My simulations for testing Martingale strategy

[hosseinimr93]

Here I would like to share my simulations to test Martingale strategy.
The house edge is 1% and bet multiplier in loss case is 2.
The calculations continue until the bet amount is lower than balance.
Hope it is helpful for any one interested in these strategy.
Give your opinions about the results obtained.


Initial balance: 10
Initial bet: 1

Initial balance: 100
Initial bet: 1

Initial balance: 1000
Initial bet: 1

[1714926980]

1714926980

[1714926980]

1714926980

[1714926980]

1714926980

[1714926980]

1714926980

[STT]

I think we can conclude the best logic might be to quit while you are ahead, I do see the initial incline there but its failing and resulting in a lower balance.   So dont get greedy, take any profit you make early and be on your way seems to be the best idea.
  Dont play just 1 game or 1 strategy, take profit from this and go play a bit of blackjack or something less monotonous then this system.   It cant last to put it briefly.

[mich]

This theory has been tested many times and even many times on this forum
Yes you might win some money to begin with but longterm you will give it all bck to the house
Still that is a impressive set of graphs you have created and you sound smart enough to know the house wins in the end 

[TimeTeller]

Martingale strategy really works at some point but not a well founded strategy that you can always count on.
The OP made great charts. Is the initial balance that you used in satoshis?
Would be interested if you will start at a much higher level of initial balance. What would be the charts look like?

[harizen]

Give your opinions about the results obtained.

What opinion/s do you want to hear for this test? These simulations will not really do nothing because aside from that fact that it will end up losing in the end, these movements are inconsistent therefore I don't know what information we are extracting here. No accurate data or even close we can get to somehow beat the house edge even for a short or long-term.

But I appreciate the time and effort you spend here to make these simulations.

[janggernaut]

. Is the initial balance that you used in satoshis?
Would be interested if you will start at a much higher level of initial balance. What would be the charts look like?

OP used other crypto i believe, i think he used DOGECOIN to test those martingale strategy.
The chart obviously will be same with all of those charts on above, you will lose in the end especially in long run no matter how big your balance/bankroll.

[Vispilio]

The classical martingale is a terrible strategy for even short term activity because you are always looking to recover the initial bet size,
so the wins will be very small compared to the amount risked.

If however you do something like roll to win 10x, and increase 20% on loss, at least the compound effect on a couple of losing streaks might give you a better rate of profit for the short run (if you can catch a few big winners and quit before going bankrupt that is)...

[maydna]

. Is the initial balance that you used in satoshis?
Would be interested if you will start at a much higher level of initial balance. What would be the charts look like?

OP used other crypto i believe, i think he used DOGECOIN to test those martingale strategy.
The chart obviously will be same with all of those charts on above, you will lose in the end especially in long run no matter how big your balance/bankroll.

Because only with Dogecoin, he can place a huge amount of coin. I am interested in his simulations, and perhaps, I will try it later, although I always know that the martingale strategy will not work for me in a short time or a long time. But still, it's worth to try for me so I can have another experience using the method. I agree with @STT says that he needs to take any profit he made before and stop it for a while and play again after one hour. Sometimes that is work for me to get another winning

[goinmerry]

What's the purpose of this test? To prove that martingale can be profitable?

We can make a profit by this method but still all depends on our luck whatever strategy applied.

Starting from first bet, it all relies on luck, therefore, this test just draws your betting history.

[jackg]

Because only with Dogecoin, he can place a huge amount of coin. I am interested in his simulations, and perhaps, I will try it later, although I always know that the martingale strategy will not work for me in a short time or a long time. But still, it's worth to try for me so I can have another experience using the method. I agree with @STT says that he needs to take any profit he made before and stop it for a while and play again after one hour. Sometimes that is work for me to get another winning

You're not going to find a way to win with martingale long term. You can make your own graph and try to predict the profits but ops graph shows a reoccurring trend of the loss of all bankroll so make sure you understand that you could lose everything ln your first series of bets.

[rdluffy]

I think Martingale method is the most famous, and everyone here, everyone at the beginning did at least once the method
It's incredible when you read about, and the logic is perfect, but when you use in real world, you'll lose, no matter what

The only solution is to stop at a certain point, but it depends on lucky

[MonsterV]

I think Martingale method is the most famous, and everyone here, everyone at the beginning did at least once the method
It's incredible when you read about, and the logic is perfect, but when you use in real world, you'll lose, no matter what

The only solution is to stop at a certain point, but it depends on lucky

Yeah right, Martingale is a betting system that is quite well known in world of gambling and trading, but Martingale also has a high risk. Martingale cannot be used as main strategy because it can eat up your balance, it may be good for initial bet but not good for long term. Whatever strategy simulation described @OP, I hope to use another strategy and not just focus on martingale strategy.

Stopping at a certain point is indeed a good way to avoid greed, but there are times when we are on an unlucky day where Martingale devoured all of our balance even though it has stopped for a moment at a certain point.

[hosseinimr93]

Yes you might win some money to begin with but longterm you will give it all bck to the house

Exactly, We don't know when the pocket will become empty, but it will finally happen and as charts show, that usually happen very soon.

Still that is a impressive set of graphs you have created and you sound smart enough to know the house wins in the end  

Yes, The method is not profitable. I made the diagrams to show that to any one likes this strategy.

The OP made great charts. Is the initial balance that you used in satoshis?

No difference which cryptocurrency is.
For example when the bet amount is 1 and the initial balance is 1000, we can say bet amount is 1 satoshi and initial balance is 1000 satoshi or bet amount is 1mbtc and initial balance is 1 bitcoin.
This can apply to dogecoin, litecoin, etc. What matters is the rate of bet amount and initial balance.

Would be interested if you will start at a much higher level of initial balance. What would be the charts look like?

They can be obtained too. It's a bit time consuming. I had calculated the probability of winning theoretically when the initial balance is 1 bitcoin and your initial bet amount is only 1 Satoshi.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5181132

What opinion/s do you want to hear for this test? These simulations will not really do nothing because aside from that fact that it will end up losing in the end, these movements are inconsistent therefore I don't know what information we are extracting here. No accurate data or even close we can get to somehow beat the house edge even for a short or long-term.
But I appreciate the time and effort you spend here to make these simulations.

I repeated the simulations many times to prove what you are saying better and more visible. And I didn't claim that we can beat the house. I proved the opposite.

What's the purpose of this test? To prove that martingale can be profitable?

No, to prove that it's not profitable.

[Ucy]

Here I would like to share my simulations to test Martingale strategy.
The house edge is 1% and bet multiplier in loss case is 2.
The calculations continue until the bet amount is lower than balance.
Hope it is helpful for any one interested in these strategy.
Give your opinions about the results obtained.


Initial balance: 10
Initial bet: 1

Initial balance: 100
Initial bet: 1

Initial balance: 1000
Initial bet: 1

So the first charts basically show that winning is almost guaranteed from 4 bets then the efficacy of the strategy starts to diminish as you increase from 4 and above?
Should people who use this strategy stick to this range(1—4) then quit to start again but still within the range? You could further test this to see if actually works.

[crwth]

Excellent test to show possible results when starting With different balances. You could see how many bets are done and how long it would last. I remember that there are a lot of strategies you could use in betting dice.

No further tests would be required, in my opinion, because you will see that no matter how large your balance is, you can take longer to bust. The real take away for me is that, you need to be aware that once you hit the unlucky streak that could eventually bust you, that's the end of this strategy.

Just like anyone is saying in this topic, it's best to mix and match or adjust to what strategy to be used. Remember that there is no perfect strategy.

P.S. Did you use Seuntjie’s dice bot to your experiment? I hope you put credits into his program. It looks very similar too.

[docthusinh]

Your method proven alway lose, I personally tested this numerous of times before coming out better way to sustain it, if you know how to work out the following, there will be chance (no more details to be given here):
- Mix of odds.
- Calculate a bet size that: if you win a losing streak at n, the profit after that win help the playing balance sustain one more bet (n+1) taken into account the martingale (standard definition: next bet alway bigger than previous bet), and so on.
- Take a good plan of balance sizing: playing balance = 1/20 total capital willing to lose.
- Adjust of above calculation so that: it hardly reach 1/2 total capital you willing to lose to win a rare streak.
- Targeting 1/10 ratio of profit vs wager (accumulated profit alway = 1/10 total wagered).

Take note of how long "playing balance bursted" and how much remaining capital will be used to win the rare streak aka continue to deposit and keep betting (with constrain of 1/2 total capital used as above). Collect the statistic, you may found out better strategy.

[adzino]

I think we can conclude the best logic might be to quit while you are ahead, I do see the initial incline there but its failing and resulting in a lower balance.   So dont get greedy, take any profit you make early and be on your way seems to be the best idea.
  Dont play just 1 game or 1 strategy, take profit from this and go play a bit of blackjack or something less monotonous then this system.   It cant last to put it briefly.

Its not the best logic, it is the only logic. You must quit when you are ahead, or else in the long run you will lose to the house edge no matter what you do. Martingale strategy will give you profit in the long run only if you have a very unusual large balance (like unlimited coins), but why would you gamble in the first place if you had unlimited coins?

[nakamura12]

All results are in small profit even if you have enough balance compare to having small balance. No matter how you bet there is always losing even trying different martingale strategy. Maybe try to bet a few times then maybe you'll win some profit as show in your post.

[hosseinimr93]

So the first charts basically show that winning is almost guaranteed from 4 bets then the efficacy of the strategy starts to diminish as you increase from 4 and above?

Winning is never guaranteed. You might lose all your fund only in few seconds. Charts show that the time of losing is different, You might lose your first 10 or 20 bets streakly. Every thing is possible.

So the first charts basically show that winning is almost guaranteed from 4 bets then the efficacy of the strategy starts to diminish as you increase from 4 and above?
Should people who use this strategy stick to this range(1—4) then quit to start again but still within the range? You could further test this to see if actually works.

What do you mean starting again? Using Martingale strategy, we are actually starting again several times.

P.S. Did you use Seuntjie’s dice bot to your experiment? I hope you put credits into his program. It looks very similar too.

No. I used my own codes.

- Mix of odds.

The house doesn't allow you to win even you use different odds. You can only delay the losing time.

- Calculate a bet size that: if you win a losing streak at n, the profit after that win help the playing balance sustain one more bet (n+1)

For this, you need to have a big initial amount of bet. That cause you to lose even sooner.

- Take a good plan of balance sizing: playing balance = 1/20 total capital willing to lose.

Yes, you are right. But bigger amounts only delay your losing time.

[Oilacris]

I think we can conclude the best logic might be to quit while you are ahead, I do see the initial incline there but its failing and resulting in a lower balance.   So dont get greedy, take any profit you make early and be on your way seems to be the best idea.
  Dont play just 1 game or 1 strategy, take profit from this and go play a bit of blackjack or something less monotonous then this system.   It cant last to put it briefly.

Best advise overall!

Its better to quit while you are still on green and don't tend to stick out that kind of strat.

Images shows that you can really have that upward movement but later on that huge drop will be next.
Ending? you bust up your entire bankroll and deposit again and that's how the cycle continues.