Does martingale really works?

[yahoo62278]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

[1714114087]

1714114087

[1714114087]

1714114087

[1714114087]

1714114087

[darkmind]

I think martingale won't work for the long run, martingale losses tend to unlimited, you can only limit them by cutting. martingale is foolproof in the sense that you can only lose in the end, if you don't intervene with cutting losses in some way

[ranlo]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.

[micromen]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.

I think the house edge doesn't even matter with martingale.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust 

[ranlo]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.

I think the house edge doesn't even matter with martingale.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust 

Theoretically. The house edge will always make a difference, though, as it means out of 100 rolls, you should only get, say 48 wins, rather than 50. This means you will bust much faster than without one. The theory remains the same, yes, but the house edge decreases the chances of hitting your goal significantly.

[itod]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

This is true. I've also attempted to "exploit" the system by using rounding errors for a bigger edge. Out of many trials, it still fails (what I mean by rounding errors is, for example, finding a sweet number spot where you will actually get slightly more from a win than you should because, for example, you get 1.5 coins instead of 1, which rounds up to a win of 2). Even so, the house always picks up eventually and dominates it.

I think the house edge doesn't even matter with martingale.
Even without a house edge, you do not have an unlimited bankroll and you will eventually bust 

Theoretically. The house edge will always make a difference, though, as it means out of 100 rolls, you should only get, say 48 wins, rather than 50. This means you will bust much faster than without one. The theory remains the same, yes, but the house edge decreases the chances of hitting your goal significantly.

There's an interesting question you've missed. The house also doesn't have unlimited bankroll.

Question is: Should the house have at least the same size of bankroll as you, for the chances to bust you to be in the house favor? Assuming 0 house edge, of course.

[Wendigo]

Last time I tried Martingaling I had 16 consecutive lost rolls and eventually busted in the end. I am not sure what the outcome would be if I had a bigger bankroll. Possibly the same 

[Monetizer]

Martingale never works in the end. You can get a short term profit and make a little bit of money but you will eventually hit a big enough losing streak and will lose all your money.

[steven.G999]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run 

[virtapayseller666]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run 

their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run

[activebiz]

yes it works perfectly provided the game is fair.

[Dennis7777]

With martingale, you can play a bet with very low losing probability but it won't change the EV or help you beat the house edge.

[panjul07]

As what I experienced, martingale is really work.
it works at the beginning and it busts at the end 

I still use martingale but  not for a long time, once I get enough profit I stopped it, and try another method.

[ticoti]

it doesn't work, it is a matter of luck that your get money with that strategy

[Phildo]

With only 15 units, you only need to lose 4 in a row to bust (let's say 5 in a row in case you have a few successful rounds).

You need 15 successful "runs" to double up. It's not that hard to lose 4 or 5 in a row.

[steven.G999]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run 

their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run

I do not really know why martingale not always run smoothly, now I better play single bet, I'm really comfortable with it. and not immediately lose all my balance in a heartbeat (like martingale)

[orryde]

i think martingaling leads to bust eventually. the house edge will eventually kick in

yes, even if you play with a capital 1-10 BTC, martingale still will not run 

their is no profit in martingale even at 10 btc .. anyone know what is main reason why martingale note run

I do not really know why martingale not always run smoothly, now I better play single bet, I'm really comfortable with it. and not immediately lose all my balance in a heartbeat (like martingale)

Right play with the method of martingale it is better to use a single play than by playing auto play because with the single mode we can change the roll from high or low.

[Phildo]

finally broke down to do a little more math.

With a martingale strategy, if you win x in a row you win x bets.

If you lose x in a row you lose 2^(x-1) bets.

Even with 50/50 odds and 0 house edge you can see why this is a bad idea. The odds of winning x in a row and losing x in a row are exactly the same, and the downside gets exponentially bigger as x gets bigger, it's not a smart bet.

The other thing to remember, especially if you are running simulations and using autobots, is that even though long losing streaks are unlikely, using simulations/bots gives you a lot more chances to hit that unlucky streak, which leads to a lot more chances to get fucked over (because that's what happens when you hit an unlucky streak while using martingale).

[Brewins]

not on dices.
No matter what you do the house edge will be the same. No way to change it

[Phildo]

not on dices.
No matter what you do the house edge will be the same. No way to change it

Dooglus just showed an example of how martingale actually makes it HARDER to win, because you greatly increase your chances of going broke.

Here's an absurd example.

Roulette, betting 100 on Red and 50 on red and 50 on black have the same house edge, but one bet is obviously a lot worse.