Why martingale is PURE SHIT.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

We keep getting threads about how martingale or martingale-like strategies work, and no matter how many times I (and others) explain it; we still get people saying that it works.

For example:

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

Or

... 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.

With this post, I want to point out and emphasize why it is a pointless strategy: using martingale, you constantly increase your risk to earn proportionally less.

Let’s say that you bet $1 for heads, you toss a coin and lose. For the second bet, you are risking double ($2) to have a net profit of $1. That is the key point and if someone doesn’t understand it I will explain it in more detail. If you lose, in your third bet you are going to risk $4 to have a net profit of $1, and so on. This calculations are made thinking of you playing to toss coins with a fried but if you play in a casino, you have to take into account that the potential profit for one bet is less than 1$.

There is no point in betting for increased risk and decreased potential net profit.

I am sure that we will keep getting shitthreads about how martingale works but I hope some of you understand it and never use that shitstrategy.

[1713933378]

1713933378

[1713933378]

1713933378

[1713933378]

1713933378

[just_Alice]

Yes, absolutely! That's what I was trying to tell everyone - maximum you can win using this strategy is your INITIAL BET and there comes dilemma: on one hand you want this number to be the biggest possible, because you don't wanna win $1, on the other hand the more you bet the more exponentially you lose in the end. E.g. first bet was $50, that goes up to $1,6k if you get only 6 loses in a row (and we all know that sky is the limit, it can be 12 as well). Therefore, if you constantly play martingale you're doomed, eventually you lose everything.

[btc_angela]

Its because people are still thinking that they can really take and win a lot of money through martingale. In the long run it won't work and the risk factor is multiplied. So I agree, I don't understand some people's infatuation about this system. I have used this strategy short term and change strategy based on what I think is good that time. No fixed set of strategies, just saying.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Yes, absolutely! That's what I was trying to tell everyone - maximum you can win using this strategy is your INITIAL BET and there comes dilemma: on one hand you want this number to be the biggest possible, because you don't wanna win $1, on the other hand the more you bet the more exponentially you lose in the end. E.g. first bet was $50, that goes up to $1,6k if you get only 6 loses in a row (and we all know that sky is the limit, it can be 12 as well). Therefore, if you constantly play martingale you're doomed, eventually you lose everything.

Yes, and that’s without counting the rake. Let’s say that with those $50 you play a toss-coin-like game in a land-based casino, and they charge you 5% rake on the profit. If you win the initial bet, your net profit is gonna be $47.5. For the second bet it’s gonna be $45, for the third, $40, for the fourth, $30, for the fifth $10, and for the sixth you won’t have any potential profit at all. It will all be loses.

Correct me if I’m not correct.

[avikz]

Like you have correctly pointed out, Martingale is essentially a strategy to increase risk at every loosing stake and decrease risk at every winning stake. This strategy originated from France during 18th century and doesn't hold much significance at current technological point of gambling industry where everything is algorithm driven. Martingale works when a game is probability driven and that's how it has started to see a lot of application in games industry.

Instead this strategy may work in forex market. I have found a very nice article which explains this strategy in a very detailed manner but for forex industry. That may help a lot of forex traders to educate themselves on this strategy,

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/06/martingale.asp

But I second the statement of OP that this strategy is not really meant for gambling and especially online gambling!

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The article explains very well what martingale is and its origins. Also, when it talks about numbers 0 and 00 in the roulette is what I was talking about in my example with the rake, when after certain bets there is no potential net profit, only loss.

As for trading, the article ends with ad links to forex sites, so I would take it with a pinch of salt. It is talking about doubling the investment to break even, not to make money, so, again, increasing risk for low or no return.

[DeathAngel]

Most strategies are bull shit & even if they do work temporarily it’ll never last. There’s a reason why you never see a poor bookie or casino.

You might as well just dump 6 chips on your favorite numbers, you stand just as much a chance that way.

[boyptc]

It really don't work and we can't also be sure of it if those people who are saying it works for them are telling the truth.

[Indamuck]

I still think martingale is good in theory but casino limits make it unfeasible.  If there were no max betting amounts a billionaire could walk in and clean out a casino.  The chances of losing 30+ times in a row is extremely small.

I never use this strategy myself, I would rather just place a few big bets.

[iv4n]

Welcome to the club. Martingale scheme doesn't work all the time, sooner or later you come to point where you don't have enough money for next bet, or casino has a limit, maximum high bet. But it's like that when you exploit something, there isn't strategy that works all the time, I always point out that in gambling you need to combine strategies, how to that depends on the game you choose, your bankroll, and how the game is going, you need to recognize moment in game and in that moment to apply strategy that might work.
Martingale is is aggressive gambling, in most of lucky based games you need to play aggressive and rise bets after one or more misses, but don't push just high, high, high, make random bets, two times low, four times high, don't rise bets only if you lose, do that even when you win.

[chris200x9]

Its because people are still thinking that they can really take and win a lot of money through martingale. In the long run it won't work and the risk factor is multiplied. So I agree, I don't understand some people's infatuation about this system. I have used this strategy short term and change strategy based on what I think is good that time. No fixed set of strategies, just saying.

People who are new to gambling think that by doubling their bets and when they win they will be in a profit. But they forgot a couple of things like house edge, they can get unknow continuous losses and every house has its highest best size so even they are ready to double their bet but the system doesn't allow them to do it. So they can't beat the system at the end. Most of the gamblers will realize this point after some time but only some gamblers think that they can beat the house by tweaking here and there so they will continue playing this game.

[wuvdoll]

I wholeheartly agree. Someone finally did the math but even without doing the math we can clearly see the house edge. I mean why do people think they can win with ANY strategy when even the casinos say they have a house edge ?

If there is "house edge" why do you think you can win with any strategy, what does comes to your mind that makes you think you can win in the long run and found a "strategy" thats for sure winning. Let that aside, why would you think you can win when gambling has been around for YEARS now (even in roman times people gambled) and you were capable of finding a way to win every time or even most of the time and can come up with a profit on a CASINO.

[onrise]

It really don't work and we can't also be sure of it if those people who are saying it works for them are telling the truth.

Only those who have enough money and are ready to experiment even if they lose their money who are fine can try it out by them self and get the idea of this if it works in some game or every game and does it work in all casinos or some of them to get assurance of this strategy.

[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/

[swogerino]

Martingale is proved to not work in the long run. Even when it worked it needed a huge initial bankroll together with no betting limits , and this thing was common in offline casinos until people started to abuse it and that is when betting limits came into play to make Martingale void and a not working strategy.

If you are thinking to apply it to an online casino, it didn't work since the beginning. An online casino is electronically controlled and that means even if you play 100 reds it may come out as 100 blacks. This is something which has less than 0 chance of probability in real life but in real life the bookies made this strategy to void itself.

Even if you say that this strategy only makes you win your initial bet, there were people in different casinos who only kept playing this until the won and they start over to win again. That was the number one reason why offline casinos have put betting limits.

[Wendigo]

First off I am not a proponent of Martignale in the slightest, but I have to admit I have heard stories about gamblers using Martingale to bet on roulette in brick-and-mortar casinos and consistently winning. Now I don't visit casinos much so I can't vouch for those, however I have tried running Martingale with really low stakes on crypto dice sites and always ended up getting busto after a ridiculously long losing streak. Yeah these things do happen a lot  and you are not immune to them not happening to you. Martingale is too much risk for minimal gain and I say it's not worth it. I wouldn't risk running my bankroll into the ground for laughable profit.

[mindrust]

Martingale's problem is that it makes you play more. Almost every casino out there has an house edge and the house edge guarantees your lose in the long run. That's why martingale is poison. Just go all in instead of doing martingale for hours, you have much more chances of winning.

[jacee]

Like I said on another thread here about martingale, the longer you play with this strategy, the higher the risk is and the lower you will get. I don't get why people can not understand a simple explanation like that. Martingale might be fun but it's not something you would want to use if you want to take home some money.


I've found this somewhere:

The main idea of this strategy originates from the theory that no one can hit a large number of consecutive losing bets, or in other words – that no one can lose all the time.

It's a theory. So why does people bother using it if it does not guarantee a win?

[AT101ET]

Most these strategies don’t work. This is just another such example where logic is impeded by greed.

[geopolisch]

We keep getting threads about how martingale or martingale-like strategies work, and no matter how many times I (and others) explain it; we still get people saying that it works.

For example:

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

Or

... 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.

With this post, I want to point out and emphasize why it is a pointless strategy: using martingale, you constantly increase your risk to earn proportionally less.

Let’s say that you bet $1 for heads, you toss a coin and lose. For the second bet, you are risking double ($2) to have a net profit of $1. That is the key point and if someone doesn’t understand it I will explain it in more detail. If you lose, in your third bet you are going to risk $4 to have a net profit of $1, and so on. This calculations are made thinking of you playing to toss coins with a fried but if you play in a casino, you have to take into account that the potential profit for one bet is less than 1$.

There is no point in betting for increased risk and decreased potential net profit.

I am sure that we will keep getting shitthreads about how martingale works but I hope some of you understand it and never use that shitstrategy.

A lot of gamblers and wannabe gamblers will always want to console them-selves with a strategy that will never work irrespective whether they are going through with it online or traditionally. Martingale like you said; just keeps setting you on higher risk by increasing your level of losses to just a very minute thing you want to be gaining at the end of it all and that to me is a very high risk to take.

However, gambling generally is a high risk and I expect anyone to know that even before gambling irrespective of whether they think they have found a strategy that works or not.