🐺WOLF.BET - Advanced Dice Game 🎲 Sportsbook 🏟️ Slots 🎰

[FIFA worldcup]

In the long term we are talking about house edge and as long as there is a house edge the gambler is doomed to lose money. You can make a quick buck, and maybe you could make a quick buck back to back, that seems like the only possible method to make money honestly.

In a sense it is clear that no matter which casino you got to and which strategy you use as a gambler or an occasional player you're deemed indeed to lose at some point even if you probabilistically happen to win at first. The reason for this is simple - house edge.

Of course, this doesn't apply to casinos whose algorithm can be exploited and manipulated such that you always win even after considering the house edge.

what is that    a joke?  or you never played dices at all?
Even with 0% house edge you will lose with martingale, on 2x payout can be 23 red easily

How many times have you seen 23 losses in a row on a 2x payout yourself?

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row. 
Can you give this calculation if the house edge is 1% which if offered by most of the casino's.

[deisik]

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row. 
Can you give this calculation if the house edge is 1% which if offered by most of the casino's

The math is actually quite simple

When you bet on a 50% win chance, your chance to lose in a series of one roll is, well, 50%, and on average you will have to make 2 rolls to get there (which is 1/0.5). Then the odds of losing two times in a row are 0.5x0.5=0.25, so on average you will have to make 4 rolls to encounter it (1/0.25). Consequently, the odds of losing 23 times in a row are 0.5²³, which is 0.000000119209289 (it seems that I have missed one roll in my previous post). And it will take you 1/0.000000119209289=8388608 rolls on average to see so long a losing streak. The house edge itself doesn't change the odds as such, but what it does change is the amount you win or lose, i.e. on a 50% win chance you will lose more and win less than if it were a totally fair play (i.e. real 50/50)

[serjent05]

I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.  

The maximum losing streak I got so far is around 16, haven't got the chance to move up because my fund is depleted by then.  Anyway, the martingale is indeed a good strategy to recuperate losses if we are lucky but very devastating if luck does not smile on us.  Whether the martingale strategy is good for players or not, depends on how the player utilizes it.  At the end of the day, it is the one who is playing who calls the roll.

[DarkStar_]

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak.

It's actually 25.676% 
Worth noting that with enough bankroll (16777216 units) to survive 23 consecutive losses, 4 million rolls will profit you around 2 million units, for an effective 1.12x multiplier. A simple 1.12x bet against a 1% edge would give you an 88.39% of winning said amount, while martingaling reduces it to 74.324%.

[startsts]

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

I seen 23 reds 2 times for last 3 months.  And if you ask players in chat of some dice they can tell you about higher, 26, 30.   Martingale is not-working strat

[deisik]

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

I seen 23 reds 2 times for last 3 months.  And if you ask players in chat of some dice they can tell you about higher, 26, 30

On exactly what win chance?

I've seen a few losing streaks over 30 losses on a ~40% win chance, and it didn't kill me because I was ready for them. Moreover, I in fact waited for them since it is through them that I profited handsomely. Anyway, the odds of seeing 23 consecutive losses with a 50% win chance are given above. So if you were able to make around 100M rolls within 3 months in a real casino (it's hard but possible), this is what you should reasonably have expected

Martingale is not-working strat

Indeed, it is going to be a non-working strategy if you use it mindlessly and without accounting for the above. But that's the same with any complex strategy in any area

[Emitdama]

You may not lose everything with just 23 rolls, there needs to be a max that we are talking about here. How about you calculate for 10? or 15? or 20? Those are very well hit the max, it all depends on what you start with of course, and if you start with under 1 dollars you are not going to hit the max that easily, but if you start off with 100 dollars you are going to hit it very quickly instead.

So, martingale could very well mean that for a long period of time you can end up winning but it is quite easy to hit 7x in a row loss for example, it happens very quickly and very commonly, so if 7x is the max, you are going to end up losing frequently, even 15x in a row loss is a bit common, not all the time of course but still it is a good chance that you can lose it all that way. So, you can calculate based on max bet allowed instead of 23x because we don't know if 23x is even possible basing on what the bet is.

[lixer]

If you are insisting on saying that martingale is a strategy that could make you money if you are smart enough or know how to use it, go ahead and use it. I am sure wolf.bet would be happy about getting your money, it is a casino in the end and they will want your money for sure. However, one thing is for certain and that is; you can't beat house edge no matter what your strategy is.

Martingale with 10-20-30 losses in a row is real, plus you can do much faster than 1 bet per second as well, and also if you are not going to do 100 million bets (not in one session, just in general) you are not going to make money as well, what is the point of stopping somewhere? If you want to keep making money, even if it takes months or years, you will eventually reach that much wagering and you will hit that big loss in a row.

[deisik]

If you want to keep making money, even if it takes months or years, you will eventually reach that much wagering and you will hit that big loss in a row

Martingale is definitely a losing strategy on an infinitely long timescale

But as soon and as long as we are talking about finite timeframes, you can set your variables in such a way that your chances of busting will be in single digits for that timeframe. You would say that the profits would be tiny as well, and I would agree with you but for one thing, which is outliers. So you can decrease your bust threshold even further, and then roll patiently until you hit an outlier. And how is that not beating the house edge? Even if your profits are small, they are still profits, right? Set your bust streak to 100 rolls on a 50% win chance, and there you are

[carlfebz2]

But let me guess, you haven't seen it even once. So what makes you think you can easily see them? Did you check the odds? If you didn't, I did. The exact odds are 0.0000002384185791. Put in more layman terms, you need to roll around 4 million times to have a 50% chance of seeing that long streak. With 30 losses in a row you would have to roll a billion times. To keep things in perspective, if you roll nonstop 1 roll a second 24/7, it will take you 30 years to get there

I seen 23 reds 2 times for last 3 months.  And if you ask players in chat of some dice they can tell you about higher, 26, 30.   Martingale is not-working strat

All strategies doesnt work specially if you do ran it for long period of time since we know that losing streaks would really come inevitably. 

The only thing i do consider that it do work is on the time that you do able to make profits with it but of course it will matter on how you do set up

goals or profit taking because we know that most gamblers do strive out hard to make money even more if they do  already saw greens no matter what kind of

strategy you've been using.

[DoublerHunter]

I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.  

The maximum losing streak I got so far is around 16, haven't got the chance to move up because my fund is depleted by then.  Anyway, the martingale is indeed a good strategy to recuperate losses if we are lucky but very devastating if luck does not smile on us.  Whether the martingale strategy is good for players or not, depends on how the player utilizes it.  At the end of the day, it is the one who is playing who calls the roll.

^ That's it IF you are lucky because technically martingale strategy won't give the accurate results that say, you will earn sure profit and it is 100% sure. It still remains on how lucky you are. It won't advisable though if you are using martingale with a small number of funds to defeat the bankroll. Once you have 23 losing streaks in a row. That is a huge amount to recover.
Nevertheless, manual and with the desire of the amount that you are willing to lose is perfectly fine while having fun.

[serjent05]

If you are insisting on saying that martingale is a strategy that could make you money if you are smart enough or know how to use it, go ahead and use it. I am sure wolf.bet would be happy about getting your money, it is a casino in the end and they will want your money for sure.

Well, in my experience, martingale can make us money if used for a short period of time and limited roll. Using martingale mindlessly as stated by Deisik will only result in a loss.  It is a strategy, whether it will be a losing strategy depends on the person playing.

However, one thing is for certain and that is; you can't beat house edge no matter what your strategy is.

In the long run, yes but if you play in a limited time and limited run, you can stop playing with a win.  It all depends on when a player stops.  The problem with gamblers is that majority tend to stop when the bankroll is depleted.  Only a few are wise enough to stop when at the winning streak.  There is always a workaround to beat the house edge and that includes stopping completely for a short period of time.

Martingale with 10-20-30 losses in a row is real, plus you can do much faster than 1 bet per second as well,

Indeed, I have read on some chat saying that they experience a losing streak more than that.

and also if you are not going to do 100 million bets (not in one session, just in general) you are not going to make money as well, what is the point of stopping somewhere? If you want to keep making money, even if it takes months or years, you will eventually reach that much wagering and you will hit that big loss in a row.

This depends on the amount a person is wagering, one does not need 100 million bets to make money unless you are just betting 1 satoshi or less per bet, and stopping at the right time is very important since it can determine a gamblers final session's result.  

I do not know about other players' experience but I can say martingale strategy if used wisely can bag you a profit (not that huge though) but you have to do a full stop after some time to prevent the house edge to fully kick in.  That includes in having a rest for some days or weeks before playing again or do a full stop (bagging the profit on that site) and start a fresh series of session on another site.

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll.

I myself have played dice many times on 1% house edge but never got 23 losses in a row.  

The maximum losing streak I got so far is around 16, haven't got the chance to move up because my fund is depleted by then.  Anyway, the martingale is indeed a good strategy to recuperate losses if we are lucky but very devastating if luck does not smile on us.  Whether the martingale strategy is good for players or not, depends on how the player utilizes it.  At the end of the day, it is the one who is playing who calls the roll.

^ That's it IF you are lucky because technically martingale strategy won't give the accurate results that say, you will earn sure profit and it is 100% sure.

It can be depending on the setup of your martingale, I often set up mine for 200% on loss.  And fully stop on the win after 10 losing streaks.  Though I admit sometimes I lose control and do not follow the plan that result in depleted bankroll

It still remains on how lucky you are. It won't advisable though if you are using martingale with a small number of funds to defeat the bankroll. Once you have 23 losing streaks in a row. That is a huge amount to recover.
Nevertheless, manual and with the desire of the amount that you are willing to lose is perfectly fine while having fun.

Indeed, we do not know what is the outcome of the martingale, in my experience, it sometimes skips the 10th losing streak and give me a win and goes straight on the streak where my the bankroll got depleted but oftentimes I hit my target session strategy.   I learned from my previous experience, that with using martingale we must use the stop on x losses and stop on y win.  There is a setup for that on autoroll so better make use of it.

[deisik]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

[serjent05]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

I don't say that auto bet is the major flaw but the action of relying too much on it.  Since we can't keep a tab on what is happening when things go too fast.  Though I can say it can be resolved by setting up those safety options (stop on session loss/profit) that most players tend to forget.  And I believe, we both agree that it is how we utilize these tools that mostly determines the outcome of our session.

[deisik]

And I believe, we both agree that it is how we utilize these tools that mostly determines the outcome of our session

That's what I've been trying to get across in every attack on martingale

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'm almost certain that everyone who questions the viability and utility of martingale as a general stratagem consisting of many very different approaches to utilizing it in practice once tried it and failed. Well, maybe not just once but still failed, probably miserably. I for one lost 1.5 BTC for using it recklessly

And then, on this account, they proceed to conclude that it is not a working strategy. It is indeed psychologically easier for one's ego and more convenient overall to pretend that something doesn't work at all instead of accepting one's personal failure at it (aka shifting the blame). Though I'm not sure if it is the right place to delve into such complications here

[Emitdama]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

This type of talk has been around for a long time and I am pretty sick of it. What people and me trying to say here is that, if you want to make money as in "this is my job and income" type of money gambling, you can't. Because, the "play for a while, stop when you are ahead" will not happen in the long run because you can't stop while you are ahead, you need to keep playing to make an income.

This "you can't play against house edge and win" idea is basically not for few time tests, it is said so that nobody actually tries to get into gambling as a profession and make money. Sure go ahead and do that with poker, because that is against other humans, but it is not possible to make your living with gambling.

In that sense, you will need to do 100 million bets, or 1 billion bets, because in the end we are talking about full income from gambling meaning constantly gambling without ever having to stop. And if you don't stop, eventually you end up losing.

[deisik]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

This type of talk has been around for a long time and I am pretty sick of it. What people and me trying to say here is that, if you want to make money as in "this is my job and income" type of money gambling, you can't. Because, the "play for a while, stop when you are ahead" will not happen in the long run because you can't stop while you are ahead, you need to keep playing to make an income

To make it clear, I don't want to say that "this is my job and income"

What I actually want to say, and in fact always said, is that you can earn money consistently and reliably with martingale once you account for the time period within which you intend to keep playing (a month, a year, a lifetime). Whether you actually will be able to make a living out of it, I don't know, as it all depends. But if not, that will be because of the limits imposed by the casino (like max bet amount) and not due to martingale inherent limitations. And let's be honest here, it doesn't make a lot of sense to plan further into the future than a few months with any particular casino

[imstillthebest]

This type of talk has been around for a long time and I am pretty sick of it. What people and me trying to say here is that, if you want to make money as in "this is my job and income" type of money gambling, you can't. Because, the "play for a while, stop when you are ahead" will not happen in the long run because you can't stop while you are ahead, you need to keep playing to make an income.

This "you can't play against house edge and win" idea is basically not for few time tests, it is said so that nobody actually tries to get into gambling as a profession and make money. Sure go ahead and do that with poker, because that is against other humans, but it is not possible to make your living with gambling.

In that sense, you will need to do 100 million bets, or 1 billion bets, because in the end we are talking about full income from gambling meaning constantly gambling without ever having to stop. And if you don't stop, eventually you end up losing.

you dont need to coment if your sick with it  . its normal that people will keep on talking with that stuff because we are here in gambling  . also there are people say that they can make a living with gambling  and you know what i believe to some of that  because you can really win on some games if you have skills  .  if you dont believe on it then fine  , just play gambling according to your own rules  .    you can stop if you have a self control , its possible  and you can try again next time to have a higher chance of winning  .

[bitgolden]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

I don't say that auto bet is the major flaw but the action of relying too much on it.  Since we can't keep a tab on what is happening when things go too fast.  Though I can say it can be resolved by setting up those safety options (stop on session loss/profit) that most players tend to forget.  And I believe, we both agree that it is how we utilize these tools that mostly determines the outcome of our session.

Greedy gamblers are the worst one. I mean I do not really believe that all gamblers are greedy, some of them do this for fun, just like me, I do not believe I am greedy, I do stop when I win, I do stop when I lose, I just stop whenever I want to, I just want to have a bit of fun and when I got my fun I know how to stop. There are tons of people who are gamblers that gamble for fun, we just hear about greedy ones because they do end up doing something silly.

I just read on a forum someone lost 14k for example gambling, he lost couple grand and he chased that lost and lost even more, and then he chased that and lost more, until it was 14k lost. So yes, that makes more news and that is worst part of the gambling community, but that is not the common people, those are small part of it that gets more attention.

[serjent05]

The major flaw on martingale is the player getting greedy or relying too much on autoroll.  That is when martingale become very risky to the point of devastating to someone's bank roll

Greed has ruined many a gambler indeed

However, I don't agree that autobet is the major flaw of martingale, or a flaw at all. Again, it is how you use it and for what purpose exactly. If you are going to beat the house edge through variance, autobet is a blessing as the more rolls you can make per unit of time the better. Metaphorically speaking, you are not going to catch the cat by its fat tail after 10 rolls. Fortunately, the larger the number of bets you account for (that's the crucial point), the more reliable martingale becomes

This type of talk has been around for a long time and I am pretty sick of it. What people and me trying to say here is that, if you want to make money as in "this is my job and income" type of money gambling, you can't. Because, the "play for a while, stop when you are ahead" will not happen in the long run because you can't stop while you are ahead, you need to keep playing to make an income.

This kind of case needs a lot of discipline.  And it had been talked in some threads about people earning their living through gambling.  I agree, most people will end up losing but there are few exceptions since they really know what they are doing.

This "you can't play against house edge and win" idea is basically not for few time tests, it is said so that nobody actually tries to get into gambling as a profession and make money. Sure go ahead and do that with poker, because that is against other humans, but it is not possible to make your living with gambling.

Gambling game creators, gambling staff, Casino owners, and some gambling players make use of gambling as source of their living.  I bet you won't disagree with that.  The gambling environment does not compose of players alone. 

In that sense, you will need to do 100 million bets, or 1 billion bets, because in the end we are talking about full income from gambling meaning constantly gambling without ever having to stop. And if you don't stop, eventually you end up losing.

Gambling is not supposed to be a source of living for players but a kind of entertainment where they can unwind and remove stress from their everyday job.  But still, there are people who tends to adopt in this kind of environment and make a living out of gambling without having a single bet on the table.