Almost all of the common gambling strategies people use in -EV gambling games such as the martingale as being mentioned here are pretty clearly faulty as you've pointed out here, sucks that it's getting so much attention and people are clearly trying it out pretty often as evidenced by the number of threads in this part of the forum regarding gambling strategies.
All these games (except sometimes during promotions) are -EV which means you're going to lose money in the long run while gambling, and unless you find using these strategies fun, you do not gain anything like an edge by using them.
Topic: Why the martingale system sucks! (doubling down on losses) - page 17. (Read 3303 times)
I have to give you merit for giving us a good analysis about this martingale, actually, there is a thread like that and OP boosted that you can get rich doing that, he cannot show proof that he really doing this and making a killing, yours is back up by sound logic.
Hypothetically if you have an infinite amount and start with a small amount, you'd never loss. But as no one has an infinite amount and the martingale rises more quickly (geometrically), you'll soon reach to your amount limit. Yet, there are few people who insisted they have never lost due to martingale, I believe they didn't bet a lot.
^ That's right, not only infinite of a huge amount and also infinite of a huge amount to start as capital and also you must have a literally infinite bankroll and absolutely no betting limits. Can you do that? Well, here is the fact that the bankroll is undefeatable, maybe you can but I think that is your luck just because the truth is the house still has an edge. Analytically speaking, just enjoy and have fun on gambling and set only that you can afford. 
Hypothetically if you have an infinite amount and start with a small amount, you'd never loss. But as no one has an infinite amount and the martingale rises more quickly (geometrically), you'll soon reach to your amount limit. Yet, there are few people who insisted they have never lost due to martingale, I believe they didn't bet a lot.
We already have a lot of discussions around the same subject. Please visit those threads to know what other are thinking about martingale strategy. Let me give you few links for your reference,
Subject: is the martingale working or not ?
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-the-martingale-working-or-not-2570086
Subject: How do you define the Martingale effect?
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115069.0;all
Subject: Does Martingale really works?
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/does-martingale-really-works-610339
Hope these threads will give you more insights about Martingale strategy.
Subject: is the martingale working or not ?
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-the-martingale-working-or-not-2570086
Subject: How do you define the Martingale effect?
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5115069.0;all
Subject: Does Martingale really works?
Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/does-martingale-really-works-610339
Hope these threads will give you more insights about Martingale strategy.
it is one of the way where you get the increased chance of recovery.
Your recovery chances are short-lived and your chances of recovering are not any greater than your chances of winning any random bet.
In simple terms it increases the probability of winning
No, it does not increase your probability of winning. Your win probability stays the same.
A huge bank roll is a must and the same makes it quite risky, this seems to be the true reason where gamblers face loss applying the martingale state strategy when experiencing consecutive losses.
Even with a bankroll of 1 million dollars, if you were staking $1 per bet, 19 losses in a row would wipe out your entire bankroll. So you would have lost a million dollars trying to chase an initial loss of $1, after 19 consecutive losses. With a 51% loss rate, the chances of 19 losses in a row are 1 in 359887 games. So if you play 100 games a day, you would have lost $1,000,000 in 9 years. If instead you are lucky, you would instead make $359,887 in the same 9 years. Horrible risk to benefit ratio.
None of these "techniques" is for trying to win the game so in the end they all just differ on how long you remain in the game. If you're particularly unlucky, you'd burn through your money fast using the Martingale.
Basically it's a choice of whether you want to quickly test how lucky you can get or whether you want to only gain small wins and reduce loss.
Basically it's a choice of whether you want to quickly test how lucky you can get or whether you want to only gain small wins and reduce loss.
Martingale isn't a winning strategy, it is one of the way where you get the increased chance of recovery. In simple terms it increases the probability of winning and the same isn't assured. A huge bank roll is a must and the same makes it quite risky, this seems to be the true reason where gamblers face loss applying the martingale state strategy when experiencing consecutive losses.
I keep hearing about this on gambling forums over and over so it's time to put an end to this once and for all (at least on Bitcointalk, I'm aware this system has existed for centuries and is not going away any time soon unfortunately)
There are even many people selling bots here that use the martingale system on several sites.
The martingale system entails doubling down your stake upon every loss. So, if your initial stake was, say, $1, then you'd bet $2 if you lost a game, and $4 if you lost another one, and so on until you go broke.
The expectation is that you'll never lose with this method, which I'll debunk mathematically.
The saying "The house always wins" exists because there is always the 'house edge', we'll be generous and assume the house edge is a small 1% (when it usually is 2% or higher).
This means that the probability of you losing a game is 51%. Let's assume your bankroll is $100, and your initial stake is 1% of that, or $1.
After six consecutive losses, you would have lost $63 dollars using the martingale method, and will have a remaining balance of $37, after which you would be unable to double down any further.
Many would say that the probability of losing six in a row is very low. That is indeed correct, however, this is exponentially more likely with more games played.
So, assuming a loss rate of 51%, your chances of losing six in a row are: 1 in [ 1/(0.51^6) ] games, or 1 in 57 games.
So, based on this math, after you have played 56 games, statistically speaking, you have a less than 1% chance that you will not have gone nearly bankrupt.
And this is using calculations which don't even assume a minimum or maximum betting limit. Every single game I know has had a maximum stake limit. You may or may not hit that maximum stake limit before you hit the six losses in a row, in which case, you would have a permanent negative ROI a lot faster than calculated above.
There are also many conspiracy theories that games implement various anti-martingale methods, like deliberately giving people long losing streaks at certain intervals. However, I believe this is largely a hoax. The martingale system is, for the most part, self defeating, and casinos would actually love someone who plays like that, because it means the casino is basically guaranteed a win.
Also, if they did implement anti martingale techniques, then one could simply play with an algorithm that defeats such a pattern. For example, you could play the anti martingale technique which entails doubling down when you win, and halving your stake when you lose. It would be every mathematician's dream come true if casinos did make their games follow a fixed/rigged anti-martingale losses pattern like that. Instead, games scatter wins and losses at a random pattern, combining that with the house edge is effectively a guarantee that the casinos will make money. If you truly want to win in gambling, you have to learn creative ways to defeat the house edge. The martingale method does not reduce the house edge, it merely satisfies you psychologically by changing how you perceive your losses.
There are even many people selling bots here that use the martingale system on several sites.
The martingale system entails doubling down your stake upon every loss. So, if your initial stake was, say, $1, then you'd bet $2 if you lost a game, and $4 if you lost another one, and so on until you go broke.
The expectation is that you'll never lose with this method, which I'll debunk mathematically.
The saying "The house always wins" exists because there is always the 'house edge', we'll be generous and assume the house edge is a small 1% (when it usually is 2% or higher).
This means that the probability of you losing a game is 51%. Let's assume your bankroll is $100, and your initial stake is 1% of that, or $1.
After six consecutive losses, you would have lost $63 dollars using the martingale method, and will have a remaining balance of $37, after which you would be unable to double down any further.
Many would say that the probability of losing six in a row is very low. That is indeed correct, however, this is exponentially more likely with more games played.
So, assuming a loss rate of 51%, your chances of losing six in a row are: 1 in [ 1/(0.51^6) ] games, or 1 in 57 games.
So, based on this math, after you have played 56 games, statistically speaking, you have a less than 1% chance that you will not have gone nearly bankrupt.
And this is using calculations which don't even assume a minimum or maximum betting limit. Every single game I know has had a maximum stake limit. You may or may not hit that maximum stake limit before you hit the six losses in a row, in which case, you would have a permanent negative ROI a lot faster than calculated above.
There are also many conspiracy theories that games implement various anti-martingale methods, like deliberately giving people long losing streaks at certain intervals. However, I believe this is largely a hoax. The martingale system is, for the most part, self defeating, and casinos would actually love someone who plays like that, because it means the casino is basically guaranteed a win.
Also, if they did implement anti martingale techniques, then one could simply play with an algorithm that defeats such a pattern. For example, you could play the anti martingale technique which entails doubling down when you win, and halving your stake when you lose. It would be every mathematician's dream come true if casinos did make their games follow a fixed/rigged anti-martingale losses pattern like that. Instead, games scatter wins and losses at a random pattern, combining that with the house edge is effectively a guarantee that the casinos will make money. If you truly want to win in gambling, you have to learn creative ways to defeat the house edge. The martingale method does not reduce the house edge, it merely satisfies you psychologically by changing how you perceive your losses.
Jump to: