Martingale Number Lose Streak Formula

[MCobian]

I have given up looking for the mathematical formula for the martingale strategy, because I have tried many formulas and none of
them give satisfactory results. In the end, I always ran out of capital when I tried the Martingale strategy, let alone use a small
capital of $ 100. I expect it to run out quickly if I use $ 100 in capital. So in my opinion there is no need to spend time looking for
the right formula for a martingale strategy, if you want to play gambling do it only for entertainment. So whatever the outcome will be
let luck determine the outcome, playing gambling like that is more fun in my opinion.

[1715356124]

1715356124

[1715356124]

1715356124

[1715356124]

1715356124

[1715356124]

1715356124

[1715356124]

1715356124

[Viscore]

I have given up looking for the mathematical formula for the martingale strategy, because I have tried many formulas and none of
them give satisfactory results. In the end, I always ran out of capital when I tried the Martingale strategy, let alone use a small
capital of $ 100. I expect it to run out quickly if I use $ 100 in capital. So in my opinion there is no need to spend time looking for
the right formula for a martingale strategy, if you want to play gambling do it only for entertainment. So whatever the outcome will be
let luck determine the outcome, playing gambling like that is more fun in my opinion.

Wrong if you will always think gambling for fun all the time, martingale can be a successful method as long as OP is not playing a gambling game where there's a house edge, like sports betting, he can use it with proper analysis on the game he will choose. However, it's also not a guarantee that cold streak won't happen or his bankroll will be busted, that's part of the game, what's important is he has a back up to refill his bankroll once he lose his initial capital or bankroll.

[madnessteat]

Lmao.

It totally depends on your luck isn't it? Since it's so random.

However, if the cap is $100, I wouldn't go with $5 initially, 0.5$ would be better because that will give you more money to bounce back after a losing streak.

But hey, if you start with $5, it will just require 5 consecutive loss to bust your full balance

I support your idea. When I play Martingale my bet should not be so big that I can lose several times in a row (ideally 13-15 times).

For example, if my bet is $1 then my bankroll should be $16384:

1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384

P.S. The Martingale strategy is very risky.

[mirakal]

Lmao.

It totally depends on your luck isn't it? Since it's so random.

However, if the cap is $100, I wouldn't go with $5 initially, 0.5$ would be better because that will give you more money to bounce back after a losing streak.

But hey, if you start with $5, it will just require 5 consecutive loss to bust your full balance

I support your idea. When I play Martingale my bet should not be so big that I can lose several times in a row (ideally 13-15 times).

For example, if my bet is $1 then my bankroll should be $16384:

1-2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256-512-1024-2048-4096-8192-16384

P.S. The Martingale strategy is very risky.

Very scary when you are in the last amount of your total bankroll, when you bet $16384 just to win $1 again, can you still do that?

Me, I think I will think twice before putting that bet, I am already at 14 losing streak, so 15 is not impossible.

[ranochigo]

The increment on loss for martingale is usually x2, so that'll mean that it follows a geometric progression. For geometric progression, the sum of the total amount of money loss in an X losing streak with a base bet of B is

(b(2^x -1))/(2-1) so if you want to know the total number of losing streak that you can sustain, just use an inequality and solve for X using some indices manipulation. Not tough and it doesn't need any programming.

So comes the reality shock: You will always lose when using martingale. The longer/the more bets you have, the higher chance you will lose all of your bankroll. The probability of a losing streak of X will increase exponentially with time/trials. In a perfect scenario, with unlimited bank roll and 0% house edge, you're expected to come to the same amount of money that you have at the start. In reality, house edge is usually 1% or so, so you'll lose 1% of your money with an unlimited bank roll.

You are statistically proven to lose against the house. No strategies can mitigate this, perhaps strategies in blackjack and stuff with card counting can reduce the house edge but not games that are purely based on chance.

[Zackgeno96]

That was a hell of a math right there, I didn't know we could compute the possible lose streak on a martingale strategy all I knew was that if I lose 4 times I stop and the maximum losing streak so far that I experience was 12.

[RokokGudangGaram]

I frequently use martingale strategy but I did not really give any thought of how to compute lose streak while using it. Good thing that someone replied about the computation and it I am sure that it will be of significant help to dice game players like myself.

[madnessteat]

Very scary when you are in the last amount of your total bankroll, when you bet $16384 just to win $1 again, can you still do that?

Me, I think I will think twice before putting that bet, I am already at 14 losing streak, so 15 is not impossible.

Thanks for the comment, the bankroll in that case should be $32767. I only use this strategy in dice. My initial bet is much less than a dollar. The likelihood that you lose 14 times in a row is very small unless of course the number algorithm works against the player. If your last bet wins, you are out of the game in the winnings.

[Saint-loup]

5-10-20-40

4 losing streaks because your betting will stop on 5th ones since it do requires $80 into your balance on next bet.
So that would total in $155 which is more than of your balance.

Yes after his 4th loss, he will only hold 25$ while he will need 80 to place a 5th bet.
100-5=95
95-10=85
85-20=65
65-40=25