Martingale revisited

[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