Does martingale really works?

[Hfleer]

Martingale does not work.... for everyone.
In fact, the majority of the gamblers are not successful when it comes to Martingale.
Why? because of one simple yet crucial mistake. They do not stop when they are ahead.
The majority of gamblers tend to think that after having a bad roll twice or more often should increase their chance on a positive roll the next turn.
This, is the gamblers fallacy and will lead to profit for the casino owner.. not for the gambler.

However, there are people that actually do profit out of Martingale. You just need to know how, and you need to say no to your gambling instincts once you start making a profit.

What you just wrote is gamblers fallacy. You can't beat the odds by "knowing when to stop"

[1714892438]

1714892438

[1714892438]

1714892438

[itod]

Martingale does not work.... for everyone.
In fact, the majority of the gamblers are not successful when it comes to Martingale.
Why? because of one simple yet crucial mistake. They do not stop when they are ahead.
The majority of gamblers tend to think that after having a bad roll twice or more often should increase their chance on a positive roll the next turn.
This, is the gamblers fallacy and will lead to profit for the casino owner.. not for the gambler.

However, there are people that actually do profit out of Martingale. You just need to know how, and you need to say no to your gambling instincts once you start making a profit.

What you just wrote is gamblers fallacy. You can't beat the odds by "knowing when to stop"

It depends how you define the word "stop". If the poster meant "stop permanently" and never bet again, then he is not in fallacy and can take some money from the house. If he meant "stop, then continue from the beginning after some time" then he is in fallacy and will give everything to the house. Variance gives you a chance to be seriously ahead of the house, but that's only temporary result, we all know the final one.

[deisik]

If you bet 100 to win 1 your chances of  winning are greater than your chances of losing but you have a negative expectation because the house has an edge, it is the same with the martingale : you can bet a lot to win a little and you are likely to win but it is still a bad bet because you have a negative expectation

If you can make 100,000$ to play once the russian roulette with a 6bullets revolver you have 5/6 chances to win but it is still a bad bet because you are risking too much

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

You don't know what expectation means. And please don't say that it can mean different things.... it is a definition.

CHANCE*PAYOUT= EXPECTED VALUE
if you win more than your expected value, you are OVER the average as I said before. And vice versa.

So you decided to get away with that nonsense you said earlier about 10 coin flips and your "short term luck" with it? Did I get you right?

In practice (why should I stress it again?) expected value will realize only if you play indefinitely long. And the average you're talking about will also be realized if you play as long. But with only 10 coin flips you will get just that (strictly speaking, average is not defined for that case, though)...

Also, good job in trying to twist dooglus words. You are on of the best examples of GAMBLERS FALLACY.

Sorry, but I didn't forget how you had tried to play a dirty trick on me, assuming that I didn't not know what the word "strategy" meant in respect to trading (though it evidently wasn't a good job). So let dooglus decide for himself whether I twisted his words or not, ok? Thank you!

[deisik]

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

If you play just one bet of 100 btc on 49.5%, you will end up with +100 (49.5%) and -100 (50.5%), but still the EV of the game is -1 btc.
The calculation of EV never assumes you continue to play the game.
But according the law of large numbers, if you repeat the game continuously, your actual result will converge to the EV.

Is this not what I was talking about right from the start, i.e. about practice?

[rogerdonkey]

please sharing ur experience use martingale

[deisik]

please sharing ur experience use martingale

Do you ask me?

[Swordsoffreedom]

please sharing ur experience use martingale

It works sometimes but it also burns you fairly often
Especially if the streak of losses goes above 8 or you start second guessing and switch sides to get another 4 or so losses including the ones from the side you originally bet on.
Burns pretty quickly I guess is what I would say.

[Phildo]

please sharing ur experience use martingale

It works great ... until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it screws you over way more than it helped you when it "worked."

In conclusion, it doesn't work.

[Hfleer]

Martingale does not work.... for everyone.
In fact, the majority of the gamblers are not successful when it comes to Martingale.
Why? because of one simple yet crucial mistake. They do not stop when they are ahead.
The majority of gamblers tend to think that after having a bad roll twice or more often should increase their chance on a positive roll the next turn.
This, is the gamblers fallacy and will lead to profit for the casino owner.. not for the gambler.

However, there are people that actually do profit out of Martingale. You just need to know how, and you need to say no to your gambling instincts once you start making a profit.

What you just wrote is gamblers fallacy. You can't beat the odds by "knowing when to stop"

It depends how you define the word "stop". If the poster meant "stop permanently" and never bet again, then he is not in fallacy and can take some money from the house. If he meant "stop, then continue from the beginning after some time" then he is in fallacy and will give everything to the house. Variance gives you a chance to be seriously ahead of the house, but that's only temporary result, we all know the final one.

But you are risking all your fund from the very start.

Think about this: What if you lose the first flip, then the next, the next, .... when do you stop? Who guarantees you that you win a flip before you run out of funds?

Variance doesn't give a shit if it is your first flip!

[Hfleer]

So you decided to get away with that nonsense you said earlier about 10 coin flips and your "short term luck" with it? Did I get you right?

In practice (why should I stress it again?) expected value will realize only if you play indefinitely long. And the average you're talking about will also be realized if you play as long. But with only 10 coin flips you will get just that (strictly speaking, average is not defined for that case, though)...

No, I didn't also, this is no question about opinion. This is a scientific approach called statistics.. Maybe your heard about it. Here short overview avout EV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Expected value is the "expected value" for EACH single roll/flip. It DOESN'T assume you will continue indefinately. Who ever said that, that you think that?

Also, good job in trying to twist dooglus words. You are on of the best examples of GAMBLERS FALLACY.

Sorry, but I didn't forget how you had tried to play a dirty trick on me, assuming that I didn't not know what the word "strategy" meant in respect to trading (though it evidently wasn't a good job). So let dooglus decide for himself whether I twisted his words or not, ok? Thank you!

Yeah, I am such a dirty player with my big words and all those nasty facts...

I think dooglus looks right through your poor arguments.

[Hfleer]

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

If you play just one bet of 100 btc on 49.5%, you will end up with +100 (49.5%) and -100 (50.5%), but still the EV of the game is -1 btc.
The calculation of EV never assumes you continue to play the game.
But according the law of large numbers, if you repeat the game continuously, your actual result will converge to the EV.

Is this not what I was talking about right from the start, i.e. about practice?

Just because BigMac is writing about something unrelated doesn't make you right.

What he said is that your actual result will convert to the Expected value TIMES the time you roll.

With 1% houseedge you would lose 1 times your Betsize after 100 constant rolls on average. That doesn't mean that your Expected value after the first roll wasn't -1%.

[deisik]

So you decided to get away with that nonsense you said earlier about 10 coin flips and your "short term luck" with it? Did I get you right?

In practice (why should I stress it again?) expected value will realize only if you play indefinitely long. And the average you're talking about will also be realized if you play as long. But with only 10 coin flips you will get just that (strictly speaking, average is not defined for that case, though)...

No, I didn't also, this is no question about opinion. This is a scientific approach called statistics.. Maybe your heard about it. Here short overview avout EV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Expected value is the "expected value" for EACH single roll/flip. It DOESN'T assume you will continue indefinately. Who ever said that, that you think that?

Now I see that you're trying to twist my own words. What you get in practice (i.e. an average outcome for each roll) will come close to the expected value only if you continue to roll infinitely*. How many times should I repeat this till you stop distorting my words? Maybe you finally start reading what I actually write without imputing to me what I didn't say?

*And the Wikipedia article by your link says pretty much the same (lol) "In probability theory, the expected value of a random variable refers, intuitively, to the long-run average value of (imaginary) repetitions of the experiment it represents"

Also I see that you're no longer wishing to discuss the nonsense you said about flipping coins and at all means are trying to switch to another topic, okay then...

[deisik]

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

If you play just one bet of 100 btc on 49.5%, you will end up with +100 (49.5%) and -100 (50.5%), but still the EV of the game is -1 btc.
The calculation of EV never assumes you continue to play the game.
But according the law of large numbers, if you repeat the game continuously, your actual result will converge to the EV.

Is this not what I was talking about right from the start, i.e. about practice?

Just because BigMac is writing about something unrelated doesn't make you right.

What he said is that your actual result will convert to the Expected value TIMES the time you roll.

He obviously meant an average outcome of one roll (isn't that what you talked about recently? ) that would converge to the EV if you continued the game indefinitely long... You blamed me of twisting dooglus' words, but is this not what you're doing right now? Again...

[ubitcoin]

In my experience in gambling. I am sucked several and more times with the martingale. All profit goes to 0 in a second with unimaginable loses in a row.

I think it can  really make a gambler broken also when there exist 99.99% chances of wining in dice.
So, really there is good to leave martingale play

[sherbyspark]

In my experience in gambling. I am sucked several and more times with the martingale. All profit goes to 0 in a second with unimaginable loses in a row.

I think it can  really make a gambler broken also when there exist 99.99% chances of wining in dice.
So, really there is good to leave martingale play

Well , none of the site allows you to gamble at 99.99% chance, so how did you manage to test it at that ?
Also, martingale might work for short term if you bet with some balance several times in different sized units.

[dooglus]

In my experience in gambling. I am sucked several and more times with the martingale. All profit goes to 0 in a second with unimaginable loses in a row.

I think it can  really make a gambler broken also when there exist 99.99% chances of wining in dice.
So, really there is good to leave martingale play

Well , none of the site allows you to gamble at 99.99% chance, so how did you manage to test it at that ?

Also, martingale might work for short term if you bet with some balance several times in different sized units.

Oh goody. My favourite thread is back from the dead!

[steven.G999]

for usually work until profit 30-60%, of the initial capital. but eventually lost all. because I put a target profit up 200%

[Joca97]

for usually work until profit 30-60%, of the initial capital. but eventually lost all. because I put a target profit up 200%

for martingale you need a really really big balance
but as you said you can only get 30 - 60 % PROFIT
you need to change tactics in order to get more then 100%

[XinXan]

for usually work until profit 30-60%, of the initial capital. but eventually lost all. because I put a target profit up 200%

for martingale you need a really really big balance
but as you said you can only get 30 - 60 % PROFIT
you need to change tactics in order to get more then 100%

you could also get 0% profit and lose in the first bets, and what kind of tactic is that to get more than 100%?

[picolo]

In my experience in gambling. I am sucked several and more times with the martingale. All profit goes to 0 in a second with unimaginable loses in a row.

I think it can  really make a gambler broken also when there exist 99.99% chances of wining in dice.
So, really there is good to leave martingale play

Well , none of the site allows you to gamble at 99.99% chance, so how did you manage to test it at that ?

Also, martingale might work for short term if you bet with some balance several times in different sized units.

Oh goody. My favourite thread is back from the dead!

33 pages with all the diversity of thinking among gamblers between the ones who understand maths and the ones who don't Maybe those who don't understand maths are right ?