Martingale and Roulette

[babo]

Well it would be 50% but if you add provably fair on the casinos, the advantage they have, it would seem like less than 5% of the advantage of the casino is against the player. And the more you play the more larger that percentage is and that’s what I think is going on if you play in the long run.

of course we imagine a fair casino.. but if we have starting hash for provably fair..
much casino (i mean fiat casino) dont have provably fair

sometime finance police of italy bust not honest video poker holder (they crack machine for decrease % of win)

[1714304902]

1714304902

[1714304902]

1714304902

[1714304902]

1714304902

[KonstantinosM]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

The problem is exponential growth of bets.

If your first bet is black.... You have a more than 50% chance of losing it right away.

Even if you win 3 times in a row, you can easily lose everything on the 4th time.

Say that you win 3 times.... take profit and then try it all over again. You're still relying on luck. You still haven't won anything unless you remove the winnings from your budget and you still only won because you were lucky against the odds.

[wxa7115]

I wouldn't even think of using that strategy in any type of game. There was a thread about Martingale strategy and you can read from there different experience of different gamblers who tried to use Martingale strategy in different games. Bottom line, it didn't work. They ended up losing. Remember, it's a game of chance, no strategy can beat that or else it will be a game of strategies.

True, at first the system may seem to work and even to seem flawless, but for the martingale system to finally break you will have to play for a long time, this is why those that only employed the system a few times indicated good results but for those that actually adopted the system and used the system for a long time the system eventually failed and their losses probably amounted to all their capital.

This is one the good things of math, many think of math just as a hard subject they learn at school not understand they can predict outcomes with it and improve their lives if they choose the better ones, and using the martingale system is definitely a mistake when gambling.

[btc-facebook]

IMO martiangle on roulette is not fit because the range is too far.
Simple gamble type like dice is the suitable one.
Even the experienced gamblers, I can guarantee that many of them dislike using martiangle on their gameplay

[ocid]

IMO martiangle on roulette is not fit because the range is too far.
Simple gamble type like dice is the suitable one.
Even the experienced gamblers, I can guarantee that many of them dislike using martiangle on their gameplay

yes, I think the martingale strategy is more suitable for playing dice because by doing this strategy we can manage the betting money we have well even though this strategy is quite risky but this strategy has been widely used by gamblers

[pixie85]

IMO martiangle on roulette is not fit because the range is too far.
Simple gamble type like dice is the suitable one.
Even the experienced gamblers, I can guarantee that many of them dislike using martiangle on their gameplay

yes, I think the martingale strategy is more suitable for playing dice because by doing this strategy we can manage the betting money we have well even though this strategy is quite risky but this strategy has been widely used by gamblers

It's not. Martingale works in your normal life, but it doesn't work in online gambling where wins are calculated by a computer that does it for all players at once every second.
If you throw a coin and martingale the strategy will seem to work. Try doing it in online gambling like dice and you'll go broke.

[chris200x9]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

Most of the casinos will have a maximum bet limit so even though you have an infinite amount, not sure you will win in the long run. Once you lose few times in a row that maximum bet than not sure how long you may need to roll to get back that money. So this method is only good for fun not to make money.

[sportbettor]

About examples of application of the Martingale theory in practice, you can read here: http://sportstatist.com/the-pitfalls-of-martingale-money-management-strategy/

[BossMacko]

Hi guys is there anyone knowing anything about Martingale strategy? I'm new on it and i'd like to start to use it in online roulettes. Do u think that it worth trying using it if my budget is roughly 2k£? I found this guide https://casino.guru/roulette-scam-strategies and they say it's better not to use it; but i have friends who won real money thanks to that.
Can anyone giving me any further info about? Thanks very much 

If you will play for a short time martingale will be effective to you, you can search it in YouTube how martingale works. Don't play long term and also have a reset bet don't martingale loses you have. There are lots of strategy martingale is not one of the best so I prefer you look for other strategy other than martingale.

[BitBustah]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

Most of the casinos will have a maximum bet limit so even though you have an infinite amount, not sure you will win in the long run. Once you lose few times in a row that maximum bet than not sure how long you may need to roll to get back that money. So this method is only good for fun not to make money.

A billionaire could easily bankrupt a casino if there wasn't a maximum bet.  It's nearly impossible to lose 40+ bets in a row so the martingale strategy is sound in theory but the casino limits make it not plausible.

The only casino game I know of that ever had odds over 50% was when card counters used to play blackjack, this has been pretty much dead since casinos added multiple deck shoes.

[swogerino]

They used to work a long time ago in offline casinos. Together Martingale plus Roulette and a real big amount of cash in your hands would have made you to come out victorious from the casino. Since betting limits were in place this strategy won't work anymore and everyone knows this.

In online casinos everything is controlled electronically and even if you place 100 bets on red the results may be 100 times black, something impossible in real life.

[gabmen]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

Most of the casinos will have a maximum bet limit so even though you have an infinite amount, not sure you will win in the long run. Once you lose few times in a row that maximum bet than not sure how long you may need to roll to get back that money. So this method is only good for fun not to make money.

Well i don't think there's actually any method that will work for you if you plan on making gambling your bread and butter. Gambling just isn't meant to be that way i think. And casinos won't let you beat them as well.

[onrise]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

Most of the casinos will have a maximum bet limit so even though you have an infinite amount, not sure you will win in the long run. Once you lose few times in a row that maximum bet than not sure how long you may need to roll to get back that money. So this method is only good for fun not to make money.

Well i don't think there's actually any method that will work for you if you plan on making gambling your bread and butter. Gambling just isn't meant to be that way i think. And casinos won't let you beat them as well.

Nothing much may work just think how will it decide which color will come next whether red or black? It can be any random color depending upon the luck or may be if their is any trick done by the owner then accordingly it will come and bets would be lost majority of them so that owner can make money.

[jacee]

I think I had tried martingale just for fun once with tiny amounts of money. It just plain doesn't work unless you have an infinite amount of money.

Most of the casinos will have a maximum bet limit so even though you have an infinite amount, not sure you will win in the long run. Once you lose few times in a row that maximum bet than not sure how long you may need to roll to get back that money. So this method is only good for fun not to make money.

A billionaire could easily bankrupt a casino if there wasn't a maximum bet.  It's nearly impossible to lose 40+ bets in a row so the martingale strategy is sound in theory but the casino limits make it not plausible.

The only casino game I know of that ever had odds over 50% was when card counters used to play blackjack, this has been pretty much dead since casinos added multiple deck shoes.

That's the thing about gambling sites, they are made as so that the dealer will eventually win. That's one of the reason why martingale is a not so good betting strategy in gambling. If you want to win, there really isn't what they called strategy. It all comes to the same ending if a gambler doesn't know when to stop.

In martingale the longer you play, the lesser the chances you have on winning. That means more money that you'll likely lose in just a short period of time. Not at all fun, if you ask me.

[wxa7115]

A billionaire could easily bankrupt a casino if there wasn't a maximum bet.  It's nearly impossible to lose 40+ bets in a row so the martingale strategy is sound in theory but the casino limits make it not plausible.

The only casino game I know of that ever had odds over 50% was when card counters used to play blackjack, this has been pretty much dead since casinos added multiple deck shoes.

It is obvious they are not going to allow that, the casinos know very well the math behind their games and they know that the minimum bet and the maximum bet limit your ability to use any kind of betting system to beat the house in the long term.

However I will disagree when you say that it is almost impossible to lose 40 times in a row, the chances of that happening are very low but it is not impossible, a person that gambled long enough will eventually see that result eventually emerge, just to give you an example I have seen the same number on the roulette appearing 5 times in a row and I do not think it was a roulette that was manipulated.

[shanem]

Martingale is suicidal even if you have lots of money. The table limit will prevent you from martingale to a very high stake and I have seen streaks that last over ten times in a row. A better way is to wait for a trend to emerge and bet on the trend. I have better luck doing this than martingale.

[babo]

Martingale is suicidal even if you have lots of money. The table limit will prevent you from martingale to a very high stake and I have seen streaks that last over ten times in a row. A better way is to wait for a trend to emerge and bet on the trend. I have better luck doing this than martingale.

Phrase in bold is true cruel reality
Martingale is prevented by bet limit

Imagine, you are a casinò.. you have many players, its easy make statistics and setup a right bet limit

What do you think about this?

[wuvdoll]

Martingale is suicidal even if you have lots of money. The table limit will prevent you from martingale to a very high stake and I have seen streaks that last over ten times in a row. A better way is to wait for a trend to emerge and bet on the trend. I have better luck doing this than martingale.

Phrase in bold is true cruel reality
Martingale is prevented by bet limit

Imagine, you are a casinò.. you have many players, its easy make statistics and setup a right bet limit

What do you think about this?

It had been hundred or more times also concluded by many gamblers here that martingale works the best only in theory and when comes into real playing due to different limitations and unexpected behaviors of house, martingale is failing to produce our preferred results. I did see that many gamblers argue that 20+ losing streaks are not possible anywhere at the same time some gamblers have shared in real life also they have faced 40+ continuous losing bets.

I am not seeing any possibility for martingale to work different for roulette from dice gambling. In dicing, we need infinite bank roll to withstand whereas in roulette we must have no table limit to have high stakes. Both are impossible in real life scenarios.

In summary, a mathematical formula (here we do call as strategy) will not have different behavior just due to different environment (due to roulette gambling). Martingale and Roulette is same as Martingale and Dicing.

[Betwrong]

A big LOL to this one. For the others, long as you have a big bankroll, you can make profit. That's it. Just have an infinitely big bankroll

Now that I am thinking about it, I wonder if there's a casino with the biggest possible wager that would allow to maximize such a Martingale strategy? I know 999dice has 40 BTC max profit so that's 40 BTC on a x2 martingale which means you could go for a 36-streak martingale on x2 payout, starting at 1 satoshi and 36th bet at 34.36 BTC.

I suppose you could go all day autobet. Chances of hitting a losing streak 36 times in a row is 1 in 34 billion or something because of house edge.

If you can do 100k bets a day = 50,000 satoshi profit  average daily.

Chances then become that you bust 1 every 34,360 days, almost 100 years.

So if you only play for 1 year, you have a 1 in 100 chance of busting that. If you get away with this. you make BTC 0.1825

Worth risking 40 BTC?

First of, you need more than 40 BTC in your balance for using this strategy. To beat a losing streak of 36 times in a row with 1 satoshi as initial bet you need to have 2 to the power of 36 sats:

2^36 = 68,719,476,736

So, as you can see, it's 687 BTC which is much more than 40.

Secondly, although no less significantly, is wearing-out of your equipment working 24/7.

Although we can neglect the power consumption because it is $0.5 per day max for a laptop, I think no one would risk 687 BTC in order to earn 50k sats daily.

[Fatanut]

A big LOL to this one. For the others, long as you have a big bankroll, you can make profit. That's it. Just have an infinitely big bankroll

Now that I am thinking about it, I wonder if there's a casino with the biggest possible wager that would allow to maximize such a Martingale strategy? I know 999dice has 40 BTC max profit so that's 40 BTC on a x2 martingale which means you could go for a 36-streak martingale on x2 payout, starting at 1 satoshi and 36th bet at 34.36 BTC.

I suppose you could go all day autobet. Chances of hitting a losing streak 36 times in a row is 1 in 34 billion or something because of house edge.

If you can do 100k bets a day = 50,000 satoshi profit  average daily.

Chances then become that you bust 1 every 34,360 days, almost 100 years.

So if you only play for 1 year, you have a 1 in 100 chance of busting that. If you get away with this. you make BTC 0.1825

Worth risking 40 BTC?

First of, you need more than 40 BTC in your balance for using this strategy. To beat a losing streak of 36 times in a row with 1 satoshi as initial bet you need to have 2 to the power of 36 sats:

2^36 = 68,719,476,736

So, as you can see, it's 687 BTC which is much more than 40.

Secondly, although no less significantly, is wearing-out of your equipment working 24/7.

Although we can neglect the power consumption because it is $0.5 per day max for a laptop, I think no one would risk 687 BTC in order to earn 50k sats daily.

The 687BTC is actually for the 37th bet, not the 36th bet as you need 37 bets in order to recover from a 36 loss streak although the formula 2^36 is correct.

To prove how much you're going to be risking just to earn a small amount of money in martingaling, let's do the whole math to this:

(since the basebet = 1 satoshi, I didn't include it in the formula. The formula should have been, 1 satoshi x 2^0, 1 satoshi x 2^1, 1 satoshi x 2^2, and so on.)

Bet Number	Formula	Amount (satoshi)
Bet 1	2^0	1
Bet 2	2^1	2
Bet 3	2^2	4
Bet 4	2^3	8
Bet 5	2^4	16
Bet 6	2^5	32
Bet 7	2^6	64
Bet 8	2^7	128
Bet 9	2^8	256
Bet 10	2^9	512
Bet 11	2^10	1024
Bet 12	2^11	2048
Bet 13	2^12	4096
Bet 14	2^13	8192
Bet 15	2^14	16384
Bet 16	2^15	32768
Bet 17	2^16	65536
Bet 18	2^17	131072
Bet 19	2^18	262144
Bet 20	2^19	524288
Bet 21	2^20	1048576
Bet 22	2^21	2097152
Bet 23	2^22	4194304
Bet 24	2^23	8388608
Bet 25	2^24	16777216
Bet 26	2^25	33554432
Bet 27	2^26	67108864
Bet 28	2^27	134217728
Bet 29	2^28	268435456
Bet 30	2^29	536870912
Bet 31	2^30	1073741824
Bet 32	2^31	2147483648
Bet 33	2^32	4294967296
Bet 34	2^33	8589934592
Bet 35	2^34	17179869184
Bet 36	2^35	34359738368
Bet 37	2^36	68719476736

The total is exactly 137,438,953,471 satoshis (~1,374.39BTC) to recover from 36 loss streak. As I'm typing this, the value of that is $9,438,000. It seems like you can do a lot more with that amount of money and someone who's in possession of that amount of money can surely afford a private mentor or tutor which can teach him where to use the money either invest in business or simply becoming a better spender so he doesn't lose that amount of money over purchases that aren't so practical.

As you can see, we came up with these huge numbers because the growth in your bet in martingale method is exponential. At first, it doesn't seem much. But as the losing streak is increasing, your bet just to earn back your losses and that additional 1 satoshi "profit" is becoming more and more ridiculous. Gambling sites are known to have tremendous number for losing streaks in x2 multiplier and it's the reason why martingale never really worked in the long run.

To put an end to your desire of using the technique martingale, think about this. 50k sats per day is 0.0005BTC per day which is $3.43. Is $9,438,000 worth risking for $3.43 a day? And since the people who wants to gamble with a "mathematical formula" likes to treat gambling as a business, you're obviously a bad business man.