Martingale revisited

[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.

[1713585750]

1713585750

[1713585750]

1713585750

[1713585750]

1713585750

[1713585750]

1713585750

[1713585750]

1713585750

[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".