Martingale revisited

[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.