Primedice.com | Since 2013 | Longest Running Crypto Casino | 113 BTC Jackpot!

[ligeros]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

[mindrust]

Martingale is a poison.

[SirChiko]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

[Seketsuna]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

The Martingale system is commonly compared to betting in a casino. When a gambler using this method loses, he or she doubles his or her bet. - Wikipedia

[Rampton]

Martingale is a poison.

Like most things unless you use in moderation. You could even argue gambling is poison. Martingale isn't really any different from just randomly gambling.

[goose20]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is the best if there is no limits and you have infinite funds.

But since no one has infinite funds and casinos set max limit per play - martingale system is dangerous and inevitably leeds to a complete bust.

Use with care

[lili song]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

[angeloanggam]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

[moreia]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

you make .0012 and risk over .03BTC, over 30x what you're looking at winning and that's only over 5 losses. People run into 10, 15, and sometimes even 20 loss streaks and people have the nerve to use the martingale system.

[Josepht]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

[Shogen]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

I am curious about the chance for that to actually happen, but it is a bit more difficult than I thought.
Any one know a simple formula or calculator to calculate the chance of having n losses in a row within m rolls?

[hui]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

I am curious about the chance for that to actually happen, but it is a bit more difficult than I thought.
Any one know a simple formula or calculator to calculate the chance of having n losses in a row within m rolls?

you might want to look at this thread over at reddit and especially the explanation of motherlover:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Primedice/comments/2m6oi1/probability_question_for_the_math_people_warm_up/

[NeuroticFish]

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

I can vouch for that. I've played like that when I started gambling a little more. It was the "best" losing "strategy".
I even started thinking that the sites have some code especially built to detect and make you lose if you do this.

Since then.. I've done some changes in my strategy and .. "I've got better"

[tspacepilot]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

Not to turn away your invitation to discussion, but there's been so much ink spilled already over what martingale is, whether it works, etc that I think it makes sense just to suggest that you google "martingale" or start with the wikipedia article on it.

[mindrust]

Every time losing with Martingale I blame myself and promise never use it again.
But...

Martingale is a poison.

Someone cares to explain what even that martingale is?

example :
You're betting BTC0.0012 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0024 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0048 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0096 -> lose
You're betting BTC0.0192 -> you won

this is how the martiangle works
and you get 0.0012 profit because of this martiangle

Try playing that way and roll just 100 times or even 50, you will eventually lose.

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

The chance of happening 10 loses in a row is a lot more common than 1/1024. I don't know how you get that number but do you realize that every single bet is independent from each other? It seems you don't, like %90 of matingale users.That means you cant exactly predict the time of that +10 losing serie(s). You may get 10+ loses in your first session. than bam. you re out.

[msc]

The chance of happening 10 loses in a row is a lot more common than 1/1024. I don't know how you get that number but do you realize that every single bet is independent from each other? It seems you don't, like %90 of matingale users.That means you cant exactly predict the time of that +10 losing serie(s). You may get 10+ loses in your first session. than bam. you re out.

At the 50% level, the chance of losing 10 times in a row is 0.5^10, which is 0.098%, or 1/1024.  But that's just an average.  It could happen at any time, or even multiple times.  Also remember that whether you're betting manually or automatically, you can rack up 1024 rolls more quickly than you might think.

[lastlove9091]

chance is only chance.. i met up at least 5 time of 23 red streaks of 2.0x per 10k bet

[Josepht]

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

The chance of happening 10 loses in a row is a lot more common than 1/1024. I don't know how you get that number but do you realize that every single bet is independent from each other? It seems you don't, like %90 of matingale users.That means you cant exactly predict the time of that +10 losing serie(s). You may get 10+ loses in your first session. than bam. you re out.

Of course it can happen in the first session, but it might as well happen in the 2000th session.
Yes, I do kno w each roll is independent. That's how I calculated the chance of 1/1048 of losing in a single session.
Assuming you have a 50% chance, 10 losses in a row will be the chance of 0.5^10=1/1024

So if you would try unlimited times, on average you'll lose 10 times in a row after 1024 times.

Please prove me where I'm wrong.

[mindrust]

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

The chance of happening 10 loses in a row is a lot more common than 1/1024. I don't know how you get that number but do you realize that every single bet is independent from each other? It seems you don't, like %90 of matingale users.That means you cant exactly predict the time of that +10 losing serie(s). You may get 10+ loses in your first session. than bam. you re out.

Of course it can happen in the first session, but it might as well happen in the 2000th session.
Yes, I do kno w each roll is independent. That's how I calculated the chance of 1/1048 of losing in a single session.
Assuming you have a 50% chance, 10 losses in a row will be the chance of 0.5^10=1/1024

So if you would try unlimited times, on average you'll lose 10 times in a row after 1024 times.

Please prove me where I'm wrong.

I assure you, it will happen way before the 2000th game:) I am the voice of experience.

You are wrong because, you broke the law of Murphy. This is his world and in his world, majority always lose. If you think you are "the one" thats another story.

[Josepht]

I don't think you'll lose if you roll only 50 or 100 times.
Of course it depends on your bankroll, but I think someone playing martingale should be able to cover 10 losses. The chance of that happening is 1 in 1024.

I do agree with you that you will lose eventually. I just think it's not likely to happen within 50 or 100 rolls.

The chance of happening 10 loses in a row is a lot more common than 1/1024. I don't know how you get that number but do you realize that every single bet is independent from each other? It seems you don't, like %90 of matingale users.That means you cant exactly predict the time of that +10 losing serie(s). You may get 10+ loses in your first session. than bam. you re out.

Of course it can happen in the first session, but it might as well happen in the 2000th session.
Yes, I do kno w each roll is independent. That's how I calculated the chance of 1/1048 of losing in a single session.
Assuming you have a 50% chance, 10 losses in a row will be the chance of 0.5^10=1/1024

So if you would try unlimited times, on average you'll lose 10 times in a row after 1024 times.

Please prove me where I'm wrong.

I assure you, it will happen way before the 2000th game:) I am the voice of experience.

You are wrong because, you broke the law of Murphy. This is his world and in his world, majority always lose. If you think you are "the one" thats another story.

Your 'experience' is just based on a few games you played.
I am talking about endless games. On average there will be a 10 times losing streak every 1024 bets.

I'm sorry bro, math is on my side here.