Martingale isn't that bad

[badjacks99]

thats the problem with martaingale. it lulls you into believing that it is a winning stratagey and makes you think of the endless amounts of bitcoins you can earn. Thats all great until that run of 14 reds come out and your bankroll is gone. I believe it does work in the short run, atleast for me it does. But once you to get to where you are making 100000 rolls the chances of losing it all are getting bigger, you keep going it will happen.

[Mehek]

martangle startagy is good but had some errors i am working on it

[futureofbitcoin]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong. How did you calculate this?

The thing is, with different martingale systems, the result is different. For example, is your starting bet 1BTC? Or 0.1BTC? Or 0.01BTC? Or 0.5 BTC?

The probability of obtaining a 1BTC win (and only 1 BTC) is different in each of those scenarios.

[leen93]

Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

[futureofbitcoin]

Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.

[dznuts85]

Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.

i think he/she just mean that with 7BTC, if you want to make it to 8BTC it would be better to make a martingale until you reach 1BTC profit instead of yolo bet

[galbros]

Martingale works great until it doesn't.  I agree with waterpile that the key is to set your win target and stick to it.  That seems to be what trips up most gamblers.

I like the idea of comparing it with one all in bet.  It seems that dooglus did something along these lines awhile back.  IIRC he found that you were actually better off betting smaller amounts at high odds rather than one all in bet.  This makes sense if you think about it, your expected value is the same but your amount at risk is lower.  But I'm not sure if that extends all the way to martingale.  Your calculations suggest it might.

Regardless, good luck!

[Wendigo]

You need a safety cushion of at least 20 consecutive lost bets to not destroy your whole bankroll and bet according to this to at least have a chance in my experience.

[futureofbitcoin]

Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

I'm not misunderstanding you, you're misunderstanding me. Your calculations are wrong, because martingale doesn't give the same probabilities for different starting amounts.

i think he/she just mean that with 7BTC, if you want to make it to 8BTC it would be better to make a martingale until you reach 1BTC profit instead of yolo bet

You're still not understanding me. I don't know why you guys don't understand such a simple point.

Martingale with 0.1BTC as the minimum bet does NOT YIELD THE SAME RESULT as martingale with 0.2BTC as the minimum bet. So to say that "martingale has an X% chance" is wrong.

Martingale works great until it doesn't.  I agree with waterpile that the key is to set your win target and stick to it.  That seems to be what trips up most gamblers.

I like the idea of comparing it with one all in bet.  It seems that dooglus did something along these lines awhile back.  IIRC he found that you were actually better off betting smaller amounts at high odds rather than one all in bet.  This makes sense if you think about it, your expected value is the same but your amount at risk is lower.  But I'm not sure if that extends all the way to martingale.  Your calculations suggest it might.

Regardless, good luck!

Either you're confused yourself, or you just didn't express yourself properly.

Expected value factors in risk. Expected value includes everything. You aren't better off under any strategy, they're all the same.

What changes is the distribution of possible outcomes. With bets of smaller amounts, you have a higher chance of losing smaller amounts, but also a higher chance of winning lower amounts. With larger bets, you have a higher chance of losing larger amounts but also a higher chance of winning larger amounts.

That's all. There's no "better". It just depends on the individual's definition of "better".

[Kprawn]

The Martingale system has never worked for me... I think I chicken out too quickly, when the numbers gets too high.  

In the beginning some of the faucets with a multiplyer option had no Martingale counter and I got some profit... then I got greedy and they implemented a counter and I lost it all.

It's always fun, when you beat the system... and then it goes BANG!  

[XinXan]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

[Bitdicesupport]

I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.

[Minnlo]

Don't misunderstand me, martingale is a losing strategy, just like every strategy, the house wins in the long run due to the edge.
but it's a better (or less worse) strategy than going all in, that's all i said

The best strategy is to minimize your wagered amount, which in turns maximize your EV (still negative anyways).
And putting all your balance on a YOLO bet is never the best strategy.

Check https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=939776.msg10529739#msg10529739 to see a series of bets that gives you 49.65% to double 1 btc in a 1% house edge dice site. For comparison, an all-in x2 bet gives you 49.5% success rate.

[shulio]

I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.

NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll

[Bitdicesupport]

I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.

NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll

No no im not saying it is a winning strategy but it can work very well

[shulio]

I would also contribute something to this thread. We have a player "snmp" on www.bitdice.me who is playing martingale for more than 2 weeks now and he keeps on winning. He has taken 2 loosing series but he has a stop in place at around 30 btc. But that being said, he is almost at 100BTC in profit.

NOt really a fact that martingale is a winning strategy, atleast he know when to stop, Martingale is a strategy but it is not always a winning strategy, all we need to do is the tendency to stop whenever we are in profit, otherwisethe losing streak will strike and bust our bankroll

No no im not saying it is a winning strategy but it can work very well

Yes indeed it is, some strategy are design to win over the house, but no doubt that the tiny chance to hit a red streak will always be there, From what I saw in the site, its seems line snmp is coming back with his martingale strategy but it seems he keep on going , sooner or later there will be a chance where he will bust all of his winning

[futureofbitcoin]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

This is also false. The distributions are not the same, even though the end effect is the same.

Consider one family with a 1.80m tall father, 1.60m tall mother, and a 1.70m tall son. The "expected height" of the family is 1.70m.

Consider another family with a 2.00m tall father, a 1.60m tall mother, and a 1.50m tall child. The Expected height is also 1.70m, but obviously the distribution is different.


It's the same thing with gambling strategies. The EV is the same, but distribution is different. In the case that you want to win 1BTC and EXACTLY 1BTC, no more, no less, with EXACTLY a 7BTC bankroll*, there are two optimal routes**:

1. Bet all-in at high odds
2. Martingale with a BASE BET of 1BTC.

These result in the same odds for earning exactly 1 BTC. Any other variation of the martingale would result in a lower chance.

*Any difference in ANY of the variables would change this conclusion.

**There are possibly other routes that would arrive at the same % chance, but these are not within the topic of martingale vs all-in.

[dznuts85]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?

[Shogen]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?

No idea why XinXan talks about 0% house edge, but the 86.375% numbers is slightly off under the 2% house edge assumption.

The chance to win a x2 bet under 2% house edge is 49%.
The chance to lose it thrice is 51% ^ 3 = 13.2651%.
So the chance to make it 8 btc from 7 btc successfully is 1 - 13.2651% = 86.7349%.

The number 85.75% is correct by the way.

[leen93]

felt bored and calculated it
so imagine you have 7 btc and want to make it 8 btc and there is a house edge of 2%
chance you'll be able to do this with martingale is 86.375%
chance you'll be able to do this with a bet of 7 btc is 85.75%
just a difference for exactly the same outcome

Your calculations are wrong, with a 0% house edge doing it with martingale is a 87.5% and doing it all in with 7 btc would be also 87.5% so it doesnt matter wheter you use martingale or all in, the only thing you win is time

How can you prove that his calculation is wrong if your calculation shown to us is from 0% house edge?

No idea why XinXan talks about 0% house edge, but the 86.375% numbers is slightly off under the 2% house edge assumption.

The chance to win a x2 bet under 2% house edge is 49%.
The chance to lose it thrice is 51% ^ 3 = 13.2651%.
So the chance to make it 8 btc from 7 btc successfully is 1 - 13.2651% = 86.7349%.

The number 85.75% is correct by the way.

i exchanged the 3 and 7 by accident; Thanks by pointing this out