Thanks for the compliment, however
Guaranteed loss is an overstatement I think. It depends on how many rolls and your target return.
I didn't mean to be rude:) Most of the systems presented here was much worse than martingale.
I still have code for your system. I can compare it with martingale in various simulations (like 10% target, portfolio = 100x intial bet etc.)
Just let me know what parameter would you like to see.
porfolio =
target =
number of test=
I think that fibbonaci martingale will alwais loose with regular martingale.
This result was not telling the whole picture, such as how many of it would get busted (0 balance).
Perhaps 73% of "original" martingale users would get home with an empty pocket, while only a few of Fibonacci progression users got busted.
Fibonacci progression lowers the risk and obviously lowers the return as well.
By the way, congratulations on your newborn baby! Less gambling, more buying milk!
This program works like that:
1- start with initial portfolio and play with system:
a - portfolio doubled -> win = win +1
b- portfolio zeroed -> break;
simulation for 1 gambler has ended
repeat for 10 000- 100 000 gamblers
So when you see 10 000 gamblers and none of them was able to double it means that they all zero their portfolio because there is no other way to stop the loop in program (zero or double).
Regular martingale system is like - you profit until you hit killing strike.
Gambler who win is the one who was lucky enough to not hit killing strike before doubling portfolioFibonacci martingale is like - you are constantly decreasing your portfolio because you are loosing more than you are winning.
Gambler who beat casino is the one who had (f.e) 9000 wins out of 10000 from first 10000 bets. - was lucky enough to be the farthest from statistic distribution.
So it's not quite that you are loosing less with Fibonacci. It's like your porfoplio is going down and down untill you are doomed after xxx bets.
