadt at 93.86% win chance. I double my bet but red strikes are still existing, higher chance of wins means less profits. The more you lose more and hard to recover the losses. It is working at first but at the long term for example, you lose thrice or three consecutive reds with three x2 martingale strat, you lose big amount of money then.

There is already such thing in existence today

It is called on-chain betting and used by decentralized apps (more specifically, decentralized casinos) running on blockchains like TRON and EOS (not sure about the latter though). All bets (and consequently all seeds for the rolls) are written on the blockchain and bets can be checked and analyzed for provably fair anytime. In other words, they are truly guaranteed to be fair, and there is for a casino to skew the odds n their favor above and beyond the official house edge (or how it is called there)

Infinite bankroll is needed to withstand against lengthy consecutive losing streaks but practically that is not happening as per my real life betting experiences. Online gambling is being played under lots of new factors hence ensuring everything for the fair side will not be an easy task. At the same time, there would be less possibilities for houses to provide us P2P dicing. I guess if there would be any such P2P dicing then martingale may start regaining its fame.

Sportsbetting is profitable for many gambler here because it is P2P based and if you are good at predicting results along with martingale then definitely you can make big profits still you must need to be set with decent bankroll to risk.

Not only the house edge but rigged algorithm too playing a part. I guess almost all the houses are escaping in the name of "provably fair" and "why not possible". When I roll for 100 satoshi I do get green but for 10k satoshi it would be a definite red. But, I am using martingale for my sportsbetting and making good profits consistently.

Martingale is just a mathematical thing and we need to remember houses are also playing against us with same martingale but with virtually infinite bankroll and this where we do may fail at most of the times.

I think aside auto bet, the reason why most gamblers loose using martingale is because of the amount of fund. Honestly, the strategy works but only for very rich gamblers but we find out that even gamblers with barely few stakes  would want to use it because they here its good and the next thing we hear of complains like it sucks and all of that.

I haven’t tried this strategy and am not a strategy kind of player.  I believe in playing my games freely while depending on luck. I believe we ought to know by now that gambling is a game of luck and it would be better that we accept it that way rather than looking for  shortcuts to winning of which we know it would never be possible.

That's the point many folks seem to be missing somehow

Technically, you don't even need an unlimited bankroll or balance. The odds don't change for 1 roll but your balance does (which is assumed), and a sufficiently fast growing one will suffice as longer sequences are required to bust you. Okay, here's an example. Say, you have 3 dollars and you start betting with 1 dollar (for simplicity's sake). As you suggest, the chances are 50/50, so in the worst case after doubling your bet, you get terminated with two losses in a row, i.e. 1+2 (correct me if I'm missing something here)

In this manner, the odds of seeing 2 consecutive losses are 0.5x0.5=0.25. Say, after the first roll you win and your balance is doubled. Now you have 6 dollars and can only be terminated after a sequence of 3 losses (1+2+3). The odds of meeting your fate are now 0.5x0.5x0.5=0.125, i.e. half as much as with the first 3 dollars on your balance. If you continue to increase the balance, it will take longer and longer sequences to wipe you out. Thus you don't actually need an unlimited balance, you should just have it grow fast enough


It is not profitable because you have to choose between earning dust and risking your whole balance. And this is apart from limits imposed by casinos on max bets and the speed of autobet

Almost everyone agrees that the martingale system is really not profitable for a gambler. In essence, if you are unsure of the system then don't try it but if you are still curious, then try and you will feel for yourself how it works,

This is a new line of thought really and to me, the martingale strategy is faulty by assuming the player has unlimited amount to funds to continue to multiply at each successive turns. The strategy fails to show course on the number of times one would have to lose before a winning would occur and that alone has defeated the entire purpose of putting on a strategy to gambling. The point is, a combination of all of the strategies would guarantee a win and not just relying on a particular strategy.

Idk but it still seems to be a losing battle for the gambler on those type of games if they are to employ a somewhat tweaked version of the Martingale betting system. The house always wins, and even if the gambler somehow won after x consecutive losses, the returns are still obviously not that handsome considering that you are increasing the odds of winning every time a loss is incurred. No matter how many times we tweak, revisit, change or whatever this Martingale system, it's still always bound to lose on dice games that's for sure. Perhaps some people get some lucky streak, but it's not a surefire way to net you some handsome gains.

You're welcome!


It is not only that

Another cause why this approach is not applicable in practive is the speed with which you can bet. I don't know how fast you can roll through API (as some only casinos offer this feature), but if you use autobet, you are still limited by the number of rolls you can do per second (like 1 roll a second). Then if you take doges as your gamble currency, and start with 0.00000001 doge, you may never in fact hit the max bet limit (which is in the many millions) in your lifetime but you still will be earning dust as you can't roll fast enough

Another think to note here is that many people use Autobet feature while using the Martingale strategy. So in this case of Auto betting, if your fund is lower or close to Nil (While continuous losing in Martingale), the account will be zero and you will not have to chance of depositing more money to keep on running the Martingale move.

If you gamble by feel it will end similarly in bad feelings, use maths and you have a plan beforehand.    You have boundaries for the risk taken to the profit enabled from the gamble, when the bet is placed you have two options to celebrate or to lament and review the conditions that gave the result.    
   This process is far more likely to succeed then basing your estimation on feelings.   Some I dont doubt can aim true somehow in the moment and encompass all risks in the bet but most should plan, even use pen and paper to better guide themselves.

All gamblers know the feeling of waiting for that luck to change in their favor with that next roll but never happens.

If we are to conclude if these strategies do work, I would say all they do is leave a trail of red without ever recovering from that one next roll.

Martingale either that classic or reversed one does work but only depends on your luck.We cant completely conclude that most of the time it will bust you up but there

were players who can really make profit if you do get out on the right time.Basing on what written on OP,this isnt different into that casual one,this might be longer but it would have still
the same result if you tend to go further.

So I think sometimes, but you can not win without depositing, To win you must rely on strategy and work with caution. An appropriate balance must be deposited and no large funds should be ventured to avoid loss