Does martingale really works?

[bank of bits]

"In 73 spins, there is a 50.3% chance that you will at some point have lost at least 6 spins in a row."
"In 150 spins, there is a 77.2% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
"In 250 spins, there is a 91.1% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system

[1713551729]

1713551729

[1713551729]

1713551729

[1713551729]

1713551729

[1713551729]

1713551729

[CoinCidental]

It works but only for a small time. Best not to use it for longer betting streaks. You can also use its variations to last longer though.

whats the point in lasting longer  just to lose your money again ?

[Pony789]

"In 73 spins, there is a 50.3% chance that you will at some point have lost at least 6 spins in a row."
"In 150 spins, there is a 77.2% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
"In 250 spins, there is a 91.1% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

Where did you get those probabilities from? I couldn't find it on that wiki page.

[deisik]

"In 73 spins, there is a 50.3% chance that you will at some point have lost at least 6 spins in a row."
"In 150 spins, there is a 77.2% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
"In 250 spins, there is a 91.1% chance that you will lose at least 6 spins in a row at some point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

Where did you get those probabilities from? I couldn't find it on that wiki page.

It seems that this part got deleted from the Wikipedia article, but you could find it by Google search. The Wiki page about the martingale betting system looks like an abridged version of this text taken from World Heritage Encyclopedia...

[The Wise Guy]

The martingale strategy does not work, you have to look at it this way; the smaller your base bet is compared to your bankroll, the more bets you will win before the "big bust", and the smaller your base bets compared to your bankroll, the bigger the "big bust" relative to your base bet.

On the same token, the larger your base bet compared to your bankroll, the less bets you will win before the "big bust" and the relative size of the "big bust" to your base bets.

So all in all, it's more effective to do a few large bets, and hope to get lucky, because martingale is impossible without an infinite bankroll.

[the joint]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

[Bardman]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

[the joint]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

[GrandmaJean]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more

[the joint]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more

Lol well, the math works just fine...greed not withstanding

[Bardman]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more

Lol well, the math works just fine...greed not withstanding

Well actually the math does not work just fine since 10 - 100 times people would lose so casino still wins anyways

[GrandmaJean]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more

Lol well, the math works just fine...greed not withstanding

Well actually the math does not work just fine since 10 - 100 times people would lose so casino still wins anyways

you did not read his post did you? it looks that you just posted and thats it. he clearly stated that you go 90% win chance bet and either win or loose and then you should walk away. if you win the bet you would walk out in profit

[Bardman]

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

The odds are never in your favor no matter what

That depends on your objective.

If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more

Lol well, the math works just fine...greed not withstanding

Well actually the math does not work just fine since 10 - 100 times people would lose so casino still wins anyways

you did not read his post did you? it looks that you just posted and thats it. he clearly stated that you go 90% win chance bet and either win or loose and then you should walk away. if you win the bet you would walk out in profit

And i clearly stated that some people would lose, what happens then?

[dooglus]

how about using preroll on dice so we can get some starter to save some money? so it will hold last longer

Prerolling doesn't work either.

That's where you roll tiny bets until you've seen 20 losses in a row, then start martingale betting from a larger base. The logic "since we just saw 20 losses in a row there probably isn't much of the losing streak left". That logic is faulty. The odds of seeing a streak of any given length in the next few bets are the same whether you've just rolled until you saw 20 losses in a row or not. Because all rolls are mutually independent.

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

If you quit while you're ahead then you're likely to end up ahead. Is that what you're saying? It's true, like how "2 equals 2" is true.

For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1

For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17

You skipped the bet of 16.

I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows:

1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32...

I'm writing down the profit per bet. When you bet 16 and win, that's a "+16" profit. When you bet 16 and lose, that's a "-16" profit. You didn't write +16 or -16 and went straight from -8 (a losing bet of size 8 ) to +32 (a winning bet of size 32).

"near 50/50 chance" means that it slightly favors the house. this is enough to make sure that the house comes out ahead of all of these schemes.

No, it isn't. It makes it likely that the house comes out ahead but doesn't make sure of it. Players can get lucky and be ahead.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

This depends on what you mean by "the odds are in your favour". I offer you this bet:

* give me $100
* roll a dice
* if you roll 1 you lose
* if you roll 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, I'll give you $101

Are the odds in your favour?

5 times out of 6 you win. You're 5 times more likely to win than to lose. But when you win you only win $1, and when you lose you lose $100.

I would say that the odds are not in your favour. Just because your chance of winning is greater than 50% doesn't make it a good bet (for you, at least).

Similarly with the 90% bet. To see if the odds are in your favour or not you need to multiply the payout by the chance of winning. If you get over 100 then the odds are in your favour. So if they're paying you more than 1.11111 times your stake at 90% risk, the odds are in your favour, otherwise they aren't.

[Bardman]

how about using preroll on dice so we can get some starter to save some money? so it will hold last longer

Prerolling doesn't work either.

That's where you roll tiny bets until you've seen 20 losses in a row, then start martingale betting from a larger base. The logic "since we just saw 20 losses in a row there probably isn't much of the losing streak left". That logic is faulty. The odds of seeing a streak of any given length in the next few bets are the same whether you've just rolled until you saw 20 losses in a row or not. Because all rolls are mutually independent.

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

If you quit while you're ahead then you're likely to end up ahead. Is that what you're saying? It's true, like how "2 equals 2" is true.

For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1

For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17

You skipped the bet of 16.

I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows:

1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32...

I'm writing down the profit per bet. When you bet 16 and win, that's a "+16" profit. When you bet 16 and lose, that's a "-16" profit. You didn't write +16 or -16 and went straight from -8 (a losing bet of size 8 ) to +32 (a winning bet of size 32).

"near 50/50 chance" means that it slightly favors the house. this is enough to make sure that the house comes out ahead of all of these schemes.

No, it isn't. It makes it likely that the house comes out ahead but doesn't make sure of it. Players can get lucky and be ahead.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

This depends on what you mean by "the odds are in your favour". I offer you this bet:

* give me $100
* roll a dice
* if you roll 1 you lose
* if you roll 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, I'll give you $101

Are the odds in your favour?

5 times out of 6 you win. You're 5 times more likely to win than to lose. But when you win you only win $1, and when you lose you lose $100.

I would say that the odds are not in your favour. Just because your chance of winning is greater than 50% doesn't make it a good bet (for you, at least).

Similarly with the 90% bet. To see if the odds are in your favour or not you need to multiply the payout by the chance of winning. If you get over 100 then the odds are in your favour. So if they're paying you more than 1.11111 times your stake at 90% risk, the odds are in your favour, otherwise they aren't.

Thanks for clearing that thing up Based God.

[deisik]

For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1

For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17

You skipped the bet of 16.

I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows:

1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32...

I'm writing down the profit per bet. When you bet 16 and win, that's a "+16" profit. When you bet 16 and lose, that's a "-16" profit. You didn't write +16 or -16 and went straight from -8 (a losing bet of size 8 ) to +32 (a winning bet of size 32).

You seem to have failed to read my previous posts carefully. I specifically mentioned that I had been assuming (erroneously) that the odds were set in such a way that a winning bet would recover all the previous losses plus win a profit equal to the losses accumulated in that sequence (not the original stake), since this is the way martingale is most often used (it makes no sense to win just the base bet)...

[the joint]

how about using preroll on dice so we can get some starter to save some money? so it will hold last longer

Prerolling doesn't work either.

That's where you roll tiny bets until you've seen 20 losses in a row, then start martingale betting from a larger base. The logic "since we just saw 20 losses in a row there probably isn't much of the losing streak left". That logic is faulty. The odds of seeing a streak of any given length in the next few bets are the same whether you've just rolled until you saw 20 losses in a row or not. Because all rolls are mutually independent.

The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.

If you quit while you're ahead then you're likely to end up ahead. Is that what you're saying? It's true, like how "2 equals 2" is true.

For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1

For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17

You skipped the bet of 16.

I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows:

1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32...

I'm writing down the profit per bet. When you bet 16 and win, that's a "+16" profit. When you bet 16 and lose, that's a "-16" profit. You didn't write +16 or -16 and went straight from -8 (a losing bet of size 8 ) to +32 (a winning bet of size 32).

"near 50/50 chance" means that it slightly favors the house. this is enough to make sure that the house comes out ahead of all of these schemes.

No, it isn't. It makes it likely that the house comes out ahead but doesn't make sure of it. Players can get lucky and be ahead.

If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.

Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit

For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing.  After that bet, walk away and never look back.

This depends on what you mean by "the odds are in your favour". I offer you this bet:

* give me $100
* roll a dice
* if you roll 1 you lose
* if you roll 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, I'll give you $101

Are the odds in your favour?

5 times out of 6 you win. You're 5 times more likely to win than to lose. But when you win you only win $1, and when you lose you lose $100.

I would say that the odds are not in your favour. Just because your chance of winning is greater than 50% doesn't make it a good bet (for you, at least).

Similarly with the 90% bet. To see if the odds are in your favour or not you need to multiply the payout by the chance of winning. If you get over 100 then the odds are in your favour. So if they're paying you more than 1.11111 times your stake at 90% risk, the odds are in your favour, otherwise they aren't.

Based upon a strict interpretation of my point, then yes, the odds are in my favor.

My point is best demonstrated by imagining that a hypothetical secondary bet is placed on top of the original bet.

Using your example, let's say I had a 5:6 chance of winning $1 and a 1:6 of losing $100, and I guarantee a roll according to these odds.

Now imagine that you are a spectator who is asked to bet as to whether I will profit or if I will lose.   Someone says, "Hey, I'll bet $50 that he (i.e. me) loses."  You have a spare $50 in your pocket.  Do you take the bet?

Of course you would, so the point holds.  Though, as you point out, the odds of profiting alone might not be the only thing you want to take into account...

[CryForMeSky]

My point is best demonstrated by imagining that a hypothetical secondary bet is placed on top of the original bet.

Using your example, let's say I had a 5:6 chance of winning $1 and a 1:6 of losing $100, and I guarantee a roll according to these odds.

Now imagine that you are a spectator who is asked to bet as to whether I will profit or if I will lose.   Someone says, "Hey, I'll bet $50 that he (i.e. me) loses."  You have a spare $50 in your pocket.  Do you take the bet?

Of course you would, so the point holds.  Though, as you point out, the odds of profiting alone might not be the only thing you want to take into account...

...what is your point?  That if you have an 83.3% chance of winning that you'll win more often than you lose?  I don't think anyone is arguing that point, as it is fairly obvious.  What people are telling you if that how OFTEN you win doesn't matter.  What matters is the odds you are getting/laying and what your equity is in these bets.

[the joint]

My point is best demonstrated by imagining that a hypothetical secondary bet is placed on top of the original bet.

Using your example, let's say I had a 5:6 chance of winning $1 and a 1:6 of losing $100, and I guarantee a roll according to these odds.

Now imagine that you are a spectator who is asked to bet as to whether I will profit or if I will lose.   Someone says, "Hey, I'll bet $50 that he (i.e. me) loses."  You have a spare $50 in your pocket.  Do you take the bet?

Of course you would, so the point holds.  Though, as you point out, the odds of profiting alone might not be the only thing you want to take into account...

...what is your point?  That if you have an 83.3% chance of winning that you'll win more often than you lose?  I don't think anyone is arguing that point, as it is fairly obvious.  What people are telling you if that how OFTEN you win doesn't matter.  What matters is the odds you are getting/laying and what your equity is in these bets.

The point is that profit is profit regardless.  Dooglus's example is an extreme case highlighting how the amount you stand to profit or lose is a secondary factor that must be considered.  The greater the discrepancy of payout in relation to the odds, the greater this factor needs to be taken into account.  But, if your starting pot allows you to use the Martingale strategy such that your odds of losing everything is, for example, 2^16, it may very well be worth a few trials to some people.

You're right, this is fairly obvious, but the answer to subject question should also be fairly obvious, and we're on page 45 already.

[tspacepilot]

Prerolling doesn't work either.

That's where you roll tiny bets until you've seen 20 losses in a row, then start martingale betting from a larger base. The logic "since we just saw 20 losses in a row there probably isn't much of the losing streak left". That logic is faulty. The odds of seeing a streak of any given length in the next few bets are the same whether you've just rolled until you saw 20 losses in a row or not. Because all rolls are mutually independent.

This, exactly.   Because each roll is an independent event you never know if you're in the middle of a 100 loss streak.  However, some part of me thinks it also has to be true that rolling consecutive losses into infinity is also highly improbably and that longer and longer streaks of losses have to be more and more improbable.  So I always have a hard time rectifiying these two facts: the independence of each roll and the increasing unlikelyhood of increasingly large streaks.