Martingale revisited

[deisik]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

[1715590159]

1715590159

[1715590159]

1715590159

[1715590159]

1715590159

[1715590159]

1715590159

[1715590159]

1715590159

[1715590159]

1715590159

[jackg]

I don't think you seen to get the mantra of the house always wins with dice and most games thst can't really be given a successful strategy and don't require much skill. Are you talking about increasing win amount on loss so you stake 1mbtc for example and Los at 1-2 so you go 1-4 and lose, 1-5... Etc? If so then it might work for a short while but there's little chance you'll win at 1-100 if you get that high. You also risk running out of places to move too also... If you max out the odds all you can do is double the bet amount or start over...

Try it with 1000 Satoshi if you like just to see if it does anything but I doubt it will.

[swogerino]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong.

[Decimation]

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

[deisik]

I don't think you seen to get the mantra of the house always wins with dice and most games thst can't really be given a successful strategy and don't require much skill. Are you talking about increasing win amount on loss so you stake 1mbtc for example and Los at 1-2 so you go 1-4 and lose, 1-5... Etc?

Nope, you keep everything the same, only increase your balance (by whatever means)

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong

You are not wrong conceptually

In fact, you are totally correct, but that's not the point. Constantly moving that moment farther into the future is the point. You don't need to live forever, you just need to last long enough. If your "escape velocity" (metaphorically speaking) exceeds the velocity with which each roll takes you closer to the TOD (I know that rolls are independent of each other, but still), doesn't it effectively turn you into an immortal? Indeed, you can't win enough through martingale alone but if you continually keep adding to your balance (even if for the sake of experiment only), that would pretty much cut it (at least as I see it)

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next

No one challenges that

[klaaas]

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

Not for the likeliness you will hit a winner but could be a sign to adjust your payout to lower values or start over with lower bets.

I doubt if it will work out op but if it works for you and keeps you in the green on the end go for it.

[robelneo]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

I read this carefully and basically what you are doing you are only extending the final moment of death which is inevitable in Martingale.I don't think there is a lot to be discussed here but maybe I am wrong.

I sometimes do  that, you can do that if you have control and you made up your mind that this is the strategy that you want to implement, sometimes you get lucky sometimes you get busted people who do this are people who wants to extend their time enjoying the game .

[NeuroticFish]

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

Exactly. Somehow people tend to think that there's a relationship and that's why all Martingale-like strategies are doomed to fail.

[SyGambler]

if it makes you wager more then it makes you lose more , the opposite is right as well
if you like this method then stick to it when you are gambling and have fun with it , but don't expect it to make you any profit in the long run

as long as house edge exists it's impossible to have a profitable bet mathematically

[deisik]

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

Exactly. Somehow people tend to think that there's a relationship and that's why all Martingale-like strategies are doomed to fail

There seems to be a misunderstanding

Purely mathematically, there are different kinds of infinities with the inference being that some form of infinity can be greater than another. More specifically, if the losing streak which gets you busted grows faster than the number of bets you have made so far (as the former obviously depends on your balance and its increase with time), statistically, you are unlikely to lose even over an indefinite time scale. Well, that's what I think but you may have a different opinion while everyone else is welcome to chime in on this

as long as house edge exists it's impossible to have a profitable bet mathematically

And there is a limit on how much you can bet. The house edge alone won't suffice if you are not financially restricted

[NeuroticFish]

Purely mathematically, there are different kinds of infinities with the inference being that some form of infinity can be greater than another.

I agree.

More specifically, if the losing streak which gets you busted grows faster than the number of bets you have made so far (as the former obviously depends on your balance and its increase with time), statistically, you are unlikely to lose even over an indefinite time scale. Well, that's what I think but you may have a different opinion while everyone else is welcome to chime in on this

I didn't understand this part (and I even tried google translate help me on this!).
I know that the statistics tell that after each losing bet the chance for the next bet to be a winner increases.
But while I don't know the statistics so well, I think that the things may be different when more players play in the same time (what happens when we do the same statistics for the house versus all the players online).


Also I tend to favor (my) reality versus all the statistics. And I've seen casinos where certain type of bets seem to have better odds (eg. on casino X hi-lo game the "high" bets made me win more often than the low, or casino Y I tend to have longer losing streaks), which may mean differences in implementation, differences that may invalidate the general statistics. Of course I may be wrong, of course I cannot prove anything but it makes me favor the opinion that the general statistics simply don't apply.

[daarul50]

Some people think that the martingale system is the right way to restore the loss we have gotten in a game. For me, this system can only add to our deterioration in the game.

I never thought that folding doubled the stake to get back losses. However, if the system feels it can help you, then please try. For me, this system will only make it difficult for yourself to make a profit.

[shield132]

OP the problem is that every strategy fails on long term, imagine you start gambling now with your strategy, gain some profit, then what to do? There are two options: 1. Withdraw money from casino and never return to it back 2. Withdraw money and then continue gambling sometimes. If you choose second one, you'll lose in overall because strategies fail on long term, it's just like that mathematically.

[buwaytress]

One amongst many revivals of the discussion =). I'd like to point out one big flaw of this idea though: that for your extended martingale, you need a casino able to take very high bets.

Bitcoin casinos in general, at a min bet of 1 satoshi, should allow for at the very least a losing streak of 29 -- that would mean being able to place and win a ~50% chance bet of 1.34++ BTC.

The max bet I know of at that chance is 40 BTC at 999dice. So increasing your bankroll beyond 40 btc isn't even possible anywhere online. So it's not a financial restriction on your part, but on the part of the house

[deisik]

More specifically, if the losing streak which gets you busted grows faster than the number of bets you have made so far (as the former obviously depends on your balance and its increase with time), statistically, you are unlikely to lose even over an indefinite time scale. Well, that's what I think but you may have a different opinion while everyone else is welcome to chime in on this

I didn't understand this part (and I even tried google translate help me on this!).
I know that the statistics tell that after each losing bet the chance for the next bet to be a winner increases

As rolls are independent of each other, the chances will always remain the same for each roll (unless you change the odds manually, of course). In other words, if you have 20 reds in a row, the odds to see red for the 21st time remain absolutely the same as for the first roll in the sequence (and any other roll in that sequence). It is the odds of seeing longer sequences that diminish with the length of the sequence

But that's not my point. My point is, an increase in your balance allows you to survive longer losing streaks, which should be obvious (provided everything else remains the same). So if the balance increases faster than the number of rolls you make (as more rolls means a higher chance to encounter a fatal sequence of reds), we can have a situation where you can play indefinitely long while odds for losing everything will actually be decreasing with time

That would be the case for one infinity (your balance) outrunning another (number of rolls)

OP the problem is that every strategy fails on long term, imagine you start gambling now with your strategy, gain some profit, then what to do?

You add winnings to your balance until you are satisfied with the results. Then you withdraw all and call it a day (or night, depending on your gambling preferences)

One amongst many revivals of the discussion =). I'd like to point out one big flaw of this idea though: that for your extended martingale, you need a casino able to take very high bets

It is more of a theoretical discussion as you will lose faster than your balance will get increased through winnings alone. Or you will be earning dust and basically wasting your time (but to each their own)

[goaldigger]

Some people think that the martingale system is the right way to restore the loss we have gotten in a game. For me, this system can only add to our deterioration in the game.

I never thought that folding doubled the stake to get back losses. However, if the system feels it can help you, then please try. For me, this system will only make it difficult for yourself to make a profit.

Martingale is simply a method of getting back losses but not a method to earn. Why? Because what ever you do, you cannot trust anything but luck. Although you recover your losses at first, there are always comes a time that you dont have enough resources to cover it up. Imagine spending huge amount of momey just to cover loses but not earning through it. What a waste of time and money and thinking of that makes it as stressful as when you are already doing it.

[crwth]

~snip
And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

It is set in a way but if you end early or just do it for a short time, you could still profit.

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Revisiting a technique wouldn't change anything. It would be that it slightly vary to the original strategy, but it is still the same overall. I don't think it is always worth discussing but let us see.

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Wouldn't ”reinvesting” everything make your risk so freaking high? I don't want to see that and will not do that, especially in gambling. I don't understand that you are saying to reinvest everything but don't change the initial bet amount? What?

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Martingale is a strategy; I think it makes sense already but not because it makes you profitable but because of the unlimited funds that are assuming you have.

[DarkDays]

You can't just keep adding balance to your final roll as almost all casinos have a maximum bet size, this means once you get to a large bet sum, you will hit against this ceiling and be unable to continue the strategy.

This will essentially lock in all your previous losses and stop you from being able to double up. You would then need to bet smaller amounts and get unbelievably lucky to then recoup all your past losses.

[STT]

Try it with 1000 Satoshi if you like just to see if it does anything but I doubt it will.

Try it with the lowest bet possible is a good idea, then directly compare that strategy success to all other strategies.   It should be the case that almost any other route allows greater chances of success with less turns taken to deliver it on average.     The problem with martingale is that it encourages far too much risk, its allowing far too great a loss to occur potentially,   The best gamble at all would involve only limited allowance for losses, evn someone who buys a weekly lotto ticket has a better idea because their downside is so simple and small.

[janggernaut]

...evn someone who buys a weekly lotto ticket has a better idea because their downside is so simple and small.

Buying weekly lotto ticket is worse tha gambling with martingale strategy, even you started with 1 sat. But you have to wait around 4 secs for each your bet with 1 sats for starting bet, which only wasting your time.

[Shinpako09]

I actually tried it before, not changing the minimum or even taking it back to zero until the red streak is over but same thing still happen, I lost. Like you've said you are just postponing the final moment. It doesn't make any advantage or gives a little percentage on your side. You only wasted time.

[STT]

I prefer the fixed propositions over the time and risk taken within a Martingale system or perhaps any similar system, they all want me to manage it.   I far prefer the risk of an options strategy, or any kind of arbitrage where risk and losses are pre defined and set, not unlimited.

[mu_enrico]

The idea of keep "extending" the loss is ugly. Why don't you try the stop-win feature on the auto mode? I found this helpful for martingale strategy. The problem with martingale is greed! It "forces" you to play longer than you should and eventually lose everything.

[squatz1]

Martingale won't work, ever.

It's because one of two things will happen. Either you will

1. Run out of money before you can make another bet again

2. The 'max bet' of the casino will be in place so you're unable to keep 2x'ing your bet.

It's just that simple. There's no way to revisit this sort of topic because it always ends the same way.

[Caladonian]

The idea of keep "extending" the loss is ugly. Why don't you try the stop-win feature on the auto mode? I found this helpful for martingale strategy. The problem with martingale is greed! It "forces" you to play longer than you should and eventually lose everything.

That greed place your position always to be in the negative side, whatever system you tried if your attitude towards this activities are being occupied by emotions then there's no way that you can win over the house, martingale will work alone only if you can control your emotions and you can quit much earlier to avoid greed to control your stay.

[deisik]

Wouldn't ”reinvesting” everything make your risk so freaking high? I don't want to see that and will not do that, especially in gambling. I don't understand that you are saying to reinvest everything but don't change the initial bet amount? What?

What what exactly if I may ask?

You don't change the starting amount specifically to lengthen as much as possible the losing streak that is going to kill your balance. If you just add winnings to your balance without changing anything else, you do just that, i.e. extend your survival times. The problem is, though, these winning are nowhere near enough. They are not enough either to earn you decent profits or to extend the losing streak sufficiently. So you are kinda stuck between the upper and the nether millstones. That's basically why martingale is not a working strategy (in the long term)

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Martingale is a strategy; I think it makes sense already but not because it makes you profitable but because of the unlimited funds that are assuming you have

How can it make practical sense if you never have unlimited funds in real life?

[Decimation]

Why does martingale need to be revised in the first place? It's been around forever, and the way it works is very simple. It's fun to think that there is an ultimate strategy, but there just isn't one. Even if you have an unlimited bankroll, the odds don't change. Assuming you are in a vacuum you will have a 50/50 chance to double or lose everything, no matter how you look at it. Sure it can work short term, or not work, but you are most likely better off just randomly betting.

[NeuroticFish]

In other words, if you have 20 reds in a row, the odds to see red for the 21st time remain absolutely the same as for the first roll in the sequence (and any other roll in that sequence). It is the odds of seeing longer sequences that diminish with the length of the sequence

Thanks for taking the time and explaining in simple words. Yes, this makes sense and it's actually consistent with some of my expectations, which I couldn't explain by math/statistics.

But that's not my point. My point is, an increase in your balance allows you to survive longer losing streaks, which should be obvious (provided everything else remains the same). So if the balance increases faster than the number of rolls you make (as more rolls means a higher chance to encounter a fatal sequence of reds), we can have a situation where you can play indefinitely long while odds for losing everything will actually be decreasing with time

That would be the case for one infinity (your balance) outrunning another (number of rolls)

Actually here's something else that stops the show: all casinos have a maximum bet (@DarkDays also wrote this). So if you go by Martingale with infinity amount of funds, if you get a big enough losing streak you just have no means to recover.
Even if we go into an utopian theory (infinite funds), I think that the max bet needs to be "added into equation"...

[Ulven]

I guess you are talking about betting little with gambling wins to increase a gambler's chances of winning ,reduce the amount of new deposit to gambling account to have little to no real losses to the gambler.  Do I make sense?

So I think sometimes, but you can not win without depositing, To win you must rely on strategy and work with caution. An appropriate balance must be deposited and no large funds should be ventured to avoid loss

[stomachgrowls]

Martingale either that classic or reversed one does work but only depends on your luck.We cant completely conclude that most of the time it will bust you up but there

were players who can really make profit if you do get out on the right time.Basing on what written on OP,this isnt different into that casual one,this might be longer but it would have still
the same result if you tend to go further.

[roosbit]

Another classic example of the "Gambler's Fallacy", a streak of reds doesn't increase your odds of hitting a green and likewise. All events are independent of each other, making it impossible to draw conclusions from one roll to the next.

All gamblers know the feeling of waiting for that luck to change in their favor with that next roll but never happens.

If we are to conclude if these strategies do work, I would say all they do is leave a trail of red without ever recovering from that one next roll.

[STT]

If you gamble by feel it will end similarly in bad feelings, use maths and you have a plan beforehand.    You have boundaries for the risk taken to the profit enabled from the gamble, when the bet is placed you have two options to celebrate or to lament and review the conditions that gave the result.    
   This process is far more likely to succeed then basing your estimation on feelings.   Some I dont doubt can aim true somehow in the moment and encompass all risks in the bet but most should plan, even use pen and paper to better guide themselves.

[JohnBitCo]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Another think to note here is that many people use Autobet feature while using the Martingale strategy. So in this case of Auto betting, if your fund is lower or close to Nil (While continuous losing in Martingale), the account will be zero and you will not have to chance of depositing more money to keep on running the Martingale move.

[deisik]

In other words, if you have 20 reds in a row, the odds to see red for the 21st time remain absolutely the same as for the first roll in the sequence (and any other roll in that sequence). It is the odds of seeing longer sequences that diminish with the length of the sequence

Thanks for taking the time and explaining in simple words. Yes, this makes sense and it's actually consistent with some of my expectations, which I couldn't explain by math/statistics

You're welcome!

Actually here's something else that stops the show: all casinos have a maximum bet (@DarkDays also wrote this). So if you go by Martingale with infinity amount of funds, if you get a big enough losing streak you just have no means to recover. Even if we go into an utopian theory (infinite funds), I think that the max bet needs to be "added into equation"

It is not only that

Another cause why this approach is not applicable in practive is the speed with which you can bet. I don't know how fast you can roll through API (as some only casinos offer this feature), but if you use autobet, you are still limited by the number of rolls you can do per second (like 1 roll a second). Then if you take doges as your gamble currency, and start with 0.00000001 doge, you may never in fact hit the max bet limit (which is in the many millions) in your lifetime but you still will be earning dust as you can't roll fast enough

[dothebeats]

Idk but it still seems to be a losing battle for the gambler on those type of games if they are to employ a somewhat tweaked version of the Martingale betting system. The house always wins, and even if the gambler somehow won after x consecutive losses, the returns are still obviously not that handsome considering that you are increasing the odds of winning every time a loss is incurred. No matter how many times we tweak, revisit, change or whatever this Martingale system, it's still always bound to lose on dice games that's for sure. Perhaps some people get some lucky streak, but it's not a surefire way to net you some handsome gains.

[audaciousbeing]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

This is a new line of thought really and to me, the martingale strategy is faulty by assuming the player has unlimited amount to funds to continue to multiply at each successive turns. The strategy fails to show course on the number of times one would have to lose before a winning would occur and that alone has defeated the entire purpose of putting on a strategy to gambling. The point is, a combination of all of the strategies would guarantee a win and not just relying on a particular strategy.

[daarul50]

....

No it didn't change anything, martingale is not a good strategy because it is set to fail after a long time of playing. Martingale strategy is not the way to beat the house edge, in fact nothing can beat the house edge, what your doing is just delaying the moment of losing but not to actually make profits, try to calculate your losses and compare it to your winning, that's when you'll realize you are not getting any profits.

Almost everyone agrees that the martingale system is really not profitable for a gambler. In essence, if you are unsure of the system then don't try it but if you are still curious, then try and you will feel for yourself how it works,

[deisik]

Even if you have an unlimited bankroll, the odds don't change. Assuming you are in a vacuum you will have a 50/50 chance to double or lose everything, no matter how you look at it

That's the point many folks seem to be missing somehow

Technically, you don't even need an unlimited bankroll or balance. The odds don't change for 1 roll but your balance does (which is assumed), and a sufficiently fast growing one will suffice as longer sequences are required to bust you. Okay, here's an example. Say, you have 3 dollars and you start betting with 1 dollar (for simplicity's sake). As you suggest, the chances are 50/50, so in the worst case after doubling your bet, you get terminated with two losses in a row, i.e. 1+2 (correct me if I'm missing something here)

In this manner, the odds of seeing 2 consecutive losses are 0.5x0.5=0.25. Say, after the first roll you win and your balance is doubled. Now you have 6 dollars and can only be terminated after a sequence of 3 losses (1+2+3). The odds of meeting your fate are now 0.5x0.5x0.5=0.125, i.e. half as much as with the first 3 dollars on your balance. If you continue to increase the balance, it will take longer and longer sequences to wipe you out. Thus you don't actually need an unlimited balance, you should just have it grow fast enough

Almost everyone agrees that the martingale system is really not profitable for a gambler. In essence, if you are unsure of the system then don't try it but if you are still curious, then try and you will feel for yourself how it works

It is not profitable because you have to choose between earning dust and risking your whole balance. And this is apart from limits imposed by casinos on max bets and the speed of autobet

[bitgolden]

Another think to note here is that many people use Autobet feature while using the Martingale strategy. So in this case of Auto betting, if your fund is lower or close to Nil (While continuous losing in Martingale), the account will be zero and you will not have to chance of depositing more money to keep on running the Martingale move.

I think aside auto bet, the reason why most gamblers loose using martingale is because of the amount of fund. Honestly, the strategy works but only for very rich gamblers but we find out that even gamblers with barely few stakes  would want to use it because they here its good and the next thing we hear of complains like it sucks and all of that.

I haven’t tried this strategy and am not a strategy kind of player.  I believe in playing my games freely while depending on luck. I believe we ought to know by now that gambling is a game of luck and it would be better that we accept it that way rather than looking for  shortcuts to winning of which we know it would never be possible.

[SquallLeonhart]

I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Not only the house edge but rigged algorithm too playing a part. I guess almost all the houses are escaping in the name of "provably fair" and "why not possible". When I roll for 100 satoshi I do get green but for 10k satoshi it would be a definite red. But, I am using martingale for my sportsbetting and making good profits consistently.

Martingale is just a mathematical thing and we need to remember houses are also playing against us with same martingale but with virtually infinite bankroll and this where we do may fail at most of the times.

[justdimin]

Martingale is just a mathematical thing and we need to remember houses are also playing against us with same martingale but with virtually infinite bankroll and this where we do may fail at most of the times.

Infinite bankroll is needed to withstand against lengthy consecutive losing streaks but practically that is not happening as per my real life betting experiences. Online gambling is being played under lots of new factors hence ensuring everything for the fair side will not be an easy task. At the same time, there would be less possibilities for houses to provide us P2P dicing. I guess if there would be any such P2P dicing then martingale may start regaining its fame.

I am using martingale for my sportsbetting and making good profits consistently.

Sportsbetting is profitable for many gambler here because it is P2P based and if you are good at predicting results along with martingale then definitely you can make big profits still you must need to be set with decent bankroll to risk.

[deisik]

At the same time, there would be less possibilities for houses to provide us P2P dicing. I guess if there would be any such P2P dicing then martingale may start regaining its fame

There is already such thing in existence today

It is called on-chain betting and used by decentralized apps (more specifically, decentralized casinos) running on blockchains like TRON and EOS (not sure about the latter though). All bets (and consequently all seeds for the rolls) are written on the blockchain and bets can be checked and analyzed for provably fair anytime. In other words, they are truly guaranteed to be fair, and there is for a casino to skew the odds n their favor above and beyond the official house edge (or how it is called there)

[Moiyah]

Believe it or not I have tried that alreadt at 93.86% win chance. I double my bet but red strikes are still existing, higher chance of wins means less profits. The more you lose more and hard to recover the losses. It is working at first but at the long term for example, you lose thrice or three consecutive reds with three x2 martingale strat, you lose big amount of money then.

[redsun114]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

No it didn't change anything, martingale is not a good strategy because it is set to fail after a long time of playing. Martingale strategy is not the way to beat the house edge, in fact nothing can beat the house edge, what your doing is just delaying the moment of losing but not to actually make profits, try to calculate your losses and compare it to your winning, that's when you'll realize you are not getting any profits.

Please have you ever asked this question because this is exactly what is getting me bothered? If the almighty martingale strategy is no longer or never been a winning strategy, then what is? If nothing can beat the odds so why are we gambling? Considering what you mentioned, if we are really to do an estimate, comparing profits to loses, we would realize we have been losing all along. I am really depressed by this discovery.

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets.

[deisik]

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets

I'm not really sure that gambling is for people to make money unless we are talking about professional poker players and their likes, or any other games which apart from luck also involve a certain amount of skill. Chance games are about entertainment only, and if you somehow come to think differently, it may cost you dear. Regarding casino owners caring only about  their pockets, isn't that as true with respect to casino players who equally don't care about the pockets of casino owners?

If you are after money, gambling is the last thing you should be looking into

[crwth]

What what exactly if I may ask?

Let me quote it again for you.

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc)

See the bolded highlighted parts? Reinvesting, Without changing, Initial Bet amount? I'm just wondering how you could reinvest without changing the initial bet amount? Let's say you have won a lot and you have a profit with it. How is it not changing the initial bet amount? I think it's better to start with a smaller initial bet after winning a lot of rounds using Martingale.

How can it make practical sense if you never have unlimited funds in real life?

That's the sad truth about it, that's why it's never going to be that profitable and not the go-to strategy for everyone who is gambling. Mainly on dice it is not that ideal but the sportsbooks gambling type, it could work, depending on the match you are trying to bet on is that you know about it too.

[deisik]

What what exactly if I may ask?

Let me quote it again for you.

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc)

See the bolded highlighted parts? Reinvesting, Without changing, Initial Bet amount? I'm just wondering how you could reinvest without changing the initial bet amount? Let's say you have won a lot and you have a profit with it. How is it not changing the initial bet amount? I think it's better to start with a smaller initial bet after winning a lot of rounds using Martingale

The word was double-quoted to avoid possible misunderstanding and confusion. Anyway, if that gives you peace of mind, substitute reinvesting with increasing your balance

How can it make practical sense if you never have unlimited funds in real life?

That's the sad truth about it, that's why it's never going to be that profitable and not the go-to strategy for everyone who is gambling

It is not only that

All legit casinos have an upper limit on how much you can bet, and many of them have a lower limit as well (which is different from the lowest denomination of the coin gambled). That basically puts an impenetrable barrier, a roadblock of sorts, as to how much you can earn (or lose, for that matter) even if you had a drainless fountain of wealth. Apart from that, your bets are also temporally limited, i.e. you can't make more bets per unit of time as preset by the casino

All that, taken together, severely limits how much you can earn even using the most riskless martingale settings. For example, when you are using doges, which allow you to withstand very long losing streaks practically impossible in real life, you don't need to have insane amounts of money to take advantage of that, but your earnings, while kind of guaranteed, will still be dust anyway. On the other hand, if you just like seeing your balance grow, that's pretty much it

[Darker45]

I think it's better to start with a smaller initial bet after winning a lot of rounds using Martingale.

That is precisely the reason why Martingale is used. If possible, you do not use Martingale if you are on a winning streak or generally gaining in your bets. I only use Martingale when I have to recover the loss I got in the previous roll. And if successful, you will go back to your normal bet.

But there might be some people who are really into Martingale despite having successive wins. They are those who are risk-takers enough to either go home afterwards with nothing or with a huge win.

postponing our final moment...

That is all what this is all about. But at least you get to enjoy more rolls before packing up.

[justdimin]

I think aside auto bet, the reason why most gamblers loose using martingale is because of the amount of fund. Honestly, the strategy works but only for very rich gamblers but we find out that even gamblers with barely few stakes  would want to use it because they here its good and the next thing we hear of complains like it sucks and all of that.

I haven’t tried this strategy and am not a strategy kind of player.  I believe in playing my games freely while depending on luck. I believe we ought to know by now that gambling is a game of luck and it would be better that we accept it that way rather than looking for  shortcuts to winning of which we know it would never be possible.

I appreciate that you admitted that you have never tried this strategy and I want to believe you barely know little about it, so it’s understandable. I don’t think this martingale strategy works for anyone, if it does, it’s only for a short term. So it can never be seen like a strategy that works.
 
Not everyone can play games completely depending on luck especially when a huge amount of money is involved. This is the reason players like me would always be on the search for a strategy, and I believe that definitely there will be one. I have tried martingale, it worked to an extent until I started losing, and that was when I got to understand that the system only works for some time not permanent.

[guoyu78]

Please have you ever asked this question because this is exactly what is getting me bothered? If the almighty martingale strategy is no longer or never been a winning strategy, then what is? If nothing can beat the odds so why are we gambling? Considering what you mentioned, if we are really to do an estimate, comparing profits to loses, we would realize we have been losing all along. I am really depressed by this discovery.

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets.

If you are into gambling to make money, then I suggest you start thinking of an alternative source of money making because gambling is definitely not one of those. Gone are those days. The gambling I used to know, people made money, maybe because there were no strategies like we use today. These days even with the strategies, it’s so difficult to beat the house edge. I feel the site operators are aware of the efforts of gamblers to going through the back doors, so they made it a little bit more difficult.
Right now, the only way to enjoy gambling is to play for fun and top thinking of making money, let the profit that comes from playing for fun be appreciated and maximized for better games.

[stomachgrowls]

I think aside auto bet, the reason why most gamblers loose using martingale is because of the amount of fund. Honestly, the strategy works but only for very rich gamblers but we find out that even gamblers with barely few stakes  would want to use it because they here its good and the next thing we hear of complains like it sucks and all of that.

I haven’t tried this strategy and am not a strategy kind of player.  I believe in playing my games freely while depending on luck. I believe we ought to know by now that gambling is a game of luck and it would be better that we accept it that way rather than looking for  shortcuts to winning of which we know it would never be possible.

I appreciate that you admitted that you have never tried this strategy and I want to believe you barely know little about it, so it’s understandable. I don’t think this martingale strategy works for anyone, if it does, it’s only for a short term. So it can never be seen like a strategy that works.
 
Not everyone can play games completely depending on luck especially when a huge amount of money is involved. This is the reason players like me would always be on the search for a strategy, and I believe that definitely there will be one. I have tried martingale, it worked to an extent until I started losing, and that was when I got to understand that the system only works for some time not permanent.

Dont mean to disrupt on what you do believe but there would be no such strategy that do works.Everything is random and as a gambler its somehow been part of the fun on seeking

up some strategies that might work out but on end point those are just spices to add up some thrill with our gambling but people are taking it way too much which forcing it to work and make money until they bust up.

[mich]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Just based on your very first sentence, it sounds like you understand that this method hasnt proven anything other then you will lose money in the long run.
Betting strategies are very common these days and everyone thinks they can get the house edge- truth is its called the HOUSE EDGE for a very good reason
Play for entertainment everyone not to beat the HOUSE EDGE!

[deisik]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Just based on your very first sentence, it sounds like you understand that this method hasnt proven anything other then you will lose money in the long run

Yeah, but that's the whole point

If the said "long run" is longer than your life (well, longer than you will be rolling dice), does it really matter? Then again, this topic is more of an academic tune, which is to say, it deals more with conceptual matters rather than mundane ones (but still). For example, it is typically accepted as true that an infinite bankroll in the absence of artificial restraints like max bet amount put in place by the casino will beat the house edge through martingale. But even with a bankroll growing fast enough, it is still possible, at least as long as your escape velocity is in the positive (i.e. with each win your death streak becomes longer)

[redsun114]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Just based on your very first sentence, it sounds like you understand that this method hasnt proven anything other then you will lose money in the long run.
Betting strategies are very common these days and everyone thinks they can get the house edge- truth is its called the HOUSE EDGE for a very good reason
Play for entertainment everyone not to beat the HOUSE EDGE!

I hope you can sit back and go through this sentence again and be sure it is perfect for everyone. You make a lot of sense really but you should know by now that 60% of players will never agree to this. It does not matter the name it is given, let it even be written clearly, you can never win the house edge but gamblers would always believe there is always a way out.

This is one of the reason I no longer feel sympathy for bettors that lose their money in gambling because from my observation,  I noticed, they always want to use strategies for every game. Majority of players no longer accept the fun part of gambling and this is really absurd. Well you have said it all, and let them that have ears hear.

[Haunebu]

This is one of the reason I no longer feel sympathy for bettors that lose their money in gambling because from my observation,  I noticed, they always want to use strategies for every game. Majority of players no longer accept the fun part of gambling and this is really absurd. Well you have said it all, and let them that have ears hear.

Using strategies in gambling is not always a bad thing. Some people have earned good money thanks to these strategies. The problem here is that most people tend to use negative progression strategies like the Martingale in casino games where the odds are in the house's favor making it unfeasible in the long term.

Instead, these strategies are better suited for sports betting where long losing streaks happen less often as long as you do your research first.

[fortunecrypto]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

I have tried that before, sometimes you win sometimes you lose and so much is depends on the funds you have allocated to your betting, of course, there will always long run of winning and long run of losing, if you are going to chase your losses be sure you have enough funds to cover the strategy.

[STT]

Instead, these strategies are better suited for sports betting where long losing streaks happen less often as long as you do your research first.

Great point, the odds in sports betting are more unknown and less prone to a regular reproduction of a loss.   An irregular bet fits this attempt far better, thats barring an external factor like a team that suffers great disruption and is no longer able to compete within the league.   Such large changes in skill levels should be obvious and also reflect in the odds given, where as the roulette wheel will give no such discount to a losing streak and merely continues precisely on the same course.

Casino games are far more about maths and statistical probability anaylsis and I would recommend study of that technique as a means to observe or improve odds available.

[FanEagle]

If you are into gambling to make money, then I suggest you start thinking of an alternative source of money making because gambling is definitely not one of those. Gone are those days. The gambling I used to know, people made money, maybe because there were no strategies like we use today. These days even with the strategies, it’s so difficult to beat the house edge. I feel the site operators are aware of the efforts of gamblers to going through the back doors, so they made it a little bit more difficult.
Right now, the only way to enjoy gambling is to play for fun and top thinking of making money, let the profit that comes from playing for fun be appreciated and maximized for better games.

Totally unacceptable bro, I think this strategy never worked, so it didn’t start  today and I will like to like to correct the idea of playing for fun, I think you can't impose your opinion on other players. Someone like me for instance, I am so determined to make money from gambling and I believe and understand that this is what this game is designed for, the only thing I can then do for myself is to play with care and also watch how I play my games but advising that players accept to only play for fun is what I call am impossible mission.

Not winning games has got nothing to do with the site owners, it is just not doing the right thing. Martingale strategy might not be working but there are definitely others that works, so the idea should be players, going to the extreme to dig out what strategy works for their games.

[bitgolden]

--snip

Maybe you should share some winning idle you have because you sound so confident and looks like you have made all the money in gambling. What do you think we are not doing right? Please answers to this will really be highly appreciated

But for now I am still of the opinion that gambling is a game of fun and not a ground for money. If it was for money, majority of us here should be extremely rich by now but all we get is constant loses and this has pushed us to believing that the house edge only favors the site. You can imagine that I played a game with $1000 dollars just yesterday and it all went down within few hours on the site, not even a dime left and nothing won back in return. I feel very hurt and am just at the edge of quitting the game.

[deisik]

But for now I am still of the opinion that gambling is a game of fun and not a ground for money. If it was for money, majority of us here should be extremely rich by now but all we get is constant loses and this has pushed us to believing that the house edge only favors the site

I mostly agree with your view

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

These dudes are the ones that casinos fear the most as their bankroll is comparable to that of the casino (or even exceeding it), while with just a few bets pure luck can easily overcome the house edge, and if it favors the player, the casino may suffer massive losses. These big-timers may be in for the money

[Haunebu]

You can imagine that I played a game with $1000 dollars just yesterday and it all went down within few hours on the site, not even a dime left and nothing won back in return. I feel very hurt and am just at the edge of quitting the game.

Invest only what you are willing to lose. Why would you gamble with such a big amount if you were afraid of losing it? Betting small amounts on accumulators regularly would have been more ideal in this case.

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

Not just professional poker players though. There are blackjack card counters out there who make a killing even now. There are many other strategies too(Arbitrage betting, taking advantage of a biased roulette wheel etc) which actually give players the edge.

[cabalism13]

...and if it favors the player, the casino may suffer massive losses. These big-timers may be in for the money

And that's the reason why, on some other countries, casinos are owned by mafias, just to control the flow of money,... If their client wins big enough that is... Just like in the movies, it somewhat happens IRL too you know. I also know somebody who experienced that thing.

[MonsterV]

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

But can we think of gambling like that, I'm sure most people who come to gambling sites have a goal not entertainment but money, they think gambling is their business that they can do easily.

I still agree when I have to consider gambling as entertainment, at that time people will have more psychological calm when playing. When we are psychologically tense when gambling then that's when we only think of money. It's difficult, it's hard to think of gambling as entertainment.

Invest only what you are willing to lose. Why would you gamble with such a big amount if you were afraid of losing it? Betting small amounts on accumulators regularly would have been more ideal in this case.

Well, but this is not entirely his fault, because it is difficult for humans to hold back their emotions when experiencing successive losses. They will always catch up even though they have passed what he is able to bet. This is natural and often happens to me when experiencing losses in a row.

[Indamuck]

But for now I am still of the opinion that gambling is a game of fun and not a ground for money. If it was for money, majority of us here should be extremely rich by now but all we get is constant loses and this has pushed us to believing that the house edge only favors the site

I mostly agree with your view

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

These dudes are the ones that casinos fear the most as their bankroll is comparable to that of the casino (or even exceeding it), while with just a few bets pure luck can easily overcome the house edge, and if it favors the player, the casino may suffer massive losses. These big-timers may be in for the money

Problem is with the advertisements, they make it look like everyone will be a winner and a lot of stupid people believe that.  If you go in with realistic expectations and a good understand of probability you won't be setting your self up to be mentally traumatized.  

[judeafante]

Martingale is a good strategy if you have large funds to sustain your bets, and if you coupled it with control and right betting strategy, you can win, but it's not 100% guaranty, of course, there is no perfect strategy to bring down the house, just enjoy the game if you are here to bring down the house you are in big trouble.

[cabalism13]

But for now I am still of the opinion that gambling is a game of fun and not a ground for money. If it was for money, majority of us here should be extremely rich by now but all we get is constant loses and this has pushed us to believing that the house edge only favors the site

I mostly agree with your view

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

These dudes are the ones that casinos fear the most as their bankroll is comparable to that of the casino (or even exceeding it), while with just a few bets pure luck can easily overcome the house edge, and if it favors the player, the casino may suffer massive losses. These big-timers may be in for the money

Problem is with the advertisements, they make it look like everyone will be a winner and a lot of stupid people believe that.  If you go in with realistic expectations and a good understand of probability you won't be setting your self up to be mentally traumatized.  

It sounds confusing, then the problem is not on advertisements but the people itself together with their unrealistic fantasies that they could go well, exactly the same with on what they see, but still the reality is such a bad thing, it really goes different on what we expect. So all in all,we end up losing our moneys and much worst our families. And that one example is this martingale thing.

[deisik]

You can imagine that I played a game with $1000 dollars just yesterday and it all went down within few hours on the site, not even a dime left and nothing won back in return. I feel very hurt and am just at the edge of quitting the game.

Invest only what you are willing to lose. Why would you gamble with such a big amount if you were afraid of losing it? Betting small amounts on accumulators regularly would have been more ideal in this case.

As gambling should be considered not a source of income (apart from professional poker players and their likes) but a form of entertainment and amusement only. But we still can't discard those who play rare but always big time. If they lose after a few bets, they leave. If they win, they take the spoil and instantly leave as well

Not just professional poker players though. There are blackjack card counters out there who make a killing even now. There are many other strategies too(Arbitrage betting, taking advantage of a biased roulette wheel etc) which actually give players the edge

In fact, I don't doubt there are a lot of games involving not just luck alone but a certain set of skills as well

As this is what I meant by professional poker players and their likes. I don't know what these likes might be, but I know it for certain that you can beat the odds in some games and activities (like sports betting). This essentially means your result depends not only on luck but also on your skill which you can develop given enough time and practice. Poker just happens to be one of the most familiar and well-known examples of this kind

[redsun114]

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets

I'm not really sure that gambling is for people to make money unless we are talking about professional poker players and their likes, or any other games which apart from luck also involve a certain amount of skill. Chance games are about entertainment only, and if you somehow come to think differently, it may cost you dear. Regarding casino owners caring only about  their pockets, isn't that as true with respect to casino players who equally don't care about the pockets of casino owners?

If you are after money, gambling is the last thing you should be looking into

Since you are not sure, I think I should make you understand. You don’t have to be a professional before making money in gambling, irrespective of the game or the type of player, everyone deserves to make money no matter how small it maybe because right from when I was small and I knew how we played games, the aim was to make money.

The best is to understand that it is possible to play games without using strategies and yet make money, I feel strategies is really the problem with gambling and again, it is highly important to overcome greed since this is one thing that prevents gamblers from being successful but making money is definitely not restricted to professional gamblers alone.

[deisik]

Since you are not sure, I think I should make you understand. You don’t have to be a professional before making money in gambling, irrespective of the game or the type of player, everyone deserves to make money no matter how small it maybe because right from when I was small and I knew how we played games, the aim was to make money.

The best is to understand that it is possible to play games without using strategies and yet make money, I feel strategies is really the problem with gambling and again, it is highly important to overcome greed since this is one thing that prevents gamblers from being successful but making money is definitely not restricted to professional gamblers alone

You seem to be missing my point

Basically, there are two types of games. The first type, which is properly and rightfully referred to as gambling, involves only luck. In this type of the game, it is impossible to win if only through luck, but the longer you play, the higher are your odds of losing all simple because the house edge starts to prevail over luck. Indeed you can use martingale in the way described in this thread but most casinos won't let you do that thing as they are no fools, so we are back to square one, i.e. losing eventually

The second type of games, which poker is the most well-known example of, involves both luck and skill. You can't change your luck as it is beyond your powers and control (since otherwise it wouldn't be luck), but you can develop your skills and through that change the odds in your favor. It is the lack of enough skill that prevents people who are playing this kind of games from being successful. So with these games it is your knowledge and expertise combined that determine your success, but these are also what turns you into a pro

[Haunebu]

Well, but this is not entirely his fault, because it is difficult for humans to hold back their emotions when experiencing successive losses. They will always catch up even though they have passed what he is able to bet. This is natural and often happens to me when experiencing losses in a row.

How is it not his fault? He made a bad decision and he regrets it. Simple as that. I did the same in the past and I am not afraid to admit it. Majority cannot hold back as you stated, but the winners are the ones who can control themselves in such situations and make sensible decisions.

It comes down to your own individual decisions at the end of the day. This is why I like to behave like a robot when making these decisions so that the emotional impact is low.

[deisik]

Well, but this is not entirely his fault, because it is difficult for humans to hold back their emotions when experiencing successive losses. They will always catch up even though they have passed what he is able to bet. This is natural and often happens to me when experiencing losses in a row.

How is it not his fault? He made a bad decision and he regrets it. Simple as that. I did the same in the past and I am not afraid to admit it. Majority cannot hold back as you stated, but the winners are the ones who can control themselves in such situations and make sensible decisions

It is just human nature

No one should in fact be surprised at this or go too harsh on other people in such cases and under such circumstances. People rarely admit to owning their mistakes. They simply can't come to terms with the fact that most of their problems actually stem from their own bad behavior and misjudged actions. So they have to find someone or something to blame (e.g. their emotions or whatever). But there's an interesting consequence or sequel to refusing to own up one's mistakes and misdeeds. Ironically, refusing to accept responsibility for one's actions leads to making the same mistakes over and over again. In gambling (as well as in trading), it means losing money until there's nothing to lose

It comes down to your own individual decisions at the end of the day. This is why I like to behave like a robot when making these decisions so that the emotional impact is low

If it works for you, go for it. But a better alternative is to harness the power of your emotions and channel their energy in the direction of your conscious and deliberate choice. Thus, you will get more for a buck of your time and effort

[Haunebu]

If it works for you, go for it. But a better alternative is to harness the power of your emotions and funnel their energy into the right direction, the direction of your conscious and deliberate choice. Thus, you will get more for a buck of your time and energy

I agree with what you are saying here. I find it way easier to channel positive energy while placing sports bets since each bet usually takes time while casino game rolls happen very quickly giving me more time in this regard.

Also, it is way easier to channel positive energy with regards to sports betting due to the ability to do research and place smart value bets giving us an edge while we cannot do the same with casino games.

[serjent05]

Martingale is a good strategy if you have large funds to sustain your bets, and if you coupled it with control and right betting strategy, you can win, but it's not 100% guaranty, of course, there is no perfect strategy to bring down the house, just enjoy the game if you are here to bring down the house you are in big trouble.

Not only that, it is also a good strategy even if you have a small bankroll.   Aside from normal martingale, reverse martingale gives a huge winnings if we happen to win consecutively and  be able to stop before  suffering a loss.  Though the chance of doing this is quite slim since we do not know what will happen on the next roll.  If we win we double the money and if we lose, we lost all the winning.  But the good thing with this strategy is that if we lose, we only lose the initial bet.  So playing this kind of strategy does not need a huge bankroll  unlike the ordinary martingale since we double our bet whenever we lost which means we keep on increasing our bet and that really needs a huge bankroll.

[mirakal]

I would suggest you invest the money you use in gambling rather than risking it in something you have low percentage of making profits.

This is a correct suggestion but it's wrong if someone will use a money to gamble that he can't afford to lose.
I always allocate a portion from my income to gamble and I feel that is the right thing to do to be responsible as when I gamble I am not too confident that I can still have that money after because most likely I loss and that's based on my experience, and I'm talking here of different strategy.

[deisik]

Gambling is supposed to be an open source for people to make money not to extort from players but it seems it’s now the other way round and I can clearly say now that this site owner do not have the interest of players at heart. All they care about is their pockets

I'm not really sure that gambling is for people to make money unless we are talking about professional poker players and their likes, or any other games which apart from luck also involve a certain amount of skill. Chance games are about entertainment only, and if you somehow come to think differently, it may cost you dear. Regarding casino owners caring only about  their pockets, isn't that as true with respect to casino players who equally don't care about the pockets of casino owners?

If you are after money, gambling is the last thing you should be looking into

Exactly, most of the games in gambling aside from poker or card games are more on luck that is why it should only be for fun or entertainment unless if you are truly lucky but most of the time gamblers who risk in gambling only feels lucky but not really lucky in reality. I would suggest you invest the money you use in gambling rather than risking it in something you have low percentage of making profits

Personally, I'm playing with free money

And just want to see where that will take me (just in case, I'm still running my setup and have't lost my balance yet). So if you refer to me personally, I think I know where to draw the line as I lost a few bitcoins in the past and learned my lesson hard (even though Bitcoin was not that expensive back in the day but still)

Besides, I wouldn't quite agree with your point that most gamblers are not lucky. They are in fact as lucky as their odds are (minus the house edge), but after they try out their luck for the first time, they try it out again and again and this is where the house edge massively kicks in and starts to overwhelm luck until there's nothing left of it

[noormcs5]

Well the risk in martingale to me is that you have much space to believe you are doing good in trade but that's not true if eventually you keep losing but if you are always in winning side, you can't feel it.

Martingale is only suited to us if have a big balance in our account. If we have small balance then we may be liquidated after few consecutive loss.
The more the money we have in the balance (bankroll), the more longer we can take the Martingale strategy and avoid the loss.

[swogerino]

Well the risk in martingale to me is that you have much space to believe you are doing good in trade but that's not true if eventually you keep losing but if you are always in winning side, you can't feel it.

Martingale is only suited to us if have a big balance in our account. If we have small balance then we may be liquidated after few consecutive loss.
The more the money we have in the balance (bankroll), the more longer we can take the Martingale strategy and avoid the loss.

That is exactly what we should not do.If we have a really big balance it means we have enough money so why lose it on Martingale or any other non working gambling strategy.Martingale it doesn't work by default,you need an infinite balance which is not realistic.

[serjent05]

Well the risk in martingale to me is that you have much space to believe you are doing good in trade but that's not true if eventually you keep losing but if you are always in winning side, you can't feel it.

Martingale is only suited to us if have a big balance in our account. If we have small balance then we may be liquidated after few consecutive loss.
The more the money we have in the balance (bankroll), the more longer we can take the Martingale strategy and avoid the loss.

That is exactly what we should not do.If we have a really big balance it means we have enough money so why lose it on Martingale or any other non working gambling strategy.Martingale it doesn't work by default,you need an infinite balance which is not realistic.

I think the needed balance depends on how you will use martingale and when you are planning to stop.   Though it is said that Martingale is for someone who have unlimited bankroll, but the problem is no one have unlimited bankroll.  Even those who have huge fund is more probably to end losing since martingale bet grows exponentially every time we lose a roll.  Often times due to house edge, we suffer consecutive loses which can possibly exhaust our bankroll using the martingale method.


This is a good read from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system), which enable us to know that there is a 0% success in martingale if we play continuously.  Reason, limited bankroll plus exponential increase of bet when we lose.

[deisik]

Well the risk in martingale to me is that you have much space to believe you are doing good in trade but that's not true if eventually you keep losing but if you are always in winning side, you can't feel it.

Martingale is only suited to us if have a big balance in our account. If we have small balance then we may be liquidated after few consecutive loss.
The more the money we have in the balance (bankroll), the more longer we can take the Martingale strategy and avoid the loss.

That is exactly what we should not do.If we have a really big balance it means we have enough money so why lose it on Martingale or any other non working gambling strategy.Martingale it doesn't work by default,you need an infinite balance which is not realistic.

I think the needed balance depends on how you will use martingale and when you are planning to stop.   Though it is said that Martingale is for someone who have unlimited bankroll, but the problem is no one have unlimited bankroll.  Even those who have huge fund is more probably to end losing since martingale bet grows exponentially every time we lose a roll.  Often times due to house edge, we suffer consecutive loses which can possibly exhaust our bankroll using the martingale method.

This is a good read from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system), which enable us to know that there is a 0% success in martingale if we play continuously.  Reason, limited bankroll plus exponential increase of bet when we lose

This is not the whole story

If your balance grows fast enough, your losing streak will grow too (all other settings being the same obviously). The latter means that you don't in fact need an infinite balance, it just needs to be growing so that your chances of losing your balance are decreasing with time. Further, you are unlikely to bet indefinitely long and that also turns in your favor. It doesn't mean that you can't lose because whether you will actually lose or not cannot be known in advance

[Kasabus]

sometimes Martingale can give you a victory that is so big, but not always the strategy can provide good luck, even if we carry out the strategy continuously it is likely to suffer substantial losses. I think if we have a big enough balance you should avoid Martingale because it will have an impact on greed

The main purpose of why we are betting using the martingale strategy is not to win big, but to win all the time or most of the time.
However, if we are only focus on our greediness, we might not notice how risky this method is, once we experience our bankroll will be totally wipe out, I'm pretty sure we will realize that this is not a good strategy.

[STT]

Bet Martingale but only start with 1 Satoshi bet.   Then you never run out, you get your wish to always win in a session (most likely) but with the drawback its unlikely you ever win anything big.     If you somehow still fail to win with this strategy, then give up and do not just try again with more.   Find a method or a game that works on the smallest bets and only then go forward with that.

[deisik]

Bet Martingale but only start with 1 Satoshi bet.   Then you never run out, you get your wish to always win in a session (most likely) but with the drawback its unlikely you ever win anything big.     If you somehow still fail to win with this strategy, then give up and do not just try again with more.   Find a method or a game that works on the smallest bets and only then go forward with that

If by Satoshi you refer to Bitcoin of Satoshi Nakamoto fame, then you'll get busted in the blink of an eye

Well, within a week or two or after a few hundred thousand rolls (probably, less). The only way to consistently profit by martingale is to use doges and start rolling at the minimum possible denomination (i.e 0.00000001 Doge). Then if you have like a few million dogecoins, you can actually be immune to 20+ consecutive losing rolls. It is simply not possible with Bitcoin as most casinos limit the max bet amount by just a few bitcoins, so even if you were Nakamoto incarnate, your millions of bitcoins would be of no help anyway

[1982dre]

Bet Martingale but only start with 1 Satoshi bet.   Then you never run out, you get your wish to always win in a session (most likely) but with the drawback its unlikely you ever win anything big.     If you somehow still fail to win with this strategy, then give up and do not just try again with more.   Find a method or a game that works on the smallest bets and only then go forward with that.

Even with 1 sat you can be busted within a short time. I don't think a lot of users will bet 1btc at the end to win just 1 sat back.because 1 satoshi is the nett profit after every green.

[deisik]

Bet Martingale but only start with 1 Satoshi bet.   Then you never run out, you get your wish to always win in a session (most likely) but with the drawback its unlikely you ever win anything big.     If you somehow still fail to win with this strategy, then give up and do not just try again with more.   Find a method or a game that works on the smallest bets and only then go forward with that.

Even with 1 sat you can be busted within a short time. I don't think a lot of users will bet 1btc at the end to win just 1 sat back.because 1 satoshi is the nett profit after every green

This is certainly true if you are using Bitcoin

As you can't bet more than a few bitcoins due to the limits put in place by casinos (they are not fools), so starting with 1 satoshi and 50% win chance, you are signing off your death sentence. It is not uncommon to see losing streaks that would theoretically end in a few hundred bitcoins (read, the loss of your balance is sort of guaranteed)

Anyone can try that with doges and see for themselves. Using the doge coin itself somewhat alleviates this problem but then other factors kick in. For example, many casinos don't allow to start rolling with the lowest denomination (I talk about Dogecoin specifically here), which quickly makes the whole effort an exercise in futility and stupidity

[STT]

I wouldnt have thought 1 satoshi would roll up into any problems with max bets.   The maths is deceptive to most people, thats really why most shouldnt do this.    I would never continue anywhere close to the limit, if its rolled from 1 sat into anything more then throw anyway amounts I just give up because the system test is a failure and thats all 1 sat is meant to be.   Carrying on further would entering into the sunken cost fallacy.

[deisik]

For the inquiring minds, I've been running this setup for over a month now at wolf.bet

A couple of times I came quite close to busting (in fact, was stopped just 1 roll short once), the inference being that you shouldn't actually be pursuing some daily targets like 1% or whatever as it is through variance that you can earn and ultimately bust

Thus you should be paying particular attention to it rather than averages if you are going to take this route at gambling. Ironically, I've made so many rolls (presumably over 4M already) that I can't even gather stats anymore (which I wanted to share here)

[deisik]

Okay, guys, now I've been able to collect some stats:



The bets are pretty fast at wolf.bet, so it is no surprise I rolled over 5M times by now. My win chance is and has been set to 37% all this time, so it seems that the wagered amount to profit ratio as well as wins to losses ratio reflects this setup pretty well despite a few occurrences of high variance that I encountered during this period. And while we are at it, below are the stats collected on August 7 and 16 (note that profits don't include free coins):





As you can see (in fact, as anyone can see), my profits continue to grow no matter how inherently flawed martingale can be

[swogerino]

Martingale works only if we have a huge bankroll and your stats that you have collected are lucky ones taken only in a certain interval of time.If the user continues these stats will change for sure in the near or distant future.

[docthusinh]

~

make sure you check provably fair/seed regularly, I personally do not post username on gambling site, it is exposed and who know.

[deisik]

Martingale works only if we have a huge bankroll and your stats that you have collected are lucky ones taken only in a certain interval of time.If the user continues these stats will change for sure in the near or distant future.

Okay, let's run this setup for another month (or two) and see how it goes (and fares)

~

make sure you check provably fair/seed regularly, I personally do not post username on gambling site, it is exposed and who know.

This is still mostly dust anyway

So I don't think it makes a lot of sense to check the seed now and then as my task is not to catch them red-handed or whatever (but you are welcome). I'm just trying to implement the approach laid out in the OP and see how long it can last me and where it can take me (in terms of winnings). So far so good

[Harkorede]

Martingale works only if we have a huge bankroll and your stats that you have collected are lucky ones taken only in a certain interval of time.If the user continues these stats will change for sure in the near or distant future.

It doesn't matter how huge of a bankroll any player has got, when using the Martingale strategy, he's bound to lose them all, It's only a matter of how long the bankroll would last. But one thing is certain with the system, losing all your bankroll is inevitable.

[deisik]

Martingale works only if we have a huge bankroll and your stats that you have collected are lucky ones taken only in a certain interval of time.If the user continues these stats will change for sure in the near or distant future.

It doesn't matter how huge of a bankroll any player has got, when using the Martingale strategy, he's bound to lose them all, It's only a matter of how long the bankroll would last. But one thing is certain with the system, losing all your bankroll is inevitable

Technically, I agree with you

Still, it is a huge difference if you are going to lose everything in 30 years (when your are unlikely to continue playing anyway) and just 30 minutes. But that's the whole idea presented here. You earn something and that allows you to lengthen the period of time until you bust by steadily increasing your killing streak. Indeed, this is not a guarantee of any kind as your rolls are still random (read, you can lose your balance any moment) but statistically, it will last you longer

Regardless, I am still rolling:



Even though I haven't seen a lot of variance lately that would allow me to increase my winnings dramatically

[deisik]

It's been a while since I last posted my stats here. And you know what? I'm still rolling!



Since my last post in this thread I've seen a few bouts of high variance (read, long losing streaks) which allowed me to raise my profits significantly (as you can see, these streaks were not long enough to wipe me out yet). Yeah, I know it is still mostly dust in dollar terms, but Rome wasn't built in a day, right? So stay tuned, follow the thread, and keep your fingers crossed!

[Quidat]

It's been a while since I last posted my stats here. And you know what? I'm still rolling!

Since my last post in this thread I've seen a few bouts of high variance (read, long losing streaks) which allowed me to raise my profits significantly (as you can see, these streaks were not long enough to wipe me out yet). Yeah, I know it is still mostly dust in dollar terms, but Rome wasn't built in a day, right? So stay tuned, follow the thread, and keep your fingers crossed!

Thats some very long automated betting you had there since its 9M+ overall bets.You're still lucky that you havent been bust up.
Does your base bet is on minimal?

[Saint-loup]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Martingale doesn't remove chance from the equation, it only removes  mischance. Because if you win you don't need to use it. You only double your bet when you lose.

[deisik]

Does your base bet is on minimal?

Yep, I start with the minimal possible amount at 0.00000001 doges

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Martingale doesn't remove chance from the equation, it only removes  mischance. Because if you win you don't need to use it. You only double your bet when you lose.

Well, that depends on how you are going to end up

If you leave with your balance multiplied, it could be construed this way, i.e. you always end up winning at the end of every series of bets, every losing streak. That point I agree with. However, and this is what the part of my post you quoted refers to, if you end up broken, with no coins left, as this is the inevitable outcome of any martingale setup provided you run it for long enough (unless you are following the strategy described in the OP, of course), that mischance will eventually catch up with you, totally and irreconcilably

[1982dre]

Does your base bet is on minimal?

Yep, I start with the minimal possible amount at 0.00000001 doges

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Martingale doesn't remove chance from the equation, it only removes  mischance. Because if you win you don't need to use it. You only double your bet when you lose.

Well, that depends on how you are going to end up

If you leave with your balance multiplied, it could be construed this way, i.e. you always end up winning at the end of every series of bets, every losing streak. That point I agree with. However, and this is what the part of my post you quoted refers to, if you end up broken, with no coins left, as this is the inevitable outcome of any martingale setup provided you run it for long enough (unless you are following the strategy described in the OP, of course), that mischance will eventually catch up with you, totally and irreconcilably

With a min bet of 0.00000001 doge you can handle a very large red streak.

I also did this but the earnings are also very low after 24h rolling. It would be better if the rolls were much faster.

Don't know maybe the rolls are faster with dicebot on wolf.bet but that isn't working yet.

[STT]

^^  THis is still a loss in my take because you are spending so much time invested in trying to win a simple gamble on the site.   Are you even having fun, its not a good system on any point of view as if done properly you are not even involved as a player in deciding when to bet but are being forced to follow that strategy.
   Eventually after a long time of the tiny bets you might be able to walk away with a tiny profit rather then a loss, it could be worse but there was never any potential to win only to lose your own time on a pointless pursuit using a bad system.
   I think we can all do better then this, find a game you enjoy first then worry about this idea of a perfect strategy because its going to take a while either way.

[Vispilio]

Some casino sites might have slightly increased odds for rolling above 95 or below 5 for example, due to a bug or probably to impress some new players with big wins at lower bet amounts...

This can be exploited for a little while with a modified martingale like this: set your winning odds to something like 14 to 1, (roll above 93 to win), on loss increase bets by let's say 10-12%. With some luck, you might be able to walk out with considerable profits without hitting bankruptcy...

[Saint-loup]

Does your base bet is on minimal?

Yep, I start with the minimal possible amount at 0.00000001 doges

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Martingale doesn't remove chance from the equation, it only removes  mischance. Because if you win you don't need to use it. You only double your bet when you lose.

Well, that depends on how you are going to end up

If you leave with your balance multiplied, it could be construed this way, i.e. you always end up winning at the end of every series of bets, every losing streak. That point I agree with. However, and this is what the part of my post you quoted refers to, if you end up broken, with no coins left, as this is the inevitable outcome of any martingale setup provided you run it for long enough (unless you are following the strategy described in the OP, of course), that mischance will eventually catch up with you, totally and irreconcilably

"long enough" means nothing in the real world. Some people win the lottery while they had one chance on 10 millions. So people can win a very long series while using a martingale.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Guys if you found out any system that might actually work go here and present it to me (damn i need to update OP. There was much more than 3 simulations). I'll code simulation for you and check what will be the output for 10 000 - 100 000 gamblers plying this system in given criteria (f.e. play until double or bust). For now on cryptovigi invented system that was actually better than martingale but sill worse than single bet.

[MonsterV]

Guys if you found out any system that might actually work go here and present it to me (damn i need to update OP. There was much more than 3 simulations). I'll code simulation for you and check what will be the output for 10 000 - 100 000 gamblers plying this system in given criteria (f.e. play until double or bust). For now on cryptovigi invented system that was actually better than martingale but sill worse than single bet.

Well okay, I have read  three Martingale systems that you shared and it is all good enough for those who have big capital. For me Martingale v1 system is quite good even though it is an old system but it is good enough for barely capital. So far I also use Martingale system when I lose and mostly I make a single bet.

[deisik]

^^  THis is still a loss in my take because you are spending so much time invested in trying to win a simple gamble on the site.   Are you even having fun, its not a good system on any point of view as if done properly you are not even involved as a player in deciding when to bet but are being forced to follow that strategy

But really, what makes you think I'm so heavily invested in this?

After all, the bets are automatic and after a few improvements that have been implemented recently on the site, there are no more memory issues or cpu cycles wasted, so it just runs somewhere in the background. And yes, I'm having fun since otherwise I wouldn't even bother to look how things are going on down there - something like "you're all going to die down here" in a little girl's voice (if you know what I mean)

Eventually after a long time of the tiny bets you might be able to walk away with a tiny profit rather then a loss, it could be worse but there was never any potential to win only to lose your own time on a pointless pursuit using a bad system

Variance is the new word to learn this time around

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Well okay, I have read  three Martingale systems that you shared and it is all good enough for those who have big capital. For me Martingale v1 system is quite good even though it is an old system but it is good enough for barely capital. So far I also use Martingale system when I lose and mostly I make a single bet.

In fact my simulation shows that the more money you have the lower odds you have to double (or win profit equal to % of portfolio). The lowest limit v1 simulation was started was equal to 100. It is similar to enter casino with 100$ placing first bet equal to 1$. Or 10$ with initial bet equal 0.10 $. That's big capital?

[absolutely-positioned]

No. The chance of losing all goes down but the chance still remains. Aka you'll lose eventually.

[deisik]

"long enough" means nothing in the real world. Some people win the lottery while they had one chance on 10 millions. So people can win a very long series while using a martingale

Could not agree more!

That's the essence of this whole thread. As long as you don't bust is already long enough to my understanding. And we can help ourselves last longer by choosing the right settings for our martingale setup while taking advantage of the bouts of variance through both accumulating profits and making our losing streaks longer and longer until we become virtually invulnerable and indestructible. That's technically the reason why so many casinos out there don't allow betting with lowest possible denominations or intentionally limit betting speeds (read, enjoy the ride while it lasts)

Well okay, I have read  three Martingale systems that you shared and it is all good enough for those who have big capital. For me Martingale v1 system is quite good even though it is an old system but it is good enough for barely capital. So far I also use Martingale system when I lose and mostly I make a single bet.

In fact my simulation shows that the more money you have the lower odds you have to double (or win profit equal to % of portfolio). The lowest limit v1 simulation was started was equal to 100. It is similar to enter casino with 100$ placing first bet equal to 1$. Or 10$ with initial bet equal 0.10 $. That's big capital?

You can just look at my stats here and guess whether it works for me or not. Anyway, here come my recent results:



I've encountered a few good outliers that helped me increase my balance during the last couple of days (but not too good to destroy me yet)

No. The chance of losing all goes down but the chance still remains. Aka you'll lose eventually

It's been discussed in the thread

[Tytanowy Janusz]

You can just look at my stats here and guess whether it works for me or not. Anyway, here come my recent results:

My simulation shows what will be the output for 10 000 - 100 000 gamblers. Not 1 lucky gambler. You see the difference? Out of 100 000 gamblers there is always one lucky bastard who made portfolio x5 and was not busted for 30 years (1 bet per minute, 8h daily, 365 days annually). And there are also 70 000 gamblers who didn't even double their portfolio before hitting killing strike. The output is what will average gambler get without luck factor. Is your stats photo giving the same data or is just confusing newbies to believe in gambling systems that does not exist?

BTW Is your 1200 doge profit (2$) really something to proud of?

2$ profit. And what was your bankrolll that you were risking doing martingale to earn this? 10$? 50$? It means that you already earned 4-20% of your porfolio. Try to get 100% of your porfolio and then you might be in 30% gamblers who managed to do it in my simulation. In fact thats a huge difference if there is 1 gambler or 10 000 of them.

[deisik]

You can just look at my stats here and guess whether it works for me or not. Anyway, here come my recent results:

My simulation shows what will be the output for 10 000 - 100 000 gamblers. Not 1 lucky gambler. You see the difference? Out of 100 000 gamblers there is always one lucky bastard who made portfolio x5 and was not busted for 30 years (1 bet per minute, 8h daily, 365 days annually)

Presently, I'm rolling at wolf.bet

And their betting speed is likely the highest out there for the time being (like 4-5 bets per second). That's basically why I'm so interested in running this setup - to feel it with my own skin in the game. Well, with at least some part thereof (however small that part might be)

You see, 10 000 gamblers is not particularly different from just a single one if the number of their bets stays essentially the same. As you can also see, I have made over 12 million bets by now, and if you ask me, it is not something you can easily call a small sample size, by any means

BTW Is your 1200 doge profit (2$) really something to proud of?

Maybe, that the system has been working so far? Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day (or two), while the proof of the pudding is in the eating (I'm all practical)

2$ profit. And what was your bankrolll that you were risking doing martingale to earn this 2$? 10$? 50$? It means that you already earned 4-20% of your porfolio. Try to get 100% of your porfolio and then you might be in 30% gamblers who managet to do it in my simulation. In fact that a huge difference is there is 1 gambler or 10 000 of them

I started with free coins, basically with nothing to dance on (first records are telling everything). You guess how much I made, percentage-wise

[Tytanowy Janusz]

I started with free coins, basically with nothing to dance on (first records are telling everything). You guess how much I made, percentage-wise

That does not matter it they were free or not. Link only shows that after 5 M bets you had half the profit from 10 M bets.

Just post here how much doge you have now (current balance + withdrawals) and i will know everything - starting balance, profit % and i can even code for you how much lucky you are.

F.e.

Code:

Limit:
10
target:
1210
How many tests
10000000
Casino lost with 26517 gamblers out of 10000000

That's with regular martingale (black/red on roulette). 1200 doge profit out of 10 from free faucets. Possible? Yes but only 26 500 gamblers out of 10 000 000 manage to do it (0.27%). Did you get better profit (~12 000%)? I can code that too to show you what is the probability of you still being alive if you are using regular martingale.

[docthusinh]

Just post here how much doge you have now (current balance + withdrawals) and i will know everything - starting balance, profit % and i can even code for you how much lucky you are.

That's not correct 100%. Look at my below stat and use your method to predict how lucky I am, and when will I got bursted.

[deisik]

Link only shows that after 5 M bets you had half the profit from 10 M bets

Yes, that seems to be correct

It also shows that I started small and at some point in time earned only 10 doges. My setup didn't change much since then apart from making my terminating strings longer as well as letting variance more leeway without changing my exposure (all of that has been explained in the thread). But quite honestly, I don't see what you are getting at here and what you are trying to get across

Just post here how much doge you have now (current balance + withdrawals) and i will know everything - starting balance, profit % and i can even code for you how much lucky you are

I may be lucky in earning so much, but I'm not particularly lucky at gambling that long for the simple reason that no luck is involved in that. The primary goal of my system is to let me last as long as possible. In other words, there is little luck involved in me playing all this time without busting. Regardless, you can collect like 42 doges within a period of 7 days (the so-called 7-day streak). I missed a couple days, so it should be relatively easy to calculate profit margins

Other than that, you seem to be missing what I'm specifically looking for with my setup

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Other than that, you seem to be missing what I'm specifically looking for with my setup

I think you are missing what is luck factor in your case. You are constantly avoiding giving me any data for simulation that would proof that it does not work (gives worse odds than single bet system). So i'll try to explain it on example:

This is not example of luck with regular martingale:
Having 4 M losing bets and 6 M winning bets out of 10 M bets (with 50:50 probability)

This is example of luck with regular martingale:
Min bet on wolfbet is 0.00000001 DOGE. If you had 10 doge from free faucet you can survive up to 29(or 28) losing bets in a raw and still go into profit after next bet. If I'm not wrong Its 1: 500 M (or 250 M). It means that killing strike has probability of 1:250 M. Extreme unlucky gambler will hit killing strike after first bet. Extreme lucky gambler will not hit killing strike after trillion bets. Average gambler will hit killing strike after 250 M bets.


Saying that you are free from luck factor only because you have survived 12M bets is wrong.

[deisik]

Min bet on wolfbet is 0.00000001 DOGE. If you had 10 doge from free faucet you can survive up to 29 losing bets in a raw and still go into profit after next bet. If I'm not wrong Its 1: 500 M (or 250 M). It means that killing strike has probability of 1:250 M. Extreme unlucky gambler will hit killing strike after first bet

I'm still very far from any of these (1T, 1B or just 250M bets)

Regardless, as long as you don't bust, the killing streak doesn't get closer either (the direct inference from bets being independent of each other). It doesn't mean that you can't or won't bust, it means that when you do, it shall be an extreme outlier. But before you see such an outlier coming your way and wiping your balance away, you will see quite a few smaller ones through which you can postpone that final one further into the future by lengthening the fateful streak. Anyway, you can always try it out for yourself and see if it works for you

This is not example of luck with regular martingale:
Having 4 M losing bets and 6 M winning bets out of 10 M bets (with 50:50 probability)

Just in case, I never meant it to be a regular martingale setup

Saying that you are free from luck factor only because you have survived 12M bets is wrong

I'm not lucky to survive, I'm not unlucky to bust. That seems to be the point of discord between us

[Tytanowy Janusz]

That's not correct 100%. Look at my below stat and use your method to predict how lucky I am, and when will I got bursted.

I will never tell you when will you get busted. I can tell you where will average gambler get busted. Screenshots gives me 0 informations.

I need your bankroll and your system (f.e. starting with xxx and trippling after loss)

Just in case, I never meant it to be a regular martingale setup

You are constantly avoiding giving me any data for simulation that would proof that it does not work (gives worse odds than single bet system). So i'll try to explain it on example

Maybe this will convince you:
1. Do you seriously think there is a system that beats Casino and Casino does not know about that?
2. Do you seriously think that you are smarter than thousands of mathematicians who tried to solve this problem using complicated mathematical formulas and failed?

Just present your system.
1- bankroll
2- initial bet
3- system (f.e. starting with xxx and trippling after loss or whatever you did in auto-bet tab)

[deisik]

Maybe this will convince you:
1. Do you seriously think there is a system that beats Casino and Casino does not know about that?
2. Do you seriously think that you are smarter than thousands of mathematicians who tried to solve this problem using complicated mathematical formulas and failed?

But really, I don't argue with that

Well, at least with your first point. In fact, I've rewritten about that myself a few times already (and probably even in this thread as well). Casinos are perfectly well aware of this approach, and that's exactly the reason why they do two things. First, they limit the betting speed. And as the example of wolf.bet clearly shows, this is an artificial limitation because at wolf.bet you can easily make like 4-5 bets a second. Second, in most casinos with coins like Dogecoin you are not allowed to start with the lowest possible denomination. You guess why

Regarding your second point, this is an obvious case of appeal to authority (otherwise known as an argument from authority). And do you know that it is listed under the fallacy category? In simple terms, I'm not smarter that thousands of mathematicians but I'm not sure that they actually think the way you think they do. Honestly, it is all pretty coherently explained in the OP (read, I don't argue with either statisticians or mathematicians). To recapitulate, I'm not lucky to survive, I'm not unlucky to bust (and yes, I'm still rolling)

[deisik]

Well, it's been ten days since my recent report here. And here're the fresh stats:



As everyone can confirm, I've been able to make almost 40% on my betting capital within the last 10 day period. Other than free doges (around 40 a week aka 7-Day Streak) and winnings reinvested, nothing has been added to my balance. In simple words, it is all pure profit generated exclusively through gambling (more specifically, by using martingale wisely and safely). You may like it or you may not like it (which I understand, just in case), but the stats are not lying, no matter the odds

[1982dre]

Well, it's been ten days since my recent report here. And here're the fresh stats:



As everyone can confirm, I've been able to make almost 40% on my betting capital within the last 10 day period. Other than free doges (around 40 a week aka 7-Day Streak) and winnings reinvested, nothing has been added to my balance. In simple words, it is all pure profit generated exclusively through gambling (more specifically, by using martingale wisely and safely). You may like it or you may not like it (which I understand, just in case), but the stats are not lying, no matter the odds

That looks nice. How much is the profit per hour in $ ?

[deisik]

As everyone can confirm, I've been able to make almost 40% on my betting capital within the last 10 day period. Other than free doges (around 40 a week aka 7-Day Streak) and winnings reinvested, nothing has been added to my balance. In simple words, it is all pure profit generated exclusively through gambling (more specifically, by using martingale wisely and safely). You may like it or you may not like it (which I understand, just in case), but the stats are not lying, no matter the odds

That looks nice. How much is the profit per hour in $?

I don't really know

You could calculate the rate yourself if you want to, but keep in mind that it will be an utterly useless metric as most of my "profit" comes through variance (and that's the whole idea behind the approach described in this topic). In short, you earn through a few long losing streaks which are long enough to bring in decent profits (percentage-wise) but not long enough to bust you. Obviously, there can be whole days when you just drag along earning dust, and then, all of a sudden, here we are!

[Tytanowy Janusz]

@deisik
How is you system performing currently?

Is your income based on your bankroll? The more you have the faster you earn?

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

[deisik]

@deisik
How is you system performing currently?

Is your income based on your bankroll? The more you have the faster you earn?

It is working just fine (read, I'm still rolling)

By now I have earned 1759 doges in total but since there was not a lot of variance recently, there is nothing to brag about since my last report here. Yes, I keep the losing streak the same (like 34 rolls) and increase the multiplier (currently at 123%) when it becomes possible (I mean, without decreasing the length of the losing streak), so the more I have the faster I earn (provided variance stays the same on average). In fact, I have already described my setup somewhere in the thread (nothing has changed)

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

[barbara44]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Crypto-games are having dogecoin dicing too but the minimum bet for dogecoin is 1 doge. I remembered they had faucet to test them but not sure they are still facilitating new gamblers with faucets; seems like we must need to be staying with them in terms of wagering and days so that faucet may be provided.

Years back we had a house in the name of fastdice and allowed us to have different levels on how quickly we like to have dicing. If I recall correctly, bitsler is still having such a speed control feature, not sure as I am unable to check in my mobile right away.

[deisik]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Crypto-games are having dogecoin dicing too but the minimum bet for dogecoin is 1 doge. I remembered they had faucet to test them but not sure they are still facilitating new gamblers with faucets; seems like we must need to be staying with them in terms of wagering and days so that faucet may be provided

See, that's the crux of the matter!

If your minimum bet amount is 1 doge, you are set to lose your balance in less than no time, and with higher speeds you will just bust sooner. At wolf.bet, you can start as small as 0.00000001, and cope with pretty long losing streaks, which this thread and my stats unreservedly prove. As I said on a couple occasions already, enjoy this ride while it lasts. No other casino is likely going to give you the opportunity to unleash the unbridled power of martingale done right

[1982dre]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Crypto-games are having dogecoin dicing too but the minimum bet for dogecoin is 1 doge. I remembered they had faucet to test them but not sure they are still facilitating new gamblers with faucets; seems like we must need to be staying with them in terms of wagering and days so that faucet may be provided.

Years back we had a house in the name of fastdice and allowed us to have different levels on how quickly we like to have dicing. If I recall correctly, bitsler is still having such a speed control feature, not sure as I am unable to check in my mobile right away.

Fastdice was very quick indeed. Sadly they disappeared suddenly.

Nowadays duckdice is fast, especially with the Flashbets. Then you can do 10K rolls within a few seconds.

[magneto]

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

I don't get how that strategy could possibly help.

Extending the amount of losses that you can sustain in a roll simply means that you are lowering your bet. The negatives from that, which is in the form of lower profits obviously, essentially balance out any positives you get in terms of having higher tolerance for losing streaks.

At the end of the day, your expected value is still negative. There is no strategy that allows you to win in the long run in any casino games, unless you are playing games of skill against other participants.

[deisik]

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

I don't get how that strategy could possibly help.

Extending the amount of losses that you can sustain in a roll simply means that you are lowering your bet. The negatives from that, which is in the form of lower profits obviously, essentially balance out any positives you get in terms of having higher tolerance for losing streaks

Well, I'm not sure you correctly understand the approach described here

But that's not the point of this post. You see, if someone doesn't want to get into how something is supposed to work, you can't force this knowledge onto them - and I'm not a school teacher, either (no offense intended). As they say, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink. Hint, it is not about the amount of losses I can sustain in a roll - it is about the number of losing rolls in a streak that I can survive

At the end of the day, your expected value is still negative. There is no strategy that allows you to win in the long run in any casino games, unless you are playing games of skill against other participants

We all know that, but the devil is in paying precious attention to detail, as always

[docthusinh]

Good to hear that you are still in success with your revised martingale. I myself having own revised martingale, not double the bet size, not playing for high win chance but "suitable" win chance. The conclusion is "it's success" and also agree with you that with suitable strategy, the moment that the defined balance drained to 0 will be definately long enough that we might not witness in one life time.

[Janation]

Good to hear that you are still in success with your revised martingale. I myself having own revised martingale, not double the bet size, not playing for high win chance but "suitable" win chance. The conclusion is "it's success" and also agree with you that with suitable strategy, the moment that the defined balance drained to 0 will be definately long enough that we might not witness in one life time.

I just hope you can minimize your losses here.

Martingale will always be martingale and always that we are still gambling.

The last time I used this strategy drained my balance off my saved satoshis. I am a bit disappointed but that satoshis are the one I got in their faucets but still, I saved that in months and it was gone in a minute. Just remember that is how martingale play your balance.

[canovan25]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

limit of total profit = 1 - house edge, yes. But it a limit, not a real value. Do you know that limit sin x = x, if x -> 0 or sum of all natural number = -1/12? But in real life sin x not = x and sum of natural number not = -1/12. And in longer period of bet you may make a profit. Why? What chance increase your money in 1.1x with bet = 1 coin and chance (100 - HE)/2? You have a two expected value. Theoretical and real expected value. In the longer period theoretical = real. But in a short period 1 not = 2. Real maybe > or < expected. I tested dice with 0% HE and see this effect. I have a 1024 coin and i want made 1024 coin profit. And my chance > 50% to doubling balance(50% < my chance < 51%). So, think.

[deisik]

Good to hear that you are still in success with your revised martingale. I myself having own revised martingale, not double the bet size, not playing for high win chance but "suitable" win chance. The conclusion is "it's success" and also agree with you that with suitable strategy, the moment that the defined balance drained to 0 will be definately long enough that we might not witness in one life time

With this setup you should never lose perspective

And perspective here refers to the fact that your earnings come through variance, not the amount of bets you make. It is somewhat counterintuitive or even paradoxical as the idea of martingale assumes making quite a few bets, and consists in earning by accumulating dust. It is not the amounts of bets that matter here, but the variance that counts. Indeed, at a given level of risk, you can expect that variance come about only after making enough bets (that's statistics), but you should forget about dust as it will only make you impatient and greedy

[docthusinh]

Good to hear that you are still in success with your revised martingale. I myself having own revised martingale, not double the bet size, not playing for high win chance but "suitable" win chance. The conclusion is "it's success" and also agree with you that with suitable strategy, the moment that the defined balance drained to 0 will be definately long enough that we might not witness in one life time.

I just hope you can minimize your losses here.

Martingale will always be martingale and always that we are still gambling.

The last time I used this strategy drained my balance off my saved satoshis. I am a bit disappointed but that satoshis are the one I got in their faucets but still, I saved that in months and it was gone in a minute. Just remember that is how martingale play your balance.

Nah, i am not sure about other strategy, but for my case I would call it is a success case. As for your situation (which lose everything within a minute) I have experienced and work out my way (with references and research of course) to the state that I am currently on which is not losing and not risking of losing but getting out with profit (slowly and steady). I am confident with it because I can see the variances after enough number of bets. On the site I am playing now it's 39 and almost 40 millions bets placed, and the variances already happened and tend to repeat. Yes, "repeat", this is the most important factor since I can see it is repeated thus, I can control it (aka beating a losing streak with enough balance & satisfy the casino constraints).

[leea-1334]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Yes,,, they have doges at Cryptogames. Minimum bet is 1 doge though so maybe you do not have enough bankroll. I play on satoshi there because of 1 satoshi min and 0.8% edge. The only thing is what he did not tell you is that the high speed bet is only for VIP players (most wagered in month) or for all players on Monday (today).

House edge very important for martingale;)

[Darker45]

House edge very important for martingale;)

The higher the house edge, the longer you play, the higher the probability of you getting busted. Even with as low and seemingly insignificant as 0.5% house edge, it is still an edge. It may be very small but in the larger picture it has a very significant role. And the martingale strategy is basically founded on the possibility that a losing streak is short. The higher the house edge, the higher the probability of the losing streak running beyond the normal 5-6 losses. And with that, you must have a larger balance in your wallet. Otherwise, you will be eaten up by this house edge.

[deisik]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Yes,,, they have doges at Cryptogames. Minimum bet is 1 doge though so maybe you do not have enough bankroll. I play on satoshi there because of 1 satoshi min and 0.8% edge. The only thing is what he did not tell you is that the high speed bet is only for VIP players (most wagered in month) or for all players on Monday (today)

Cryptogames is out of the question then

With 1 doge being the minimum bet amount you can't build effective martingale strategies as you won't be able to cope with variance unless you are going to deposit insane amounts of doges (likely well beyond the maximum bet amount allowed there anyway). Therefore, the high speed, whether it be for VIP players or otherwise, becomes utterly irrelevant with all things considered, and what I wrote in this post still holds true

limit of total profit = 1 - house edge, yes. But it a limit, not a real value. Do you know that limit sin x = x, if x -> 0 or sum of all natural number = -1/12? But in real life sin x not = x and sum of natural number not = -1/12. And in longer period of bet you may make a profit. Why? What chance increase your money in 1.1x with bet = 1 coin and chance (100 - HE)/2? You have a two expected value. Theoretical and real expected value. In the longer period theoretical = real. But in a short period 1 not = 2. Real maybe > or < expected. I tested dice with 0% HE and see this effect. I have a 1024 coin and i want made 1024 coin profit. And my chance > 50% to doubling balance(50% < my chance < 51%). So, think

And what's the bottom line?

[deisik]

New stats are here:



As I mentioned above, there was not enough variance to book handsome profits during the last 10 days (if you consider 11% of pure profit during that timeframe not good enough, of course). On the other hand, I'm still rolling, and this is definitely a good thing without any reservations or doubts

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working.

[deisik]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working

Here're the last stats as of November, 1st:



After that I first withdrew everything (the withdrawal was fast, for the record) and then deposited a certain amount of my own coins, with which I'm rolling now. Indeed, as I bet my own money now, not free coins, I have set even safer parameters which allow me to survive longer losing streaks. So yes, my system is working

And sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear

[1982dre]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working

Here're the last stats as of November, 1st:



After that I first withdrew everything (the withdrawal was fast, for the record) and then deposited a certain amount of my own coins, with which I'm rolling now. Indeed, as I bet my own money now, not free coins, I have set even safer parameters which allow me to survive longer losing streaks. So yes, my system is working

And sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear

Ok nice that it's still working. Do you also raise your base bet after you win a certain amount?

[Tytanowy Janusz]

And sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear

Your experiment was interesting and i was curious about the results. What i didn't want to hear was You putting real money into this after seeing small scale progress. I hope it's not much and you will be lucky enough to withdraw before killing strike will arrive.

[deisik]

After that I first withdrew everything (the withdrawal was fast, for the record) and then deposited a certain amount of my own coins, with which I'm rolling now. Indeed, as I bet my own money now, not free coins, I have set even safer parameters which allow me to survive longer losing streaks. So yes, my system is working

And sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear

Ok nice that it's still working. Do you also raise your base bet after you win a certain amount?

No, I don't do that

I'm still starting with the minimum possible amount, which is 0.00000001 doge. However, I have compiled a spreadsheet that I use to check when I have earned enough dough to increase the multiplier. Right now I'm at 129.9% but I couple my bets with trades, so when Dogecoin goes down, I will deposit more and thus I can raise the multiplier, and vice versa. If Dogecoin goes up, I withdraw some coins to sell into the rising market (though there haven't yet been a lot of volatility recently to unleash the true power of this approach)

[doomloop]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working.

I hold the same opinion in this regard. There are no strategies and tricks that can assure victory to gamblers, it is all about fate. If a player is destined to face failure, he can never ever turn it into win by making more efforts or increasing amount. If a strategy is working for a person today, it wont for tomorrow. Why would house let the gambler only win? That is not the way of doing business certainly.

[deisik]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working.

I hold the same opinion in this regard. There are no strategies and tricks that can assure victory to gamblers, it is all about fate. If a player is destined to face failure, he can never ever turn it into win by making more efforts or increasing amount. If a strategy is working for a person today, it wont for tomorrow. Why would house let the gambler only win? That is not the way of doing business certainly

They have to allow some of them

As long as the majority think it is impossible to win. Casinos cannot but allow some people to win and then let them run away with the spoil since otherwise no one would be playing. This is a required trade-off (even though many casinos nowadays are laying themselves out to skew it in their favor by every means available like KYC/AML requirements), and as long as most players lose in the end, it is okay (read, it is quite the opposite of "that is not the way of doing business certainly"). In fact, I probably shouldn't even have started this thread as it could potentially change such attitudes (like "it is all about fate")

[Webetcoins]

Stay tuned and follow the thread!

How is your portfolio looking after next almost full month? Are you still beating the casino or sadly hit into killing strike? Don't get me wrong. I wish you luck and lots of profit. I just don't believe in any gambling system and wanted to see if yours is still working.

I hold the same opinion in this regard. There are no strategies and tricks that can assure victory to gamblers, it is all about fate. If a player is destined to face failure, he can never ever turn it into win by making more efforts or increasing amount. If a strategy is working for a person today, it wont for tomorrow. Why would house let the gambler only win? That is not the way of doing business certainly

They have to allow some of them

As long as the majority think it is impossible to win. Casinos cannot but allow some people to win and then let them run away with the spoil since otherwise no one would be playing. This is a required trade-off (even though many casinos nowadays are laying themselves out to skew it in their favor by every means available like KYC/AML requirements), and as long as most players lose in the end, it is okay (read, it is quite the opposite of "that is not the way of doing business certainly"). In fact, I probably shouldn't even have started this thread as it could potentially change such attitudes (like "it is all about fate")

But in this scenario, saying it wont be wrong either that those gamblers who get allowed by the casino to enjoy long win streaks are actually people of the casino business or may be someone that got hired to do this job for a specific amount. Even if these are some random guys, still the house never get hurts because the amount of money is so small as compared to ultimate benefits that will be earned.

[deisik]

As long as the majority think it is impossible to win. Casinos cannot but allow some people to win and then let them run away with the spoil since otherwise no one would be playing. This is a required trade-off (even though many casinos nowadays are laying themselves out to skew it in their favor by every means available like KYC/AML requirements), and as long as most players lose in the end, it is okay (read, it is quite the opposite of "that is not the way of doing business certainly"). In fact, I probably shouldn't even have started this thread as it could potentially change such attitudes (like "it is all about fate")

But in this scenario, saying it wont be wrong either that those gamblers who get allowed by the casino to enjoy long win streaks are actually people of the casino business or may be someone that got hired to do this job for a specific amount. Even if these are some random guys, still the house never get hurts because the amount of money is so small as compared to ultimate benefits that will be earned

I don't really know as I'm not the one hired by them (in case that was your point) nor the one involved in this business other than by being a simple player and a "random guy" (as you dubbed it) just like many other such players and guys here and elsewhere. On the other hand, I can't quite agree with your opinion that it doesn't make any substantial difference to the casino, I mean letting some exceptionally smart players win all the time. These are definitely a nagging pain in the casino's ass. And the evidence is compelling and conclusive if you ask me. There are only a few casinos that actually allow what is described in this topic in the way it should be implemented

That essentially means they do indeed care

[TheGreatPython]

BTW why did you choose wolf.bet ? I think that house edge is very important in such system. Cryptogames has 0.8% instead of 1%. It also let you bet once per 10 milliseconds (6000 bets per minute 360 000 per hour - 12 M in 1.5 day)

Do they have doges and what is the minimum bet amount there?

Yes,,, they have doges at Cryptogames. Minimum bet is 1 doge though so maybe you do not have enough bankroll. I play on satoshi there because of 1 satoshi min and 0.8% edge. The only thing is what he did not tell you is that the high speed bet is only for VIP players (most wagered in month) or for all players on Monday (today).

House edge very important for martingale;)

Actually when I was new with dice game I did something that worked for me nicely initially, yes there were sessions with loss but mostly I was on the better side of the luck.

My strategy was : bet on 66.6% win chance and make 1 satoshi bet initially until you get at least 2 losses in a row and then increase the stake to 0.1% of balance and if still lost, increase amount by 3x and once you win, just reset.

Personally worked nicely for me, but then again as I did it for larger number of rolls, I faced the sad reality.

[deisik]

My strategy was : bet on 66.6% win chance and make 1 satoshi bet initially until you get at least 2 losses in a row and then increase the stake to 0.1% of balance and if still lost, increase amount by 3x and once you win, just reset.

Personally worked nicely for me, but then again as I did it for larger number of rolls, I faced the sad reality

People are massively underestimating the power of variance

Or, which is essentially the same, the potentially devastating effect of outliers. You can run a particular martingale setup for days on end, and not see a losing streak longer than, say, 10 reds. This gives you a false and utterly destructive sense of safety and confidence. Then reality kicks in, and you hit, or got hit by, an outlier like 20 reds in a row all of a sudden, after which your balance is emptied. You should expect losing streaks up to 25 reds on a 50% win chance if you want to stay in the game long enough

[Tytanowy Janusz]

You should expect losing streaks up to 25 reds on a 50% win chance if you want to stay in the game long enough

It does not matter how many streaks you can survive. If you can survive 25 than your portfolio has be 2^25 times bigger than your initial bet. To double you need to play at least 2^26 times. That gives us 1/2 probability of dying before doubling.
If you can survive only 5 red in a row your portfolio has to be 2^5 times bigger than your initial bet. To double you need to play at least 2^6 times. That gives us 1/2 probability of dying before doubling. Its the same. In both scenario you have 50% chance to double.

[deisik]

You should expect losing streaks up to 25 reds on a 50% win chance if you want to stay in the game long enough

It does not matter how many streaks you can survive. If you can survive 25 than your portfolio has be 2^25 times bigger than your initial bet. To double you need to play at least 2^26 times. That gives us 1/2 probability of dying before doubling

Well, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the approach described in this topic

Regardless, my stats are here for everyone to see and check for themselves. I'm sorry to repeat it but you don't have to earn by winning only your initial bet at the end of the losing streak. Technically, you can set the increase on loss as high as you find appropriate as long as your risks of busting are contained

Apart from that, you seem to completely discard the essence of my approach, that you earn through variance, and for that you don't need to roll 2^26 times to double your portfolio, let alone at least. Somehow I thought I had made that point abundantly clear but it looks like I failed

[Yatsan]

Hi just want to share my experience. 

Martingale strategy works for me, but not in a dice game, it works for me in a crash game where every player is against the house. At first, I am afraid to use this strategy because I will likely to lose in the long term. But surprisingly, I won and tripled my money, so I cash out my winnings and return to my base capital. The losing streak is just hitting the maximum of 8, after that, it will automatically win. That's what happens to me until now I am using it, maybe after I got emptied, I will stop on betting on that site, but yeah, it's a win for me.

[mitchr4]

Hi just want to share my experience. 

Martingale strategy works for me, but not in a dice game, it works for me in a crash game where every player is against the house. At first, I am afraid to use this strategy because I will likely to lose in the long term. But surprisingly, I won and tripled my money, so I cash out my winnings and return to my base capital. The losing streak is just hitting the maximum of 8, after that, it will automatically win. That's what happens to me until now I am using it, maybe after I got emptied, I will stop on betting on that site, but yeah, it's a win for me.

I don't think it works on the Crash game because using that strategy is the same when you play the Dice game and others. You are only lucky in that game, I don't know how you play but if you play in each round you can lose 8 times in a row, it is not guaranteed after waiting 8 times losing streak on the next bet you will win, the chance of losing still exists even more than that.

[V1saya]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

[docthusinh]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

That's because you follow the major, what I can tell is it work, just don't be greedy and be persistence.

FYI: https://imgur.com/Zec47lS

It's currently passed 50 million bets mark and is this a non work case?, and if you are still around i will show you once it get to 100m mark and still in bigger profit.

[GreatArkansas]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

That's because you follow the major, what I can tell is it work, just don't be greedy and be persistence.

FYI: https://imgur.com/Zec47lS

It's currently passed 50 million bets mark and is this a non work case?, and if you are still around i will show you once it get to 100m mark and still in bigger profit.

docthsinh also have point, but I think it will also differ on how you do it your martingale strategy. I saw some different martingale strategy online, like they modified it or have some tweaks, but I still keep losing, lol.

Btw,  V1saya, can you share what kind of martingale you using or how it works?

[deisik]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

That's because you follow the major, what I can tell is it work, just don't be greedy and be persistence.

FYI: https://imgur.com/Zec47lS

Greed and impatience are killing the wannabe martingalers

Anyone seriously considering using martingale should honestly ask themselves what they are actually looking for. Martingale is a long-distance journey which requires a great deal of patience. In simple terms, it is not a hit-and-run strategy, so if you are greedy and impatient (apart from lacking an ability to correctly assess your chances to stay in the game), this approach is probably not your thing

[docthusinh]

docthsinh also have point, but I think it will also differ on how you do it your martingale strategy. I saw some different martingale strategy online, like they modified it or have some tweaks, but I still keep losing, lol.

Btw,  V1saya, can you share what kind of martingale you using or how it works?

FYI a certain thing is what every strategy posted online will not work for your case. Simple thinking is that why would one would publish it for everyone to benefit from. As for my case I wrote a program my own, implement logics and calculations my own which is unique, and to tell that would it ever be published then the answer is no unless i can find a way to bind it to my benefit and also need to limit the spreading of it.

[Haunebu]

Anyone seriously considering using martingale should honestly ask themselves what they are actually looking for. Martingale is a long-distance journey which requires a great deal of patience. In simple terms, it is not a hit-and-run strategy, so if you are greedy and impatient (apart from lacking an ability to correctly assess your chances to stay in the game), this approach is probably not your thing

I agree. Martingale does work in the short term and can even work in the long term if implemented in a smart manner through various tweaks. This strategy will never provide a 100% win rate due to the HE, but it can help you come out on top overall.

So many people tend to underestimate how powerful this strategy truly is if coupled with tweaks. Progression strategies like Martingale are meant to help gamblers use their bankroll smartly though tweaks are necessary.

[1982dre]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

That's because you follow the major, what I can tell is it work, just don't be greedy and be persistence.

FYI: https://imgur.com/Zec47lS

Greed and impatience are killing the wannabe martingalers

Anyone seriously considering using martingale should honestly ask themselves what they are actually looking for. Martingale is a long-distance journey which requires a great deal of patience. In simple terms, it is not a hit-and-run strategy, so if you are greedy and impatient (apart from lacking an ability to correctly assess your chances to stay in the game), this approach is probably not your thing

Guess the most users thinks the profit goes to slow and start playing to big compared with their balance.

[docthusinh]

Only newbies will do this strategy. This is a big no-no especially on auto betting. You will come back with an empty balance. I usually do manual on dice games. When I do auto betting, it will be minimal amount.

Maybe martingale works against a peer to peer betting. But against a rich casino with a house-edge. No way.

That's because you follow the major, what I can tell is it work, just don't be greedy and be persistence.

FYI: https://imgur.com/Zec47lS

Greed and impatience are killing the wannabe martingalers

Anyone seriously considering using martingale should honestly ask themselves what they are actually looking for. Martingale is a long-distance journey which requires a great deal of patience. In simple terms, it is not a hit-and-run strategy, so if you are greedy and impatient (apart from lacking an ability to correctly assess your chances to stay in the game), this approach is probably not your thing

Guess the most users thinks the profit goes to slow and start playing to big compared with their balance.

That's the major issue of why most of the players are losing, to success the player must have enough patient and perisistence. With some programming skill anyone can make a betting strategy that fit them in which they will not lose in a specific time frame, the thing is how each of the players define that time frame. I personally bind it to the bet count, in which current target is not losing after 500,000,000 bets and to translate it to actual time required 500,000,000 / 4 / 3600 / 24 = 1446 days (where 4 is the desired bet per second according to my network connection speed to the casino site), long enough to enjoy the game, and who know by that time, the earning during the process can help to last longer (aka ability to beat a bigger losing streak that is unlikely to occur). There is an important key measure is the "earning speed" in which if you can earn fast enough in a given time frame so that in the event of an extremely rare losing streak occur the earning + initial capital is large enough to help to beat that rare losing streak. I have a key stat which is the rate of earning per total wagered amount (currently at 8%+), as long as i keep it higher than the house edge, the final result should come out possitive since a common house edge is 1% the casino is expected to earn from me 1% of wagered amount, however since my rate is 8%, there is still a big gap of 7% so that the house edge can't eat my capital+ earning (unless the casino decided to raise it house edge to above 8% which is likely a NEVER happening thing).

[deisik]

I have a key stat which is the rate of earning per total wagered amount (currently at 8%+), as long as i keep it higher than the house edge, the final result should come out possitive since a common house edge is 1% the casino is expected to earn from me 1% of wagered amount, however since my rate is 8%, there is still a big gap of 7% so that the house edge can't eat my capital+ earning (unless the casino decided to raise it house edge to above 8% which is likely a NEVER happening thing)

All good but be aware that you are supposed to lose

I mean the casino expects you to lose eventually. If, on the other hand, you are not losing and going on, actually sucking in money from the casino instead, they may not quite like it. As long as the amount thus lost by the casino is not great, they may turn a blind eye to your actions as other people trying to follow the approaches described in this thread could compensate for the casino loss through their own loses. However, if you are winning big, don't be surprised to get kicked out at the end of the day, and probably not in the way you may like it or at least find acceptable and appropriate (read, prepare yourself for really ugly and nasty things)

[smyslov]

I have a key stat which is the rate of earning per total wagered amount (currently at 8%+), as long as i keep it higher than the house edge, the final result should come out possitive since a common house edge is 1% the casino is expected to earn from me 1% of wagered amount, however since my rate is 8%, there is still a big gap of 7% so that the house edge can't eat my capital+ earning (unless the casino decided to raise it house edge to above 8% which is likely a NEVER happening thing)

All good but be aware that you are supposed to lose

I mean the casino expects you to lose eventually. If, on the other hand, you are not losing and going on, actually sucking in money from the casino instead, they may not quite like it. As long as the amount thus lost by the casino is not great, they may turn a blind eye to your actions as other people trying to follow the approaches described in this thread could compensate for the casino loss through their own loses. However, if you are winning big, don't be surprised to get kicked out at the end of the day, and probably not in the way you may like it or at least find acceptable and appropriate (read, prepare yourself for really ugly and nasty things)

Yeah that's true that always be the case  as long as the house is not losing a lot, they will let you win and make you feel you are having your lucky day, but expect them to get back at you at any point of time, maybe tomorrow maybe the next day, they are not in a hurry to make profit out of you, but they always will.

[deisik]

I have a key stat which is the rate of earning per total wagered amount (currently at 8%+), as long as i keep it higher than the house edge, the final result should come out possitive since a common house edge is 1% the casino is expected to earn from me 1% of wagered amount, however since my rate is 8%, there is still a big gap of 7% so that the house edge can't eat my capital+ earning (unless the casino decided to raise it house edge to above 8% which is likely a NEVER happening thing)

All good but be aware that you are supposed to lose

I mean the casino expects you to lose eventually. If, on the other hand, you are not losing and going on, actually sucking in money from the casino instead, they may not quite like it. As long as the amount thus lost by the casino is not great, they may turn a blind eye to your actions as other people trying to follow the approaches described in this thread could compensate for the casino loss through their own loses. However, if you are winning big, don't be surprised to get kicked out at the end of the day, and probably not in the way you may like it or at least find acceptable and appropriate (read, prepare yourself for really ugly and nasty things)

Yeah that's true that always be the case  as long as the house is not losing a lot, they will let you win and make you feel you are having your lucky day, but expect them to get back at you at any point of time, maybe tomorrow maybe the next day, they are not in a hurry to make profit out of you, but they always will

And what's the bottom line, huh?

Right, we should stay below their radar at all times, and that would probably mean spreading our operation across a few "trusted" casinos. In this way, we could squeeze the maximum amount of profits without attracting too much attention lest we get kicked out. I would consider it an entirely new level at building our gambling empire. Now that we have beaten the house, it's time to beat the entire gambling industry

[docthusinh]

I have a key stat which is the rate of earning per total wagered amount (currently at 8%+), as long as i keep it higher than the house edge, the final result should come out possitive since a common house edge is 1% the casino is expected to earn from me 1% of wagered amount, however since my rate is 8%, there is still a big gap of 7% so that the house edge can't eat my capital+ earning (unless the casino decided to raise it house edge to above 8% which is likely a NEVER happening thing)

All good but be aware that you are supposed to lose

I mean the casino expects you to lose eventually. If, on the other hand, you are not losing and going on, actually sucking in money from the casino instead, they may not quite like it. As long as the amount thus lost by the casino is not great, they may turn a blind eye to your actions as other people trying to follow the approaches described in this thread could compensate for the casino loss through their own loses. However, if you are winning big, don't be surprised to get kicked out at the end of the day, and probably not in the way you may like it or at least find acceptable and appropriate (read, prepare yourself for really ugly and nasty things)

Yeah, that's the major problem but I don't worry too much since that will just prove the fact that there is a way to win and really is. The casino might one day ban me for being winning too much with a common reason that people would believe such as exploit of bug, abuse of something, not complying to T&C or any kind of things related. However that would be also a draw back since the method is kept secret but then I might getting mad and publish it, include the open source code to Github for other experts to come and verify....once it is verified and users are jumping into it the end of the casino is set up.

Edit: Hence, it better for the casino to let it be, there is winner, and the winner is a case study to prove that their system is fair.

[deisik]

Edit: Hence, it better for the casino to let it be, there is winner, and the winner is a case study to prove that their system is fair

They couldn't care less

They care about only their own skin in the game (read, their profits). If you decide to publish your code and it is really worth it so that many casinos have to ban such smart users (read, ruin their reputation), they still wouldn't give a slightest fuck about that. The reason is quite simple. They are already doing all that nasty stuff you mention anyway (exploit of a bug, abuse of something, not complying to T&C, refusing to KYC, or anything to that tune) and for just lucky users who chanced to win big, not someone making use of the martingale system in a really smart way

[deisik]

Technically, you don't even need to read anything at all there. Just browse the last few pages and look for the screenshots I posted reflecting the milestones of my martingale journey. I started with free dogecoins, which are available through the 7-day streak faucet at wolf.bet, and earned around 100 dollars in total

I can't actually say that it was a risk-free strategy at first as I was on the verge of busting a couple of times, but then, as my profits grew, I became more and conservative as well as risk-aware. Since I was running autobet, the time was a non-issue obviously, even though I was taking a peek at how things were going on there now and then

But I still ended up reading most of it after you mentioned there were screenshots of your results. it was an interesting and great thread and I learned a lot. I'm glad you had a successful experiment. is there a chance that you might do this again on a different altcoin? also, it's such a shame that crypto-games only allow 1 dogecoin as the minimum bet. it would have been interesting to see how much difference the outcome might have been

At wolf.bet the minimum bet amount is 0.00000001 doges (I hope I didn't miss a couple of zeroes)

That's why it is one of the best casinos to implement a properly balanced martingale setup, apart from a pretty impressive betting speed there (which is another important factor for autobet). Other than that, it doesn't really matter what coin you are going to use as long as the following conditions are met

First, your minimum bet should be small enough to allow for long losing streaks without draining your balance completely dry. Second, the maximum bet (profit) amount should also be high enough and for exactly the same reason. In other words, you should be able to realize, utilize and enjoy the full potential of your martingale "recipe"

[Danslip]

Technically, you don't even need to read anything at all there. Just browse the last few pages and look for the screenshots I posted reflecting the milestones of my martingale journey. I started with free dogecoins, which are available through the 7-day streak faucet at wolf.bet, and earned around 100 dollars in total

I can't actually say that it was a risk-free strategy at first as I was on the verge of busting a couple of times, but then, as my profits grew, I became more and conservative as well as risk-aware. Since I was running autobet, the time was a non-issue obviously, even though I was taking a peek at how things were going on there now and then

But I still ended up reading most of it after you mentioned there were screenshots of your results. it was an interesting and great thread and I learned a lot. I'm glad you had a successful experiment. is there a chance that you might do this again on a different altcoin? also, it's such a shame that crypto-games only allow 1 dogecoin as the minimum bet. it would have been interesting to see how much difference the outcome might have been

At wolf.bet the minimum bet amount is 0.00000001 doges (I hope I didn't miss a couple of zeroes)

That's why it is one of the best casinos to implement a properly balanced martingale setup, apart from a pretty impressive betting speed there (which is another important factor for autobet). Other than that, it doesn't really matter what coin you are going to use as long as the following conditions are met

First, your minimum bet should be small enough to allow for long losing streaks without draining your balance completely dry. Second, the maximum bet (profit) amount should also be high enough and for exactly the same reason. In other words, you should be able to realize, utilize and enjoy the full potential of your martingale "recipe"

Thanks for sharing your suggestion, I was also looking for the high limit martingale gambling platform with proper money management. Unfortunately, the 0.nDOGEcoin will not be the best bet as a starting balance and the real use of these limits will be in purpose of demo betting. On every ladder of martingale, the winning amount will stay same and this amount is tooo small for making proper analysis which will be useful for increasing the bet amount.

[deisik]

Thanks for sharing your suggestion, I was also looking for the high limit martingale gambling platform with proper money management. Unfortunately, the 0.nDOGEcoin will not be the best bet as a starting balance and the real use of these limits will be in purpose of demo betting. On every ladder of martingale, the winning amount will stay same and this amount is tooo small for making proper analysis which will be useful for increasing the bet amount.

It seems that you have misunderstood something here

The minimum bet amount at wolf.bet is indeed 0.00000001 doges, but it doesn't in the least follow that you are somehow forced to use it as your base bet amount. You can use whatever you like up to the highest possible bet at 8M doges, with a max win limit set at 2M doges (last time I checked). Whether the winning amount should stay the same at each step or otherwise is entirely up to you. But personally, I tend to think that using martingale in this manner would be an exercise in stupidity and futility (no offense intended)

[Haunebu]

The minimum bet amount at wolf.bet is indeed 0.00000001 doges, but it doesn't in the least follow that you are somehow forced to use it as your base bet amount. You can use whatever you like up to the highest possible bet at 8M doges, with a max win limit set at 2M doges (last time I checked).

This is easily one of the best gambling threads in this forum in my opinion though I thought it was dead in 2019. Good to see it alive again.

Coming to the topic itself, the base bet with Dogecoin in Wolf.bet could probably survive a 30+ losing streak, but there is no point since the amount earned is negligible.

The only way this would be profitable is if we could place 100 bets per second or something. Does Wolf.bet offer such insane speeds? If not, is there an alternative?

[deisik]

The minimum bet amount at wolf.bet is indeed 0.00000001 doges, but it doesn't in the least follow that you are somehow forced to use it as your base bet amount. You can use whatever you like up to the highest possible bet at 8M doges, with a max win limit set at 2M doges (last time I checked).

This is easily one of the best gambling threads in this forum in my opinion though I thought it was dead in 2019. Good to see it alive again

Martingale is never gonna die, so this thread will continue to rise from the dead periodically

Coming to the topic itself, the base bet with Dogecoin in Wolf.bet could probably survive a 30+ losing streak, but there is no point since the amount earned is negligible

That depends on your appetite

If we are able to earn like 10% on a month-to-month basis, this could be considered a good result if you ask me. Well, it may be a bad idea to think of this endeavor as an investment of sorts in the first place, but if you are looking for fun and excitement mostly, i.e. what everyone should be looking for in gambling, it may be worth your time and effort after all

The only way this would be profitable is if we could place 100 bets per second or something. Does Wolf.bet offer such insane speeds? If not, is there an alternative?

Actually, I have already asked a similar question in another topic. Some fellas here reported that you could squeeze around 8 bets per second at Bitsler (or some other casino, don't remember which exactly), but I don't think you would be able to get more than 10 bets a second via web interface. With API things may be different, though I didn't try that route

[Haunebu]

Some fellas here reported that you could squeeze around 8 bets per second at Bitsler (or some other casino, don't remember which exactly), but I don't think you would be able to get more than 10 bets a second via web interface. With API things may be different, though I didn't try that route

8 bets per second is decent, but I have heard about certain sites that actually offer way faster speeds(100 per sec etc) though majority of those sites turned out to be scams.

Sites like Luckygames, 999dice and Duckdice provide crazy betting speeds based on my research, but all 3 of them have scammed their customers. Am waiting for a site that offers crazy speeds along with a low min bet like Wolf.bet.

[Betwrong]

Since I was redirected (by you ) to this thread, I'll repeat my question here.

Is it possible to know exactly how big your highest bet during the whole experiment was?

With that information

1. I would estimate the minimum bankroll needed for your strategy to work;

2. It would be clear whether we could use your strategy for betting with BTC(taking into account the restrictions on the max bet/profit on various gambling sites).

[deisik]

Since I was redirected (by you ) to this thread, I'll repeat my question here.

Is it possible to know exactly how big your highest bet during the whole experiment was?

With that information

1. I would estimate the minimum bankroll needed for your strategy to work

Bankroll as such is irrelevant

What you need is the capacity to endure a long enough losing streak for a given multiplier. For example, at ~40% win chance it is pretty much a safe bet if you can survive 35 losing rolls in a row. If I remember correctly, at 37% win chance I've seen a losing streak of 30 rolls only once. I have no explanation how it is ever possible, but winning chances below 37% bring about an exponential surge in variance, and martingale no longer remains safe. I can't come up with any plausible reason for this phenomenon but I've read about it before and can confirm it (call it broscience or a gambling street wisdom of sorts, or whatever)

2. It would be clear whether we could use your strategy for betting with BTC(taking into account the restrictions on the max bet/profit on various gambling sites)

I can tell you straightaway that it is not possible. I tried and I failed miserably, losing one hell of a lot of money

[johhnyUA]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Martingale is losing strategy because few reasons: probability of event doesn't depend on result from previous one. You can lose 100 times in a row, or win. So, you can't be sure on what iteration you will win. But our money is limit resource, so you can't lose for example 1000 time in meaning of available funds. But in meaning of probability - you can  
So, you with bigger chance lose all your limit, than win with this strategy. But from mathematical point, it's normal strategy.

And yeah, your ideas to "update" martingale is even worse than original strategy, my tho.

[deisik]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Martingale is losing strategy because few reasons: probability of event doesn't depend on result from previous one

Has it never occurred to you that it works both ways?

As much as bets are independent of each other, exactly the same can be said about the overall probability of losing. No matter for how long you have been rolling, the odds of busting remain as they were before you started rolling, and they don't increase despite what so many people erroneously assume (I call it the Gambler's Fallacy in reverse). Further, even if the outcomes are independent of each other, this probability does nevertheless depend on the number of rolls, surprise!

[sportbettor]

To make things clear right at the start, I know that martingale is a losing strategy in the long term as there is no way to beat the house and its edge if only by chance alone (or by exploiting a bug in the system). And since martingale effectively removes the chance part from the equation, it is set to fail in the end

With that said, though, it is an "old-school" martingale which is a sure way to lose all but what about using martingale when you constantly lower your chances to lose at each red streak by extending the number of losing rolls till you go bust? I don't know if it can actually help but it is certainly worth discussing here

Obviously, it can be done by "reinvesting" everything we earned at previous rolls without changing any other setting (like odds, initial bet amount, increase, etc) but we are not necessarily limited to only that. For example, we could continually add to our balance at each roll, thereby postponing our final moment until it gets lost in the vague future

Does it change anything even if it doesn't make a lot of sense as a strategy on its own?

Here you can read about the pitfalls of Martingale strategy: http://sportstatist.com/the-pitfalls-of-martingale-money-management-strategy/

[johhnyUA]

As much as bets are independent of each other, exactly the same can be said about the overall probability of losing. No matter for how long you have been rolling, the odds of busting remain as they were before you started rolling, and they don't increase despite what so many people erroneously assume (I call it the Gambler's Fallacy in reverse). Further, even if the outcomes are independent of each other, this probability does nevertheless depend on the number of rolls, surprise!

Ehhhhm, you just take my idea in other words. 
Maybe i was not so clear but in fact, you're telling the same. My wise point was that martingale isn't loosing strategy if you have unlimited resources. Mathematically unlimited, i mean. Endless.

You just betting and betting, and at one moment of time you will win (it's like Infinite monkey theorem). But in real world your resources will end much faster. Because of the reason that probability for each event/roll still the same due to any time, you can't be sure when you will win. Something like that.

[deisik]

My wise point was that martingale isn't loosing strategy if you have unlimited resources. Mathematically unlimited, i mean. Endless

Your "wise" point would hold only on an infinite timeframe (and then it would remain to be seen)

However, as soon as we are talking about limited amounts of time and time spans like a month, a year, etc, it all comes down to evaluating probabilities. If your odds of losing are 1 to 100, then you'll be losing only once every 100 rolls or series of rolls on average (what average actually amounts to in a real gambling environment, you can learn here)

Whether you are talking about a probability of a single roll or a series of rolls, you can't get around this. With this in mind, if your chances of hitting a losing streak of 20 rolls in a hundred years are not high, it essentially means that you are not likely to see such a series in a hundred years (you still can, but that would be called ill luck). As simple as it gets

[Betwrong]

Since I was redirected (by you ) to this thread, I'll repeat my question here.

Is it possible to know exactly how big your highest bet during the whole experiment was?

With that information

1. I would estimate the minimum bankroll needed for your strategy to work

Bankroll as such is irrelevant

What you need is the capacity to endure a long enough losing streak for a given multiplier.

Which means, you need a big enough bankroll. So, it's not irrelevant actually.

For example, at ~40% win chance it is pretty much a safe bet if you can survive 35 losing rolls in a row. If I remember correctly, at 37% win chance I've seen a losing streak of 30 rolls only once.

That would result in a pretty big final bet. Even with 100% increase on loss, that bet would be over 10 DOGE, given that the base bet was 0.00000001 DOGE. But, as far as know, your increase on loss was higher than 100%, right?

I have no explanation how it is ever possible, but winning chances below 37% bring about an exponential surge in variance, and martingale no longer remains safe. I can't come up with any plausible reason for this phenomenon but I've read about it before and can confirm it (call it broscience or a gambling street wisdom of sorts, or whatever)

I think it's simply a question of proper adjustment. If you lowered your "increase on loss" exactly in accordance with how the win chance was lowered, your strategy would work just fine.

[deisik]

Since I was redirected (by you ) to this thread, I'll repeat my question here.

Is it possible to know exactly how big your highest bet during the whole experiment was?

With that information

1. I would estimate the minimum bankroll needed for your strategy to work

Bankroll as such is irrelevant

What you need is the capacity to endure a long enough losing streak for a given multiplier.

Which means, you need a big enough bankroll. So, it's not irrelevant actually

It is irrelevant as long as your base bet can be any. In other words, "a big enough bankroll" is only as big as you base bet is. Put shortly, "big" is relative here, and depends on very specific parameters

For example, at ~40% win chance it is pretty much a safe bet if you can survive 35 losing rolls in a row. If I remember correctly, at 37% win chance I've seen a losing streak of 30 rolls only once.

That would result in a pretty big final bet

Your "final" bet will always be half of your balance (or something to that tune), when you stake all of what is left. Indeed, I calculated the rolls in such a way that I would be able to win back everything with this last all-or-nothing roll and earn as much (actually, more as my win chance was below 50%)

I have no explanation how it is ever possible, but winning chances below 37% bring about an exponential surge in variance, and martingale no longer remains safe. I can't come up with any plausible reason for this phenomenon but I've read about it before and can confirm it (call it broscience or a gambling street wisdom of sorts, or whatever)

I think it's simply a question of proper adjustment. If you lowered your "increase on loss" exactly in accordance with how the win chance was lowered, your strategy would work just fine

Without any additional info, proper adjustment assumes linear change. This is not what I observed. If variance changes abruptly (like spikes exponentially), and you don't know by how much exactly, there is no way to lower the increase on loss that would match this spike. Finding it out empirically would probably mean busting in the process

[johhnyUA]

My wise point was that martingale isn't loosing strategy if you have unlimited resources. Mathematically unlimited, i mean. Endless

Your "wise" point would hold only on an infinite timeframe (and then it would remain to be seen)

Yep, i meant exactly this. It's being seen from my quote 

If your odds of losing are 1 to 100, then you'll be losing only once every 100 rolls or series of rolls on average (what average actually amounts to in a real gambling environment, you can learn here)

or you will lose 100 times in a row. Or 10, or 2. You can't be sure. of course, with 1/100 chances it's east to say something pathos, but in gambling we mostly faces with 40/50, 50/50, 22/78 or something like that. Noone plays on dice with winning chance around 1/100 (or loosing, whatever). And with such probabilities you can;t be sure about "average" 

Whether you are talking about a probability of a single roll or a series of rolls, you can't get around this. With this in mind, if your chances of hitting a losing streak of 20 rolls in a hundred years are not high, it essentially means that you are not likely to see such a series in a hundred years (you still can, but that would be called ill luck). As simple as it gets

As i said above, it;s mostly works with great difference in probabilities, when one event is significant more to occur than another.

[deisik]

My wise point was that martingale isn't loosing strategy if you have unlimited resources. Mathematically unlimited, i mean. Endless

Your "wise" point would hold only on an infinite timeframe (and then it would remain to be seen)

Yep, i meant exactly this. It's being seen from my quote

Then it is irrelevant to the point in question

We are not talking about infinite bankrolls on infinite timeframes. We are talking about a very determined range of concrete parameters, e.g. base bet, increase on loss, multiplier, and, yes, timeframes too. This puts us in a very probabilistically determined environment where statements like "or you will lose 100 times in a row. Or 10, or 2" simply make no sense. You can lose 100 bets in a row with a 50% win chance, but the probability of such an outcome would be infinitesimal (read, you won't see it during your lifetime), and thus it is discarded for entirely practical reasons as a purely hypothetical construct

[johhnyUA]

You can lose 100 bets in a row on a 50% win chance, but the probability of such an outcome would be infinitesimal (read, you won't see it during your lifetime), and thus it is discarded for entirely practical reasons as a purely hypothetical construct

Yes, but as i wrote above, if you for example spinning dice with 50 chance to win, you will not get in average "one win/one lose/ one win / one lose"
but rather you can get 10 loses in a row and 3 wins after and then again 2 loses. With such strategy martingale is useless. Any martingale, with any "improvements".

[Betwrong]

~

I have no explanation how it is ever possible, but winning chances below 37% bring about an exponential surge in variance, and martingale no longer remains safe. I can't come up with any plausible reason for this phenomenon but I've read about it before and can confirm it (call it broscience or a gambling street wisdom of sorts, or whatever)

I think it's simply a question of proper adjustment. If you lowered your "increase on loss" exactly in accordance with how the win chance was lowered, your strategy would work just fine

Without any additional info, proper adjustment assumes linear change. This is not what I observed. If variance changes abruptly (like spikes exponentially), and you don't know by how much exactly, there is no way to lower the increase on loss that would match this spike. Finding it out empirically would probably mean busting in the process

I think, you can bust in the process anyway , but what I meant was that with a proper adjustment you could create a betting strategy that would work exactly like your previous one in regards to the probability of busting.

For example, if you were betting with 40% win chance and increasing 160% on loss, you'd have to switch to 80% increase on loss when betting with 20% win chance; to 40% increase on loss when betting with 10% win chance, and so on.

[deisik]

With such strategy martingale is useless. Any martingale, with any "improvements"

Then you are on your own

Without any additional info, proper adjustment assumes linear change. This is not what I observed. If variance changes abruptly (like spikes exponentially), and you don't know by how much exactly, there is no way to lower the increase on loss that would match this spike. Finding it out empirically would probably mean busting in the process

I think, you can bust in the process anyway

Okay, let's now ignore traffic lights cuz we are still going to kick the bucket somewhere down the road, right?

For example, if you were betting with 40% win chance and increasing 160% on loss, you'd have to switch to 80% increase on loss when betting with 20% win chance; to 40% increase on loss when betting with 10% win chance, and so on

You are now suggesting what I already went through in my previous post

You are implicitly assuming a linear change. But if there is a linear change, then increasing 160% on loss with a 40% win chance should be the same in the long run as increasing 80% with a 20% win chance, which is otherwise known as six of one and half a dozen of the other. However, the change is non-linear. It basically means you can bust sooner with an 80% increase instead of 160% with a win chance only a few percentage points less. But if you want to check it for yourself, go for it since who am I to stop you?

[BITCOIN4X]

Yes, but as i wrote above, if you for example spinning dice with 50 chance to win, you will not get in average "one win/one lose/ one win / one lose"
but rather you can get 10 loses in a row and 3 wins after and then again 2 loses. With such strategy martingale is useless. Any martingale, with any "improvements".

5 times in a row applying this technique, but I failed and lost. No matter how good the technique is, we also have to have a lucky day in gambling. Technique will only be a medium that helps us get luck.

I believe that there is no perfect gambling technique, even though someone can prove that it works but that doesn't apply to everyone because we have to have luck.

[deisik]

5 times in a row applying this technique, but I failed and lost. No matter how good the technique is, we also have to have a lucky day in gambling. Technique will only be a medium that helps us get luck

You should probably stay away from using martingale

By and large, it all comes down to properly balancing your chances of winning versus losing so that on a specific timeframe (a month, a year, a decade) your chances of coming through and making it would be higher than busting and losing your balance (actually, way higher, for a mighty safety margin). If you can't do that, martingale will be a losing strategy for you. Long story short, blindly applying it and hoping for the best will likely end in a disaster. The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice

I believe that there is no perfect gambling technique, even though someone can prove that it works but that doesn't apply to everyone because we have to have luck

With a thoroughly thought-out martingale strategy you must be not so much lucky to win as unlucky to bust

[BITCOIN4X]

The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice

That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.

Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.

[shoreno]

The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice

That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.

Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.

60 percent is or more is more winnable compare to lower percents but you can only earn less with it and if you want to earn big you need to adjust and up your bets but be careful because higher percent chance are also deadly  . you can loose imdiately upon upping your bets   .  so many newbies i see play that strat with bigger bets and sadly they end up easily  .   this is why i play only with low chance win rate but with martingale strat because this makes me last long and still be able to hit my targeted multi with a nice profit

[Betwrong]

With such strategy martingale is useless. Any martingale, with any "improvements"

Then you are on your own

Without any additional info, proper adjustment assumes linear change. This is not what I observed. If variance changes abruptly (like spikes exponentially), and you don't know by how much exactly, there is no way to lower the increase on loss that would match this spike. Finding it out empirically would probably mean busting in the process

I think, you can bust in the process anyway

Okay, let's now ignore traffic lights cuz we are still going to kick the bucket somewhere down the road, right?

For example, if you were betting with 40% win chance and increasing 160% on loss, you'd have to switch to 80% increase on loss when betting with 20% win chance; to 40% increase on loss when betting with 10% win chance, and so on

You are now suggesting what I already went through in my previous post

You are implicitly assuming a linear change. But if there is a linear change, then increasing 160% on loss with a 40% win chance should be the same in the long run as increasing 80% with a 20% win chance, which is otherwise known as six of one and half a dozen of the other. However, the change is non-linear. It basically means you can bust sooner with an 80% increase instead of 160% with a win chance only a few percentage points less. But if you want to check it for yourself, go for it since who am I to stop you?

In fact I tried it quite some times already, and the result was always a win. Below are some latest examples:







But I wouldn't try this strategy with BTC though.

I understand that 10% increase on loss is a bit too much for betting with 1% win chance, and that I was just lucky that I didn't bust. With 2% increase on loss it looks more like your strategy



with which you can catch a nice outlier before getting busted.

[deisik]

with which you can catch a nice outlier before getting busted

You are thinking in correct direction

However, you only made so many rolls. As I suspect, to reveal a particular pattern of variance at so low win chances, you would have to literally make billions of bets and not bust in the process. If you bust, all your effort will be spent in vain. With win chances close to 50% we can be damn sure that the variance of variance (let's call it second-order variance) is less random that the first-order variance (this also confronts us with the question as to how truly random is random)

To cut to the chase, with lower multipliers you can safely assume that you will see fewer longer losing streaks than shorter ones. However, with small chances second-order variance may get out of hand, and you will see an entirely different picture. In practice, it basically means that you can't use the approach described here with very small odds as you are set to hit a very long losing streak kind of "all of a sudden" that would likely wipe you out

[Betwrong]

with which you can catch a nice outlier before getting busted

You are thinking in correct direction

However, you only made so many rolls. As I suspect, to reveal a particular pattern of variance at so low win chances, you would have to literally make billions of bets and not bust in the process. If you bust, all your effort will be spent in vain. With win chances close to 50% we can be damn sure that the variance of variance (let's call it second-order variance) is less random that the first-order variance (this also confronts us with the question as to how truly random is random)

To cut to the chase, with lower multipliers you can safely assume that you will see fewer longer losing streaks than shorter ones. However, with small chances second-order variance may get out of hand, and you will see an entirely different picture. In practice, it basically means that you can't use the approach described here with very small odds as you are set to hit a very long losing streak kind of "all of a sudden" that would likely wipe you out

It's true that with higher multipliers we can expect longer losing streaks, but don't you think that we can estimate how much longer they can be?

For example, on a dice site with 1% house edge:

Odds of losing 42 bets in a row at 40% win chance: Once every 2,078,009,285.66 bets.

I don't know about you, but I would consider a setup when you are immune to 42 losses in a row a pretty safe one in this case.

Now we should find out for how many losses in a row we must be immune when betting with, say, 1% win chance to have the same expectancy of busting(once in 2 billion bets), and that's it, don't you think?

[deisik]

Now we should find out for how many losses in a row we must be immune when betting with, say, 1% win chance to have the same expectancy of busting(once in 2 billion bets), and that's it, don't you think?

That's the problem that I'm trying to address

You again assume linear relationship but you miss the larger picture. It is not about averages at all (in this case) as the whole thing with the approach practiced and discussed here is about outliers. However, outliers are the opposite of averages. Put differently, you can't apply stats to outliers as stats is just a substitute word or placeholder for averages. In practice, you bust specifically because you encounter an outlier that you can't cope with, and averages, whatever they may say to the contrary, won't help you

It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it

[Betwrong]

~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it

Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?

Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?

[deisik]

~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it

Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?

Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?

I think one billion bets will be enough to see the pattern

Unless you bust in the process, of course. Indeed, you can set the increase on loss to 0, so that to avoid busting altogether, but it may take too long. Anyway, we don't necessarily need to run so many bets to draw some conclusions, and it is probably worth a try after all (I may run some tests)

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

[Betwrong]

~
It just happens that with chances less than 37% (give or take) outliers become extreme even if averages still remain linear on a long enough timeframe. I don't know why it happens but it does. To sum it up, the entire story is about variance and how you deal with it

Are you sure you've done enough tests with chances less than 37% to make such conclusions? As far as I know, you've done millions of rolls with 37% win chance. But how many rolls with, say, 1% win chance were performed?

Maybe the variance from standard deviation can be higher with lower win chance, but I still feel it can be tamed with a large enough bankroll. Or, do you think that even 1 billion DOGE wouldn't be enough for that?

I think one billion bets will be enough to see the pattern

Unless you bust in the process, of course. Indeed, you can set the increase on loss to 0, so that to avoid busting altogether, but it may take too long. Anyway, we don't necessarily need to run so many bets to draw some conclusions, and it is probably worth a try after all (I may run some tests)

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!

But seriously, we need more those tests, I guess. For example, with my type of betting, my magic number is 10%. I mean, if I play dice with higher than 10% win chance, I always lose in the end. That's why I prefer something like 1%, 0.1% or even 0.01%. Like I won several day ago:



No big money, but surely big fun!

[deisik]

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!

I'm already running certain tests

But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all

[swogerino]

The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice

That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.

Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.

There is no need for any experience when trying martingale,it is all boiled down to doubling your bet after every lost bet.In theory it should work if you have an infinite bankroll then you can double your bet after every losing bet and you will eventually hit a winning bet.The problem is that this is only theory,for the practice there a lot of answers not only in this thread but also many others that martingale it will fail.

[deisik]

The good news is that it is the same as with any other complicated strategy out there that requires knowledge, expertise, and genuine understanding of how things hang in practice

That must be true, it all depends on the knowledge and experience practiced in the game. Maybe for you this strategy is useful, but not for me because of lack of knowledge when applying it.

Meanwhile, dice is my favorite game besides sports gambling. I can only win a few bets or more if the winning percentage is set at 60% or more. That is the best opportunity for me so far on dice. At least I can produce something even though its not much.

There is no need for any experience when trying martingale,it is all boiled down to doubling your bet after every lost bet.In theory it should work if you have an infinite bankroll

It is ironic how fast people are to point out that you need an infinite bankroll for martingale to work out

However, they forget that this holds true only for as infinite timeframes. As soon as we are talking about particular spans or periods of time (like a month or a year), which is always the case in real life, what it actually boils down to are the odds of surviving a losing streak of a certain number of rolls for this strategy to work out on average

It is not even so much interesting to explain the specifics of this approach (cause they are pretty simple, and you don't exactly need a master's degree to figure them out) as to get to understanding why people go on and on about martingale being a losing strategy. Any strategy in any domain will end up with a disaster if used mindlessly

[Betwrong]

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!

I'm already running certain tests

But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all

Very interesting. Are you going to cover ranges below 1% win chance as well? Asking because those are my fav ranges. I can't say that I'm in positive profit overall, but I do win those bets pretty often, like this one, 3 days ago:



Regarding 37% win chance being the lowest one can run martingale successfully with, I thought the same thing when I was only starting with dice. At first I was betting with 49.50% many times, not even knowing that changing the win chance was possible. Then, after I learned how to change it, I was playing with various win chances and was like, "Man, what kind of fool would bet with lower than 20% win chance?!" It appears that I have become that fool eventually.

[deisik]

I started out at exactly 37% win chance, then I decreased it to 36% (to win more, obviously), and I almost busted. After that I only increased the odds as my profits grew (I finished with a 42% win chance, to be exact). Ironically, I had first read about that magic number (37%) in the freebitco.in thread somewhere around here, and I discarded it as a mere superstition

Hm, interesting. And I thought there were no magic numbers in math!

I'm already running certain tests

But they will take some time as the analysis will require a pretty impressive amount of bets (aka sample size) on the order of at least 100k rolls per each percentage. After I'm done, I will likely start off a separate thread about this magic number, as well as try to find the original post in the freebitco.in thread where 37% had been first mentioned in this context (I remember I replied to it). Methinks, it might be a game-changer or even an eye-opener of sorts for a lot of martingalers if these assumptions or superstitions prove true after all

Very interesting. Are you going to cover ranges below 1% win chance as well?

It didn't work out

Long story short, the results were totally inconclusive. I started with exactly 37% win chance and almost instantly hit a losing streak of 26 rolls:



Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either

[Betwrong]

~
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either

Those were my thoughts too, when I was reading your post, but then I decided to not discourage you because imo any test is better than none. 1M can also be not enough, but definitely better than 100k.

There are sites showing probabilities of winning with particular pocket cards, based on millions real games played, not simulated ones, for Texas hold 'em poker. Dice sites where tens of billions bets were made, could, theoretically, provide similar stats too. But there is no such data on the Internet, as far as I can tell.

[STT]

Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back.    Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
  Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner.   Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.

[deisik]

~
Then I went for lower odds running series of 100k rolls (99999, to be exact), and I didn't encounter as long or longer streaks. It basically means that the sample size of 100k tests is just too small. It seems the size should be well over 1M rolls but it is impossible to test in a real casino. Indeed, we can still use an emulator but if the issue is with a hardware RNG, we won't see anything there, either

Those were my thoughts too, when I was reading your post, but then I decided to not discourage you because imo any test is better than none. 1M can also be not enough, but definitely better than 100k

Truth be told, I didn't cherish a lot of hope, either

Regarding stats, I remember a former Canadian casino operator or owner posted some of the stats that might be of interest to us. If I remember correctly, he said that there had been only one occasion when someone lost on a 50% win chance in a streak of 24 rolls out of a few billion bets recorded. The post should be still somewhere in the 2014-2015 threads on this board or its parent. Don't know if he is still active on the forum, though

[imstillthebest]

Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back.    Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
  Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner.   Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.

martingale isnt for beginner because it needs calculations before you apply it , not an exact calculation but just a close measurement to ensure that you can possibly hit your target payout before you got busted . till now i cant leave martingale  .

 i remember i rested for a while of using it but i still find myself coming back on it because i think i can win here in a less risky way than compare to flat betting which you can also end up too easily or too fast  .

[turkandjaydee]

martingale isnt for beginner because it needs calculations before you apply it , not an exact calculation but just a close measurement to ensure that you can possibly hit your target payout before you got busted . till now i cant leave martingale  .
(...)

Maybe it's not for the beginner but I think it's not that hard to use martingale or to calculate how much stake/money that you need to put to get your lost money back.

(...)
 i remember i rested for a while of using it but i still find myself coming back on it because i think i can win here in a less risky way than compare to flat betting which you can also end up too easily or too fast  .

Are you using martingale for sports/esports betting? If so, actually I think martingale strategy isn't suitable for sports/esports betting since it's not easy to find good odds on a specific match.

[swogerino]

Everyone should avoid using martingale, it lends no advantage in usage and amplifys risk in the hope of winning it all back.    Thats a normal mistaken strategy by most new bettors anyway, its better to have an allotted budget each day and not try to chase after losses just separate each day or attempt at gambling and hope to learn something along the way.
  Theres one good reason why martingale strategy always pops up and over decades has been repeated, its simple and it appeals to the base instinct of a beginner.   Any easy strategy is my preference but its inferior to some discipline and actual learning by experience.

While martingale is guaranteed to not work in the long term even allocating a daily budget for gambling is guaranteed to work either.When it comes to gambling strategies there is really none because almost all the kind of games needs a good dose of luck in order to win.

[deisik]

While martingale is guaranteed to not work in the long term even allocating a daily budget for gambling is guaranteed to work either

It depends on how you use this strategy

If you follow it mindlessly, then you are certainly guaranteed to bust. But in this regard, it is not much different from any other complex strategy in any other area, in gambling or elsewhere. When used wisely, your chances of running it successfully within a certain amount of time can be higher than losing. Given this, you can't really say that it is guaranteed to not work in the long term as long as "long term" is finite and accounted for

[skarais]

It depends on how you use this strategy

If you follow it mindlessly, then you are certainly guaranteed to bust. But in this regard, it is not much different from any other complex strategy in any other area, in gambling or elsewhere. When used wisely, your chances of running it successfully within a certain amount of time can be higher than losing. Given this, you can't really say that it is guaranteed to not work in the long term as long as "long term" is finite and accounted for

You might be right because something that is forced can end in failure.

Martingale strategy can actually increase the chances of winning, but it can also increase the opportunity to spend all available capital in a number of roll. One effort to prevent capital from running out of this strategy is on the number of bets. Set the bet value on the smallest unit and start this strategy and reduce the chances of winning to get a higher multiplication. Also I think we must have a consistent target and time. 10% daily profit in my opinion is pretty good. Not playing all day is also a matter to consider. It would be very good if we have more capital to implement this strategy.

[deisik]

10% daily profit in my opinion is pretty good. Not playing all day is also a matter to consider. It would be very good if we have more capital to implement this strategy

Actually, I don't think you can safely earn 10% daily (like day in and day out) with martingale

To make your martingale endeavor really lasting, you should be looking toward exploiting variance, and that means waiting for outliers. However, the ones that are within your safety range don't come very often, perhaps, 1-2 weekly (yeah, it means using autobet). So the best you could reasonably hope for is more like 10% monthly. If you are looking for more aggressive approaches striving for bigger wins, you risk busting sooner than you would otherwise expect

[STT]

10% compound is a kings fortune in not alot of time really, its unlikely such a gain is possible reliably.   Of course gambling anything is possible but even 1% a day would quite nice after a while.   There is no such advantage given using this system, it can be calculated with maths so far as I know.   I might look for a link later to show this.