.

[Cling18]

With Martingale, you can gamble more times co.pared to one time bet which is in the name itself. The problem with Martingale though is that you should have a lot of money for show to survive losses because each loss is going to increase your bet which aims to recover the past loss as quick as possible but it can also deplete your money real fast.

Martingale actually just increases your chance to win on just a short-term basis but you could probably get more losses as you try to gain more winnings or recover from what you have lost. If you're planning to use it as a long-term strategy, you might have regrets in the end. That's actually the reason why I've just tried it once because that's how I see it based on what I have experienced.

[death69]

It is because they have the different belief. In spite of being somehow sophisticated, the house edge never change and people have to understand the edge controls everything. Using martingale may extend your playtime, but the outcome remains the same, unless you are lucky (the main point of gambling is to test our luck, right). I usually see people who utilize martingale system believing that they can change the results and earn stable money with gambling. But in fact, they end up like gamblers who play for fun, some even worse.

[just_Alice]

Because people fail to understand the probabilities and like to think of the possibility to "hack the system" and find an ultimate winning strategy. You're absolutely right, the chances of losing while placing a single bet and with Martingale are the same.

It's pure psychology of self-consolation, that does the trick. When placing a single bet a gambler thinks "I might win, or I might lose, it's a 50/50 chance" (with respective odds, of course).

But with Martingale the gamblers are often deluded by the thinking that with each bet the chances of winning increase. They go like "I've already lost 6 times in a row, I will definitely win in the next round". While, in fact, the chances are still the same and they can keep losing.

Your logic makes sense and I believe, a lot of gamblers have that kind of perspective.
This is why some like to use martingale system because of that perception.
Anyway, in my opinion, if the game is luck-based, whether you use martingale or one-time bet, still your chance of losing is always there.
Don't think that you have high chance of winning when you practice either one of these strategies.

I'd have to disagree since technically there's a difference between the two. Yes, they both rely on a 50/50 chance, but Martingale is there to at least make/skew that 50/50 to your side, making it so that you don't lose it all at once like the 50/50 dictates. It's like it's lying to the possibilities by spreading it out evenly. Unlike a one-time bet, now that's a true-to-life 50/50 chance of you losing money. Yes, the chances are the same as always, it doesn't go up nor does it go down, but a spread out 50/50 chance vs a one time 50/50 chance have different results from each other. I guess that's what gamblers go for.

In the short run, absolutely, the outcomes may seem different. But what about the long-term perspective? Doubling bets is dangerous, it creates exponential-like growth and in a blink of an eye you reach your limits and end up betting everything you have, returning back to your 50/50 chances in order to recover from losses. One has to either place very small bets (which is kind of pointless, brings no profit) in order to be able to afford 6-7 losses in a row (which isn't that rare) or play big, which will lead to going all-in very soon.

[Jemzx00]

It is because they have the different belief. In spite of being somehow sophisticated, the house edge never change and people have to understand the edge controls everything. Using martingale may extend your playtime, but the outcome remains the same, unless you are lucky (the main point of gambling is to test our luck, right). I usually see people who utilize martingale system believing that they can change the results and earn stable money with gambling. But in fact, they end up like gamblers who play for fun, some even worse.

Hmmm.. I don't think that using martingale method will always produce the same result everytime. You must always check your outcome to make sure that the method works better but even if you don't utilize the martingale method that outcome with different result whether you win or lose. I've use the martingale method many times way back when I was playing dice and I've earned quite a decent amount of money. But sometimes I lose by using this method.

[uneng]

Because people fail to understand the probabilities and like to think of the possibility to "hack the system" and find an ultimate winning strategy. You're absolutely right, the chances of losing while placing a single bet and with Martingale are the same.

It's pure psychology of self-consolation, that does the trick. When placing a single bet a gambler thinks "I might win, or I might lose, it's a 50/50 chance" (with respective odds, of course).

But with Martingale the gamblers are often deluded by the thinking that with each bet the chances of winning increase. They go like "I've already lost 6 times in a row, I will definitely win in the next round". While, in fact, the chances are still the same and they can keep losing.

Your logic makes sense and I believe, a lot of gamblers have that kind of perspective.
This is why some like to use martingale system because of that perception.
Anyway, in my opinion, if the game is luck-based, whether you use martingale or one-time bet, still your chance of losing is always there.
Don't think that you have high chance of winning when you practice either one of these strategies.

I'd have to disagree since technically there's a difference between the two. Yes, they both rely on a 50/50 chance, but Martingale is there to at least make/skew that 50/50 to your side, making it so that you don't lose it all at once like the 50/50 dictates. It's like it's lying to the possibilities by spreading it out evenly. Unlike a one-time bet, now that's a true-to-life 50/50 chance of you losing money. Yes, the chances are the same as always, it doesn't go up nor does it go down, but a spread out 50/50 chance vs a one time 50/50 chance have different results from each other. I guess that's what gamblers go for.

In the short run, absolutely, the outcomes may seem different. But what about the long-term perspective? Doubling bets is dangerous, it creates exponential-like growth and in a blink of an eye you reach your limits and end up betting everything you have, returning back to your 50/50 chances in order to recover from losses. One has to either place very small bets (which is kind of pointless, brings no profit) in order to be able to afford 6-7 losses in a row (which isn't that rare) or play big, which will lead to going all-in very soon.

On long run no strategies work in a game like dice, as all of them end resulting in the same thing: loss. But the point is that you need to use a strategy to survive in game until you reach the so called long run, making most profit as possible meanwhile, and to use all your money in a single bet isn't an option.
In gambling a worthless strategy is still better than no strategies. Moreover everything the gambler can do is to expect the best results from the method in use while it's still working.

[Twentyonepaylots]

The difference between the two is the guarantee of getting the next try. You won't get the second round guaranteed on a one-time-betting system because it is heavily reliant on you winning the first round. If you don't win that round, you wouldn't have enough funding to carry on with the next. The Martingale strategy however, at the very least guarantees that you would still be able to bet even if you lost the first round, since it is imperative that you drag it out probably by using your pocket money in cases where you lose.

[magneto]

In fact, many now use the Martingale system instead of doing one stroke of luck, and the strange thing is that it is also liable to lose the same "chance" if it plays one betting with all the amount, and the question here is, why do gamblers prefer this system to a single roll?

Human psychology.

As you said, there is absolutely zero difference between rolling 1 BTC once on 2x dice, or using some elaborate martingale system over 1000 rolls and generating a gambling volume of 1 BTC over that process.

Your EV is going to be exactly the same regardless.

Gamblers feel like they're accomplishing something by having a strategy, but at the end of the day it's all luck. Not the most rational beings around.

[death69]

It is because they have the different belief. In spite of being somehow sophisticated, the house edge never change and people have to understand the edge controls everything. Using martingale may extend your playtime, but the outcome remains the same, unless you are lucky (the main point of gambling is to test our luck, right). I usually see people who utilize martingale system believing that they can change the results and earn stable money with gambling. But in fact, they end up like gamblers who play for fun, some even worse.

Hmmm.. I don't think that using martingale method will always produce the same result everytime. You must always check your outcome to make sure that the method works better but even if you don't utilize the martingale method that outcome with different result whether you win or lose. I've use the martingale method many times way back when I was playing dice and I've earned quite a decent amount of money. But sometimes I lose by using this method.

So you say you earned quite a decent amount of money but sometimes you lose, right? Overall, the results must be totally loss. Because if you do have profit after you subject all losing days, gambling with your martingale strategy must be a good source of passive income. But as far as I see, you do not have enough proof supporting your idea. According to my information, only poker is one of the game that give you decent income if you have adequte and deep knowledge about it

Dice, hm, is just a sort of entertainment

[Mauser]

In fact, many now use the Martingale system instead of doing one stroke of luck, and the strange thing is that it is also liable to lose the same "chance" if it plays one betting with all the amount, and the question here is, why do gamblers prefer this system to a single roll?

Human psychology.

As you said, there is absolutely zero difference between rolling 1 BTC once on 2x dice, or using some elaborate martingale system over 1000 rolls and generating a gambling volume of 1 BTC over that process.

Your EV is going to be exactly the same regardless.

Gamblers feel like they're accomplishing something by having a strategy, but at the end of the day it's all luck. Not the most rational beings around.

You are right, the EV is the same, but these two gamblings are different. Gambling only one bet compared to 100 or 1000 small bets has a lot of more volatility. Your chances of winning are the same. But with betting 1 time you can either win or lose, while losing a 100 times in a row is very unrealistic. Betting in smaller amounts over longer periods will usually result in lower returns but also with lower risk to go broke.

[pilosopotasyo]

In fact, many now use the Martingale system instead of doing one stroke of luck, and the strange thing is that it is also liable to lose the same "chance" if it plays one betting with all the amount, and the question here is, why do gamblers prefer this system to a single roll?

It's more preferable because it allows you to manage your money and your roll compare to one single roll where you put everything because your gambling time can be over within one roll, you are here to have some fun and you will not have fun playing one roll, at least you must have strategy especially in gambling where money is involve , not one of my friend play with one roll it's not attractive, maybe to some it is.

[Kakmakr]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

[mindrust]

House do always win as we do know if we do play even on longer runs and there's no way that we can beat it out because thats the reality on gambling.

Martingale system is just really making the game longer but doesnt mean that it would really be putting you out on an advantage but people do still keep on
using up this common strategy on where to believe that they can really beat up the house which is really a wrong mindset to have.
There are people who do like on few bet kind of gambling and doesnt care nor matter if it would really be directly be showing some win or lose.

Think it like this: If the house (the casino) wasn't going to profit in the long run, it wouldn't exist right now in the first place. The reason that the casino still do exist and you can make bets there, it is because the casino will take your money in the long run. Surely there will always be some lucky people who can get out in time right after they win their lucky bet but even if they don't return to the same casino, they will go to somewhere else and they are likely to lose their winnings there.

[freedomgo]

In fact, many now use the Martingale system instead of doing one stroke of luck, and the strange thing is that it is also liable to lose the same "chance" if it plays one betting with all the amount, and the question here is, why do gamblers prefer this system to a single roll?

Simply beacuse they also want to enjoy the game at the same time, when you are enjoying and you won in the end, you will have the feeling of fulfilmnet. That's mostly the mentality of the gamblers, sometimes we even want our bankroll to grow multiple times, 10x or more.

[robelneo]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

In the long run, all martingale methods will not beat the house edge, you will win at some point but if you do not know how to quit and you always think that you can beat the house edge the house will beat you, it's really all in the mind whether you want to play using martingale or using one roll go with what will satisfy you, but if you ask me I am not into one roll, I prefer using martingale win or lose I prefer it.

[Silberman]

In fact, many now use the Martingale system instead of doing one stroke of luck, and the strange thing is that it is also liable to lose the same "chance" if it plays one betting with all the amount, and the question here is, why do gamblers prefer this system to a single roll?

Human psychology.

As you said, there is absolutely zero difference between rolling 1 BTC once on 2x dice, or using some elaborate martingale system over 1000 rolls and generating a gambling volume of 1 BTC over that process.

Your EV is going to be exactly the same regardless.

Gamblers feel like they're accomplishing something by having a strategy, but at the end of the day it's all luck. Not the most rational beings around.

You are not wrong however this only takes into account the money side of things, most gamblers play because they enjoy the feeling they get when they gamble, risking everything in a single bet is not mathematically different than doing so in many small bets as your chances of losing are still the same but the entertainment value you get out of the two is completely different, and as we know gambling is supposed to be done only for entertainment purposes so betting everything on a single roll does not accomplish that goal.

[agustina2]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

Even we already know that whatever strategies applied, we will lose in the end, gamblers just want to experience the feeling of playing with their luck in the long run instead of doing a one-time bet. The chances of winning by doing multiple bets are higher compare to a one-time big-time bet.

The only thing now is, once won, get out or just play few rounds. A gambler must do everything to stop themselves in an event of winning. It's really hard to stop once we won because the feeling of being pumped is always there.

[Oilacris]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

Even we already know that whatever strategies applied, we will lose in the end, gamblers just want to experience the feeling of playing with their luck in the long run instead of doing a one-time bet. The chances of winning by doing multiple bets are higher compare to a one-time big-time bet.

The only thing now is, once won, get out or just play few rounds. A gambler must do everything to stop themselves in an event of winning. It's really hard to stop once we won because the feeling of being pumped is always there.

You would really get pumped up when you are on the winning side which most likely on gamblers will lose after a long run because they wont really stop as long they do still have money into their pockets
which is actually common.

Gamblers do really love to make the game longer thats why they do prefer on making use of different strategies and hope that they would able to make profits when they tend to use it up.

For one time bets then there are people who do make out such bet where they do put and roll it once or simply goes all in and if they lost then they would stop but depending
if they do still have money to spent or not.

[traderethereum]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

Even we already know that whatever strategies applied, we will lose in the end, gamblers just want to experience the feeling of playing with their luck in the long run instead of doing a one-time bet. The chances of winning by doing multiple bets are higher compare to a one-time big-time bet.

The only thing now is, once won, get out or just play few rounds. A gambler must do everything to stop themselves in an event of winning. It's really hard to stop once we won because the feeling of being pumped is always there.

Maybe from many strategies that we knew can give us winning for some time, the rest will lose us.
There is no big chance to win in gambling, using many strategies or just playing and clicking randomly.
When they can spread their money for many rounds, they will have more chances to win, and who knows, by doing that, our luck will come to us and give the winning.
But using one time shot will not be better because we can not play in the next rounds.

[Taskford]

I think there are some human desire to beat the house, because people are using all these strategies and none of them ever work. Some sites said that they have counters for the Martingale strategy, but I think they lie... if they use a Provably Fair system. You also get different variations on the Martingale strategy... like : "The Break-Even Martingale Strategy" or "The Inverse Martingale Strategy"

You also get "The D’Alembert Strategy" and "The Paroli Strategy" ..... but most of them will not drastically improve your chances to profit. It is all in the mind. 

Even we already know that whatever strategies applied, we will lose in the end, gamblers just want to experience the feeling of playing with their luck in the long run instead of doing a one-time bet. The chances of winning by doing multiple bets are higher compare to a one-time big-time bet.

The only thing now is, once won, get out or just play few rounds. A gambler must do everything to stop themselves in an event of winning. It's really hard to stop once we won because the feeling of being pumped is always there.

But using one time shot will not be better because we can not play in the next rounds.

1 time betting is never be a good option to choose by the gambler since this is so risky, we will lose everything in just a single bit and no chances to bounce back if we lose so I discourage gamblers to use this option. Martingale is more fun than doing that methods since on martingale we can do a good exhibition bets and from that we can really enjoy our game.

[xSkylarx]

I prefer martingale because it is more fun to watch how many losing streaks you will reach until you win again. There is no enjoyment in doing a one-time-bet for me, and doing this has higher chance of losing than martingale strategy. If you lose, there would be no chance to recover again unless you deposit more in your bankroll. Gambling is all about pure luck so people that win in a one-time-bet are very lucky. The chance of winning from it is like winning from a lottery.