Martingale strategy in casinos

[QueenVera]

The martingale strategy to me is a dead trap and I will never encourage anyone to ever practice such principle especially those that don't have that much money to practice such strategy and I also see this very strategy as a sickening one because I see no reason why I should be doubling my betting amount at every instance and I had to wonder if I gambled with $1000 dollars and unfortunately I loss the bet and money and I have to practice martingale strategy which implies that I will have to double my bet upto $2000 dollar to be able to cover up my previous loss and now what if unfortunately again I loss the $2000 which means I will have to bet over $4000 to be able to cover up $3000 dollar that is already gone and what if there is another loss again which means I'm ready in a $7000 dollar loss which isn't a small amount and will take much more effort to recover.
Hence the martingale strategy isn't a favourable one to me and from my perspective.

[blockman]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

[romero121]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

Maybe once in 100 tries Martingale strategy works but mostly it fails. Trying over and over but getting same loss streaks aka busting all balance at the end means something is wrong that has been explained on this thread. Leaving casino happy means strategy by gambler has worked somehow no matter it was Martingale or different money management method. Regardless of bankroll, player can't keep doubling each loss bet, it is recipe for failure, IMHO.

The lucky ones will win few attempts. I personally have tried martingale strategy several times and I've experienced massive losses out of it. In particular I've lost more than 10 consecutive rolls several times. This is our unlucky day. If we've used some other money management maybe we could've won something, if not atleast we could've avoided rhe loss. Casino always have got the edge, if not everyone will somehow manage the bankroll and make the gambling platform go bankrupt. We should have the common understanding, gambling is fun and we should take it in the same way than complicating it.

[Webetcoins]

The martingale strategy to me is a dead trap and I will never encourage anyone to ever practice such principle especially those that don't have that much money to practice such strategy and I also see this very strategy as a sickening one because I see no reason why I should be doubling my betting amount at every instance and I had to wonder if I gambled with $1000 dollars and unfortunately I loss the bet and money and I have to practice martingale strategy which implies that I will have to double my bet upto $2000 dollar to be able to cover up my previous loss and now what if unfortunately again I loss the $2000 which means I will have to bet over $4000 to be able to cover up $3000 dollar that is already gone and what if there is another loss again which means I'm ready in a $7000 dollar loss which isn't a small amount and will take much more effort to recover.
Hence the martingale strategy isn't a favourable one to me and from my perspective.

Well, $1000 is a pretty large amount for a starting bet, and only high rollers will do that, but you are right that if a person is using martingale strategy to cover their losses, they will eventually reach the end of their bankroll if they get a loss streak higher than they were expecting and it actually happens and I say that because I've experienced it.

I used to use martingale strategy in my initial days of gambling when Stake was first launched, it actually works a couple of times and then you become confident and do it again, but then, the house edge hits you pretty hard and you lose everything in a matter of minutes.

[smyslov]

Well, $1000 is a pretty large amount for a starting bet, and only high rollers will do that, but you are right that if a person is using martingale strategy to cover their losses, they will eventually reach the end of their bankroll if they get a loss streak higher than they were expecting and it actually happens and I say that because I've experienced it.

I used to use martingale strategy in my initial days of gambling when Stake was first launched, it actually works a couple of times and then you become confident and do it again, but then, the house edge hits you pretty hard and you lose everything in a matter of minutes.

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

[Jawhead999]

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

But chasing losses when you're betting with a same amount is impossible because if you calculate it, you will lose due to the house edge. In martingale strategy, you have calculate if you will not lose since you win you will recover all of your previous losses, but in the reality the result isn't same like the expectation.

That's why it has been mentioned if someone want to gamble using martingale strategy, they must need an unlimited money.

[blockman]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

Maybe once in 100 tries Martingale strategy works but mostly it fails. Trying over and over but getting same loss streaks aka busting all balance at the end means something is wrong that has been explained on this thread. Leaving casino happy means strategy by gambler has worked somehow no matter it was Martingale or different money management method. Regardless of bankroll, player can't keep doubling each loss bet, it is recipe for failure, IMHO.

Yes, we have all proven that it doesn't really work for most. There could be a few times that it will but for our lifetime, it's just going to give us the most losses.
If someone wealthy is having fun with that and that doesn't look at big problem to him then he may do it anytime he may want for a long period of time.
That's if he's got almost unlimited money but even I've got unli money, I would be wise on how I'll spend that properly.

[o48o]

With using martingale strategy, you decrease your chance of winning.

Let's say you have 1 BTC and you want to double it in a casino with the house edge of 1%. If you bet your whole balance in a single bet, the chance of winning would be 49%.
If you start with 1 satoshi, double the bet amount every time you lose and set the bet amount to 1 satoshi every time you win, the chance to double your 1 BTC before losing so many times in a row so that you can no longer double the bet amount would be less than 28%.

I know that martingale doesn't work, that's been proven many times, but surely it doesn't decrease the chance of winning. It doesn't increase it either. House edge is a house edge, you can't fight it and technically any sort of tactic has a same changes of winning in the end. It's all about statistics and luck.

[KTChampions]

With using martingale strategy, you decrease your chance of winning.

Let's say you have 1 BTC and you want to double it in a casino with the house edge of 1%. If you bet your whole balance in a single bet, the chance of winning would be 49%.
If you start with 1 satoshi, double the bet amount every time you lose and set the bet amount to 1 satoshi every time you win, the chance to double your 1 BTC before losing so many times in a row so that you can no longer double the bet amount would be less than 28%.

I know that martingale doesn't work, that's been proven many times, but surely it doesn't decrease the chance of winning. It doesn't increase it either. House edge is a house edge, you can't fight it and technically any sort of tactic has a same changes of winning in the end. It's all about statistics and luck.

In theory, yes, but you were shown specific numbers above (I hope they are correct, but even if not, the essence does not change) and from them it follows that the longer the distance, the less your chances. If you immediately put your bitcoin on one bet (all in), then your chance to double is 49%, if you use Martingale (with any bet split by at least 100 at least 1000 parts), then your chances will only decrease.

[libert19]

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

But chasing losses when you're betting with a same amount is impossible because if you calculate it, you will lose due to the house edge. In martingale strategy, you have calculate if you will not lose since you win you will recover all of your previous losses, but in the reality the result isn't same like the expectation.

That's why it has been mentioned if someone want to gamble using martingale strategy, they must need an unlimited money.

There is no fun in gambling with unlimited money. I could go to some testnet casino, use martingale or whatever strategy there exists but it would be no fun cause there is no monetary gain involved, unlimited money would pose similar cause well you have unlimited money, win/lose why does it matter when you have unlimited supply of it? The very possibility of winning/losing keeps gambling fun.

[worle1bm]

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

But chasing losses when you're betting with a same amount is impossible because if you calculate it, you will lose due to the house edge. In martingale strategy, you have calculate if you will not lose since you win you will recover all of your previous losses, but in the reality the result isn't same like the expectation.

That's why it has been mentioned if someone want to gamble using martingale strategy, they must need an unlimited money.

There is no fun in gambling with unlimited money. I could go to some testnet casino, use martingale or whatever strategy there exists but it would be no fun cause there is no monetary gain involved, unlimited money would pose similar cause well you have unlimited money, win/lose why does it matter when you have unlimited supply of it? The very possibility of winning/losing keeps gambling fun.

Martingale strategy push you to regular betting until the outcome is in your favour so you also need to have funds with you to keep wagering but what after few bets you get normal profits? You have lost more then what you have recovered so for me also if you are wagering with this method it won't work but some people have money to support them and find it attractive so we all have different taste in gambling.

[libert19]

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

But chasing losses when you're betting with a same amount is impossible because if you calculate it, you will lose due to the house edge. In martingale strategy, you have calculate if you will not lose since you win you will recover all of your previous losses, but in the reality the result isn't same like the expectation.

That's why it has been mentioned if someone want to gamble using martingale strategy, they must need an unlimited money.

There is no fun in gambling with unlimited money. I could go to some testnet casino, use martingale or whatever strategy there exists but it would be no fun cause there is no monetary gain involved, unlimited money would pose similar cause well you have unlimited money, win/lose why does it matter when you have unlimited supply of it? The very possibility of winning/losing keeps gambling fun.

Martingale strategy push you to regular betting until the outcome is in your favour so you also need to have funds with you to keep wagering but what after few bets you get normal profits? You have lost more then what you have recovered so for me also if you are wagering with this method it won't work but some people have money to support them and find it attractive so we all have different taste in gambling.

My response was meant for case of 'unlimited money'. Martingale may be successful with large amounts of money but in case of 'unlimited money' — gambling itself becomes flavourless.

[Mauser]

The martingale strategy to me is a dead trap and I will never encourage anyone to ever practice such principle especially those that don't have that much money to practice such strategy and I also see this very strategy as a sickening one because I see no reason why I should be doubling my betting amount at every instance and I had to wonder if I gambled with $1000 dollars and unfortunately I loss the bet and money and I have to practice martingale strategy which implies that I will have to double my bet upto $2000 dollar to be able to cover up my previous loss and now what if unfortunately again I loss the $2000 which means I will have to bet over $4000 to be able to cover up $3000 dollar that is already gone and what if there is another loss again which means I'm ready in a $7000 dollar loss which isn't a small amount and will take much more effort to recover.
Hence the martingale strategy isn't a favourable one to me and from my perspective.

It's true that there is a risk with the martingale strategy that can lead to very big losses. Especially when starting with large initial bet amounts like 2,000 USD for example. If we can't cover a losing streak of 4-5 losses in a row then we used our strategy wrong. There are always winning and losing streaks in gambling and it's important to account for them in our strategies. The main advantage of the martingale strategy is that one single win will cover all our previous losses. You either like or hate strategy, there isn't much in between. People who like fixed strategies that tell us exactly how much to bet and when will be more in favour for martingale, than people who prefer to be more flexible with their bets. It's important to understand to understand all the risks before and not fall in the believe that martingale is a save way to make guaranteed profits.

[len01]

Chasing losses and martingale sounds the same to me, you are chasing your previous losses until nothing is left, and the house edge comes in at unexpected times, the highest amount I've spent in a martingale was $300 and but that amount was not safe even in the lowest bet because streak could go over 20, I stopped using it, it's just not worth it.
better do selective martingale or random it's more exciting and surprising using these two methods, but don't expect to win just have fun.

But chasing losses when you're betting with a same amount is impossible because if you calculate it, you will lose due to the house edge. In martingale strategy, you have calculate if you will not lose since you win you will recover all of your previous losses, but in the reality the result isn't same like the expectation.

That's why it has been mentioned if someone want to gamble using martingale strategy, they must need an unlimited money.

There is no fun in gambling with unlimited money. I could go to some testnet casino, use martingale or whatever strategy there exists but it would be no fun cause there is no monetary gain involved, unlimited money would pose similar cause well you have unlimited money, win/lose why does it matter when you have unlimited supply of it? The very possibility of winning/losing keeps gambling fun.

having unlimited money to use the martingale strategy would not be fun. because there is no purpose whatsoever when having unlimited money even if the gambler loses how many millions of dollars it doesn't matter because he still has an unlimited amount.
meanwhile, as we have limited money and use strategies to recover losses or gain profits, it is like the thrill of gambling and can feel that it is more fun to gamble with limited money than having unlimited money but not being able to enjoy every betting session.

[BobK71]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

Maybe once in 100 tries Martingale strategy works but mostly it fails. Trying over and over but getting same loss streaks aka busting all balance at the end means something is wrong that has been explained on this thread. Leaving casino happy means strategy by gambler has worked somehow no matter it was Martingale or different money management method. Regardless of bankroll, player can't keep doubling each loss bet, it is recipe for failure, IMHO.

A lot of money is required to implement this strategy. Which is often not possible for a gambler. Also, there is no guarantee by using this strategy. In the martingale method if one loses several bets in a row, one has the possibility of losing a lot of money which many of the gamblers may not be able to recover. Moreover, if one loses three times in a row, his condition will become worse. Gambling is already risky and this strategy can be even more risky.

[tusandii]

having unlimited money to use the martingale strategy would not be fun. because there is no purpose whatsoever when having unlimited money even if the gambler loses how many millions of dollars it doesn't matter because he still has an unlimited amount.
meanwhile, as we have limited money and use strategies to recover losses or gain profits, it is like the thrill of gambling and can feel that it is more fun to gamble with limited money than having unlimited money but not being able to enjoy every betting session.

But in the martingale strategy, having large amounts of money is a must because it is very influential for success in playing.
But also not all gamblers who have large amounts of money will use this strategy because it is very risky to lose more money.
The strategy is indeed good enough to bring in a chance of victory but if luck is not on your side then no one can chase victory.
In gambling strategy is still a number because the most important thing is luck and caution in betting.

[goinmerry]

It's important to understand to understand all the risks before and not fall in the believe that martingale is a save way to make guaranteed profits.

In the very first place, who told these gamblers that martingale can be considered a strategy? I'm sure those who got lucky with that betting method are those who think that martingale is a strategy since after all, they have won using that method.

Regardless of any strategy, those casino games, dice games, and other same type of games that relies on random hashes to generate the result can't be influenced. Luck is really needed in these kinds of gambling games in order to win.

Since luck is the only key, once luck came to us and hit a good win, be responsible enough to take a break and just come back next time.

[AmoreJaz]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

Maybe once in 100 tries Martingale strategy works but mostly it fails. Trying over and over but getting same loss streaks aka busting all balance at the end means something is wrong that has been explained on this thread. Leaving casino happy means strategy by gambler has worked somehow no matter it was Martingale or different money management method. Regardless of bankroll, player can't keep doubling each loss bet, it is recipe for failure, IMHO.

A lot of money is required to implement this strategy. Which is often not possible for a gambler. Also, there is no guarantee by using this strategy. In the martingale method if one loses several bets in a row, one has the possibility of losing a lot of money which many of the gamblers may not be able to recover. Moreover, if one loses three times in a row, his condition will become worse. Gambling is already risky and this strategy can be even more risky.

good amount of money and luck should be on your side to get some winnings. martingale or any other strategy applied can't guarantee you will go home with your winnings. always remember that this is gambling and there's always house edge. the dilemma of most gamblers using strategy like martingale is that even if they already got their winnings, they are not yet contented and keeps on playing hoping they will hit bigger amount. however, we all know the end game if you continue playing, your bankroll most likely will run out and there's no going back and say, i should have stopped a lot sooner.

[Mahanton]

Any strategy in gambling cannot be justified even though it is a martingale strategy that really requires a large bankroll and sometimes gamblers who have large bankrolls will still lose with the martingale strategy.
It's all because the casino knows how to win and any strategy we use will be useless unless we are lucky.
So there is truth in what you say that the best choice to win is to gamble for fun.

Yes, even with larger bankrolls, that's not going to guarantee that they'll leave the casino happily. It's more of an emotional battle and no one knows if that's going to be a good sign for them to stay because they've been winning. But the thought of having a large pool of funds and bankrolls will make them stay confident that they'll not go out of the casino sad but instead, with some huge money from their winnings. And if it is with this strategy, take all of those people that have said that it didn't work for them because it didn't.

Maybe once in 100 tries Martingale strategy works but mostly it fails. Trying over and over but getting same loss streaks aka busting all balance at the end means something is wrong that has been explained on this thread. Leaving casino happy means strategy by gambler has worked somehow no matter it was Martingale or different money management method. Regardless of bankroll, player can't keep doubling each loss bet, it is recipe for failure, IMHO.

A lot of money is required to implement this strategy. Which is often not possible for a gambler. Also, there is no guarantee by using this strategy. In the martingale method if one loses several bets in a row, one has the possibility of losing a lot of money which many of the gamblers may not be able to recover. Moreover, if one loses three times in a row, his condition will become worse. Gambling is already risky and this strategy can be even more risky.

good amount of money and luck should be on your side to get some winnings. martingale or any other strategy applied can't guarantee you will go home with your winnings. always remember that this is gambling and there's always house edge. the dilemma of most gamblers using strategy like martingale is that even if they already got their winnings, they are not yet contented and keeps on playing hoping they will hit bigger amount. however, we all know the end game if you continue playing, your bankroll most likely will run out and there's no going back and say, i should have stopped a lot sooner.

We should really bare up into our minds that no matter or what kind of strategy you would be using would really be having no assurance that it would really be resulting into a positive one or making guaranteed profits because thats not how gambling works. Martingale strategy is somewhat a very common strategy on which you would be doubling up your bet on the time you would be losing which means that the higher the losing streak would be the higher chances of your entire bankroll would bust up because doubling anytime you do lose does really need that huge amount of capital basing up on the base bet that you have set out.
Yes, it does mean that it would vary on the base bet you had set out but we know that even putting it into the minimal side wouldnt make out guarantees that you could survive a long losing streak.

Wayback when im still a noob which i do believe that 20x+ losing streak or more is impossible until the moment comes that i myself did really have able to experience
way more than that.

[slapper]

The martingale strategy to me is a dead trap and I will never encourage anyone to ever practice such principle especially those that don't have that much money to practice such strategy and I also see this very strategy as a sickening one because I see no reason why I should be doubling my betting amount at every instance and I had to wonder if I gambled with $1000 dollars and unfortunately I loss the bet and money and I have to practice martingale strategy which implies that I will have to double my bet upto $2000 dollar to be able to cover up my previous loss and now what if unfortunately again I loss the $2000 which means I will have to bet over $4000 to be able to cover up $3000 dollar that is already gone and what if there is another loss again which means I'm ready in a $7000 dollar loss which isn't a small amount and will take much more effort to recover.
Hence the martingale strategy isn't a favourable one to me and from my perspective.

It's true that there is a risk with the martingale strategy that can lead to very big losses. Especially when starting with large initial bet amounts like 2,000 USD for example. If we can't cover a losing streak of 4-5 losses in a row then we used our strategy wrong. There are always winning and losing streaks in gambling and it's important to account for them in our strategies. The main advantage of the martingale strategy is that one single win will cover all our previous losses. You either like or hate strategy, there isn't much in between. People who like fixed strategies that tell us exactly how much to bet and when will be more in favour for martingale, than people who prefer to be more flexible with their bets. It's important to understand to understand all the risks before and not fall in the believe that martingale is a save way to make guaranteed profits.

"There's no such thing as a free lunch," they say. Martingales can win large, but they're risky. It's crucial to gamble carefully and consider all outcomes. The martingale method is good for predictable bettors, but we shouldn't assume it's always right. Multiple losses could lead to huge losses. The martingale technique is ultimately our choice. But we must understand the risks and benefits. We decide whether to risk.