Stop gambling your coins unless you're playing for entertainment!

[Yuhfhrh]

3. I would never pay for home insurance. Instead I would have plenty of extra funds available before even considering buying a house.

Unless you planned on being homeless until then, you'd be paying rent to someone else, which would cut into your saving up money.  Then, what you would be doing is called "self-insuring."  Considering the value of money deflates over time, you'd be losing money by sitting on it.

I will gladly pay rent for a place to live, and it doesn't cut into my savings because I consider it a need in order to live.  The money i'm sitting on is being actively used, and is gaining value over the inflation level.

I'll also throw in here that I will never borrow money either, which means no house until I can buy it flat out.

[1714146737]

1714146737

[1714146737]

1714146737

[1714146737]

1714146737

[DannyHamilton]

ea its better with small amounts. . .

Extremely small amounts are only "better" because when you eventually loose thousands of times your initial bet, it won't "hurt" as much since it is still less than a penny.  As soon as you start moving up to pennies and fractions of a dollar, the exponential nature of the Martingale is going to hurt. Starting with an extremely small amount isn't going to protect you from eventual loss, it's just going to make it hurt less.

. . . its so boring and systematic that i wish i knew something about programing and could just program a computer to play for me, and if i did that i could program a few computers and them all winning small amount of money so as not to go over the max bet of 10BTC. . .

Gambling can be a form of entertainment for some, but if the house has an edge (and in this case they do), then it isn't a good way to make an income.  If you find it "boring" and aren't playing for fun, then you really shouldn't be playing.  Programming a computer to play for you? You might as well just flush your money down the toilet.  That is how the eventual loss when it comes will feel.

. . .well fuck it i just turned fractions of a penny into a dollar in a few days, and it was a bit fun watching it go up and up. i'm sure i can turn fractions of a dollar into a few dollar. . .

I assure you that if you Martingale long enough you are going to suffer a catastrophic loss.  You will eventually lose more than you've won, and you will bump up against that 10 BTC limit sooner than you expect to.

it might be a small gain at a time, but its exponential when you raise the steaks

The winnings when you get blackjack might be somewhat exponential, but most of the time your winnings will be linear while your losses are exponential.  Don't forget that you have to significantly increase the amount you have at risk if you split or double on a hand.  I've had blackjack hands where I split 4 times, doubled on all four and lost on each of them.  That means loosing 8 times the initial bet in a single hand.  When you are already 8 stages into a Martingale, this is going to be 4,096 times your initial bet. Now instead of 1024 as the bet for the ninth stage, you have to jump to 4637.  If you become frightened by the large amounts, you'll back down from the splits and doubles indicated in Basic Strategy which will increase the house edge against you.

besides you forgot about one thing, if you get on a losing streak and then blackjack you make A LOT more than your initial bid

I didn't forget. I'm just telling you that this betting strategy will catch up with you eventually.  You haven't discovered something new here. People have been trying to use this betting strategy since the 1700's.  If it worked there wouldn't be any casinos, they'd all be bankrupt by now.

[Richy_T]

3. I would never pay for home insurance. Instead I would have plenty of extra funds available before even considering buying a house.

Unless you planned on being homeless until then, you'd be paying rent to someone else, which would cut into your saving up money.  Then, what you would be doing is called "self-insuring."  Considering the value of money deflates over time, you'd be losing money by sitting on it.

I will gladly pay rent for a place to live, and it doesn't cut into my savings because I consider it a need in order to live.  The money i'm sitting on is being actively used, and is gaining value over the inflation level.

I'll also throw in here that I will never borrow money either, which means no house until I can buy it flat out.

It's not a bad strategy. And if you can self-insure, so much the better for you. It wouldn't require you to sit on the money, it could be invested and liquidated as needed (be careful if you take a loss though).

Personally though, I just pay house insurance. It's pretty cheap. I try to self-insure all other property where reasonable though (including vehicles, but not liability).

[darkmule]

I didn't forget. I'm just telling you that this betting strategy will catch up with you eventually.  You haven't discovered something new here. People have been trying to use this betting strategy since the 1700's.  If it worked there wouldn't be any casinos, they'd all be bankrupt by now.

Martingaling works every time if you follow these simple rules:

1)  Have an infinite amount of money.
2)  Find a casino that has an infinite amount of money.
3)  Make sure the casino lets you bet an infinite amount.

Follow those simple rules and you're guaranteed to win every time.

Of course, if you have an infinite amount of money, one wonders why you're gambling in the first place, but there you go.

[Richy_T]

I didn't forget. I'm just telling you that this betting strategy will catch up with you eventually.  You haven't discovered something new here. People have been trying to use this betting strategy since the 1700's.  If it worked there wouldn't be any casinos, they'd all be bankrupt by now.

Martingaling works every time if you follow these simple rules:

1)  Have an infinite amount of money.
2)  Find a casino that has an infinite amount of money.
3)  Make sure the casino lets you bet an infinite amount.

Follow those simple rules and you're guaranteed to win every time.

Of course, if you have an infinite amount of money, one wonders why you're gambling in the first place, but there you go.

I do believe this is how they plan to solve the debt crisis.

[Yuhfhrh]

I didn't forget. I'm just telling you that this betting strategy will catch up with you eventually.  You haven't discovered something new here. People have been trying to use this betting strategy since the 1700's.  If it worked there wouldn't be any casinos, they'd all be bankrupt by now.

Martingaling works every time if you follow these simple rules:

1)  Have an infinite amount of money.
2)  Find a casino that has an infinite amount of money.
3)  Make sure the casino lets you bet an infinite amount.

Follow those simple rules and you're guaranteed to win every time.

Of course, if you have an infinite amount of money, one wonders why you're gambling in the first place, but there you go.

I do believe this is how they plan to solve the debt crisis.

Truely a laugh out loud moment. 

[SgtSpike]

3. I would never pay for home insurance. Instead I would have plenty of extra funds available before even considering buying a house.

Unless you planned on being homeless until then, you'd be paying rent to someone else, which would cut into your saving up money.  Then, what you would be doing is called "self-insuring."  Considering the value of money deflates over time, you'd be losing money by sitting on it.

I will gladly pay rent for a place to live, and it doesn't cut into my savings because I consider it a need in order to live.  The money i'm sitting on is being actively used, and is gaining value over the inflation level.

I'll also throw in here that I will never borrow money either, which means no house until I can buy it flat out.

Debt-free is a truly awesome way to live.  I'm getting there...

Personally, I see housing as an investment.  If I am planning to stay put for a while, eventually the payments against the principle would exceed the payments I would be making to rent something similar.

Net gain (loss) = RENTAL_PMT - MORTGAGE_PMT + PRINCIPLE_PMT

Right now, I estimate that a house comparable to mine would rent out for $800, and my current mortgage payment is $1,062, with $221 going to principle.  So I currently have a loss of about $41/month.  If I consider that the money put towards principle could instead be gaining interest at 10%, then I'd also have another $42/month of investment income that I am missing out on.

In a few years though, it'll flop around.  I'll have a net gain each month compared to what I would have had by investing the principle payment and difference between rent/mortgage payment.  Especially once the housing market turns around, and I can count the equity gains as well.  Certainly though, it is at the expense of lack of flexibility for my living situation.  I can't just up and move like a renter could, which can be a significant liability at times.

Anyway, all power to you Yuhfhrh - debt free is an admirable way to live for certain.

[dooglus]

wow i just found out strategy is not just about when to stand and hit, i have be drastically increasing my wins by doubling the bet each time i lose so that when i win i always make all the money i lost back plus the original bet... daym this is too easy

considering the the odds are going i'm going to win at least once out of like... 10? say i have 300 and making dollar bets-- i would have to lose 9 time in a row before i lost my money... do you guys think thats risky? i have been having much better luck doing this.

I've played a fair amount of blackjack at bitZino.com.  They occasionally give me a small amount of bitcoin to play with, and when they do I use exactly the strategy you've just "discovered".

Of the 5 or 6 times they've given me bitcoins to play with, in all but one case I lost the whole amount before cashing anything out.  In the most recent case I made gains of about 30%, cashed out the amount they gave me, then lost the rest.

The Martingale strategy is particularly poorly suited for blackjack because sometimes you'll want to double down or split your cards, which artificially increases the amount you've bet on that hand, and so if you lose you'll need to bet even more than double on the next hand to make up for your losses.

I've had slightly better luck playing Martingale on red/black in roulette, because then you can be sure of how many losses you can sustain in a row before you either run out of chips or hit the house maximum.

In my experience though, you need to be betting less than 1/1000th of your bankroll to make it unlikely that you'll bust out, and then you only increase your bankroll by 0.1% each time you're successful.  It gets boring, so I end up increasing my initial bet, which increases the probability of busting.

If you want to double your bankroll, the safest way to do it is to put it all on a single event, rather than gambling the same money over and over.  So if you wouldn't put it all on red because that's too risky, you shouldn't be using the Martingale strategy either, because that is even less likely to result in you doubling your money.

It's fun though, so long as you can stand to lose it all...  Just don't think you've discovered something that works.  It doesn't.

[salfter]

The more you play, the more you're likely to lose them all. Don't play BTC gambling games to try and make you rick or "turn 0.24 btc into 0.25 btc for a nice number, they're not worth it. Only gamble if you want to lose your coins.

You could say the same for gambling in any currency.  It's a tax on people who failed statistics.

One question, though: on the one hand, you say gambling's a bad idea.  On the other hand, you have a gambling-related ad in your sig. 

[dooglus]

One question, though: on the one hand, you say gambling's a bad idea.  On the other hand, you have a gambling-related ad in your sig. 

He said gambling was a bad idea (it has a negative expectation).

He didn't say that advertising gambling sites was a bad idea (it presumably has some kind of positive expectation).

[Richy_T]

On the other hand, you have a gambling-related ad in your sig. 

So do you

[Yuhfhrh]

3. I would never pay for home insurance. Instead I would have plenty of extra funds available before even considering buying a house.

Unless you planned on being homeless until then, you'd be paying rent to someone else, which would cut into your saving up money.  Then, what you would be doing is called "self-insuring."  Considering the value of money deflates over time, you'd be losing money by sitting on it.

I will gladly pay rent for a place to live, and it doesn't cut into my savings because I consider it a need in order to live.  The money i'm sitting on is being actively used, and is gaining value over the inflation level.

I'll also throw in here that I will never borrow money either, which means no house until I can buy it flat out.

Debt-free is a truly awesome way to live.  I'm getting there...

Personally, I see housing as an investment.  If I am planning to stay put for a while, eventually the payments against the principle would exceed the payments I would be making to rent something similar.

Net gain (loss) = RENTAL_PMT - MORTGAGE_PMT + PRINCIPLE_PMT

Right now, I estimate that a house comparable to mine would rent out for $800, and my current mortgage payment is $1,062, with $221 going to principle.  So I currently have a loss of about $41/month.  If I consider that the money put towards principle could instead be gaining interest at 10%, then I'd also have another $42/month of investment income that I am missing out on.

In a few years though, it'll flop around.  I'll have a net gain each month compared to what I would have had by investing the principle payment and difference between rent/mortgage payment.  Especially once the housing market turns around, and I can count the equity gains as well.  Certainly though, it is at the expense of lack of flexibility for my living situation.  I can't just up and move like a renter could, which can be a significant liability at times.

Anyway, all power to you Yuhfhrh - debt free is an admirable way to live for certain.

Thanks, and I do agree that a house is an investment so don't get me wrong there. If you are financially stable and you can handle it, I don't see a problem. But for me, I have prayed about it, and this is what I've been told to do. 

[Richy_T]

Thanks, and I do agree that a house is an investment so don't get me wrong there. If you are financially stable and you can handle it, I don't see a problem. But for me, I have prayed about it, and this is what I've been told to do. 

A house can be an investment but your home isn't.

[Yuhfhrh]

Thanks, and I do agree that a house is an investment so don't get me wrong there. If you are financially stable and you can handle it, I don't see a problem. But for me, I have prayed about it, and this is what I've been told to do. 

A house can be an investment but your home isn't.

QFT

[cAPSLOCK]

. . .Only gamble if you want to lose your coins.

. . . Wouldn't it be more accurate to say not to place bets that have a negative expected value as a known outcome? . . .

Where the hell do you find a gambling service that has a positive EV?

I believe he is referring to poker.  If he is being honest, then it would seem that he is a skilled player who has enough of an edge to overcome the rake.

I know this is an old post... but indeed I was referring to poker.  And I am not really very skilled as much as I am a talented sand-bagger and game selector.