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?

[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.