I love roulettes because it is very easy to play and I see it relaxing. I bet with $3.5 yesterday using martingale strategy as I want to see what the outcome would be, I was able to win $6. $6 to $9 but it will go down to $3 until I won $10. From $10 back to $6 until I won $13. Later I won $18. I played 5 consecutive times without winning at all and I lost the whole money. If won any among the 5 times selection, I would have increased it to back $18 or to $25. It was a boring day for me, I enjoyed the game, I wish to play more but I do not want to lose more money.
Nope its not actually a failure but rather it depends on the person who's using it since if they have a attitude where this people became so greedy when getting good profits on one of their gambling activities done then provably this will really result to a failure since greedy individuals are usually goes broke because they don't have something to follow and they lack of discipline so result is really bad for them.
But if they have discipline and know how they could able to deal on certain condition and knows how to use well this method then provably they can earn especially if they know for theirselves on when to stop. Increase the size of our bets is not bad action or decisions but one thing we need to consider is we know how to deal with certain consequence since if we brought up some good attitude and be realistic on our approach then profits might be possible for us to gain by using this strategy.
This is a false claim. It's not even about consistency and it doesn't work even in theory. You might as well be unlucky and lose with the first try no matter how rich you are. It's not even about being greedy, unless you count everyone losing their gambling budget as too greedy. Why aren't the people who win a lot greedy then?
It's part of the gambler's fallacy and mathematically proven not to work, so i don't understand why people fight math on this.
If you want to read more about why stopping early (not being greedy) doesn't work, here's some quick reading :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_stopping_theoremIn short:
optional stopping theorem says that, on average, nothing can be gained by stopping play based on the information obtainable so far (i.e., without looking into the future
I'll try to simplify why in layman's terms:
In theory martingale only works with unlimited money, but people who say it works even in theory seem to disregard that there's no such thing as unlimited money.
And no matter if you have a networth of Elon or not, you have a change of losing. And more money you have, more you have change to lose. And even if that world richest man started with 10 cent bets, yes, they would have high change to make more pocket money, but eventually, or right away they would risk more and why that would be even worth it? Especially when they get more money pretty much guaranteed by other ways on investing it.