Does martingale really works?

[Hfleer]

I have tried some times and I can say I'm in loss with martingale, so it's not for me

its better to do all in on 50 % chance as doing martingale makes the house edge bigger when you roll bunch of times. i never use this strategy

Apparently this is not true. You can actually "lower" the house edge if you bet with a certain strategy other than 50% bet. There was a long discussing on previous pages.

It's not really lowering the house edge, per se, but rather exploiting the rounding of numbers. Some sites have already fixed that issue, though, and it relies on very specific sets of numbers to work even on those that haven't fixed it. With that said, it's less of a "beating the house" and more of an exploit than anything.

Oh I see. I thought it had something to do with the fact that you on average reach the goal earlier before wagering all of the 1 BTC and thus incurring less house edge.

That post I made with all the math I think has to be off. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and I don't see how raising bet amounts (without changing the % chance) could possibly affect the house edge. I just don't know where I went wrong with it...

I guess it's possible that it's correct. It just doesn't make logical sense.

Yes, it boggles my mind too. My explanation made the most sense in my head, but could be dead wrong.

I'll probably need to get in touch with Dooglus and see his opinion on this. He's pretty solid when it comes to figuring these things out and if he has time, should be able to see what's wrong.

If you get him to post an anwser, please PM me. Thank you!

[dooglus]

I have tried some times and I can say I'm in loss with martingale, so it's not for me

its better to do all in on 50 % chance as doing martingale makes the house edge bigger when you roll bunch of times. i never use this strategy

Apparently this is not true. You can actually "lower" the house edge if you bet with a certain strategy other than 50% bet. There was a long discussing on previous pages.

It's not really lowering the house edge, per se, but rather exploiting the rounding of numbers. Some sites have already fixed that issue, though, and it relies on very specific sets of numbers to work even on those that haven't fixed it. With that said, it's less of a "beating the house" and more of an exploit than anything.

Oh I see. I thought it had something to do with the fact that you on average reach the goal earlier before wagering all of the 1 BTC and thus incurring less house edge.

That post I made with all the math I think has to be off. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and I don't see how raising bet amounts (without changing the % chance) could possibly affect the house edge. I just don't know where I went wrong with it...

I guess it's possible that it's correct. It just doesn't make logical sense.

Yes, it boggles my mind too. My explanation made the most sense in my head, but could be dead wrong.

I'll probably need to get in touch with Dooglus and see his opinion on this. He's pretty solid when it comes to figuring these things out and if he has time, should be able to see what's wrong.

If you bet your whole bankroll on a single bet in a 1% house edge casino, your expected loss is 1% of your bankroll.

If instead you split your bankroll up into a series of bets, starting small and increasing on loss, you can reach the same goal with a slightly higher chance of success. You didn't change the house edge, you just expect to risk less, and so expect to lose less

For example, the guy earlier talking about how much you need to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino.

Let's assume the house edge is (100/37)% like it is in roulette.

That means that the probability of winning a bet times the payout for that bet is 36/37.
"chance * payout = 36/37"

For example, when you bet on red, the payout is 2x. The chance of winning is 18/37 (there are 18 reds and 37 numbers). 2 times 18/37 is 36/37.
When you bet on a single number, the payout is 36x. The chance of winning is 1/37. 36 times 1/37 is 36/37.
And it's the same for all the possible bets.

So if we want a 99% chance of winning $50 from a single bet on roulette:

  chance = 0.99
  chance * payout = 36/37
  payout = 36/37/0.99 = 0.9828x

So if we want a 99% chance of winning a single bet, the house will pay us back less than our stake if we win. You can't have a 99% chance of making a profit on a single bet when the house edge is bigger than 1%.

So we're going to have to split the bet into a two-step martingale sequence.

It turns out that you only need $8839 (*) to have a 99% chance of winning $50, and here's how:

We'll bet at 90% (we have to imagine they offer any percentage you like, like dice sites do).

The 90% chance bet has a payout of 36/37/0.9 = 1.081081x

First bet $616.67 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 616.67 back.
1.081081 * 616.67 = 666.67 and we've made our $50 already, so stop.

If we lose that first bet, bet the remaining 8839 - 616.67 = $8222.33 at 90%.
If it hits, we get 1.081081 times 8222.33 back.
1.081081 * 8222.33 = 8889.00, and if we take off the 616.67 we lost on the first bet we get 8272.33, and we've made our $50 again.

So if we hit either the first or 2nd bet, we're $50 up, and if we lose both we're $8839 down.

There's a 10% chance of losing each bet, so a 1% chance of losing them both, so a 99% chance of winning one of them.

ie. we only need $8839 to have a 99% chance of winning $50 in a casino game with the same house edge as single-zero roulette.

Note that if we put all $8839 on a single bet to win $50, the payout would need to be (8839+50)/8839 = 1.00566x
and so the chance of winning would be (36/37)/((8839+50)/8839) = 96.75%

So again, we see that trying to win $50 starting with $8839 has a lower chance (96.75%) if you make a single bet and a higher chance (99%) if you split it into two bets, and do a mini 2-step martingale progression. And that's because 90% of the time you only have to make the small first bet, and so you're betting less, and so on average you lose less.


(*) set p = 36.0/37/0.9 - 1, then the amount you need is 50*(2*p + 1)/(p*p) = $8838.888888

(The two bet sizes are really 616.66666 recurring and 8,222.22222 recurring)

[ranlo]

//Stuffz here

That's a very informative explanation. So basically, the more iterations you have, the "safer" it would be (i.e., going at 1 satoshi would be a lot more successful than going with 10000 satoshi per roll)?

[cryptworld]

Wow, that's a really good explanation, I understand it better now

[itod]

Amazing explanation, Dooglus.

[birdcat90]

we cant say thats its work or not, because all depend on the luck? why?

if you have bad luck you will get red streaks,,we will never know what the outcome or the result..right?

[Hfleer]

Thank you very much. This pretty much confirmed my suspicion I had.  =)

[steven.G999]

To be able to see the server seed means that it's an inside job or some intruder compromised the website and took advantage of the system?

cant tell for sure if it is an inside job, but it is an intruder compromised, which enable him to few the next rolls, making him able to determine the outcome of the game

if you know the unhashed seed, you can just change your seed so that you will win every bet. Or you can just alter hi/lo and then win every bet.

yes I've done that in 999dice, I always change my seed every play. when a great game I always persist in the seed, but when I lose, I tried to change the seed and the results are pretty good.

I did not know it was really influential or not, or is it just my luck

although sometimes I finally lost, because too much change seed 

[Mist]

To be able to see the server seed means that it's an inside job or some intruder compromised the website and took advantage of the system?

cant tell for sure if it is an inside job, but it is an intruder compromised, which enable him to few the next rolls, making him able to determine the outcome of the game

if you know the unhashed seed, you can just change your seed so that you will win every bet. Or you can just alter hi/lo and then win every bet.

yes I've done that in 999dice, I always change my seed every play. when a great game I always persist in the seed, but when I lose, I tried to change the seed and the results are pretty good.

I did not know it was really influential or not, or is it just my luck

although sometimes I finally lost, because too much change seed 

999dice is a scam, how do people not know this yet.

[steven.G999]

To be able to see the server seed means that it's an inside job or some intruder compromised the website and took advantage of the system?

cant tell for sure if it is an inside job, but it is an intruder compromised, which enable him to few the next rolls, making him able to determine the outcome of the game

if you know the unhashed seed, you can just change your seed so that you will win every bet. Or you can just alter hi/lo and then win every bet.

yes I've done that in 999dice, I always change my seed every play. when a great game I always persist in the seed, but when I lose, I tried to change the seed and the results are pretty good.

I did not know it was really influential or not, or is it just my luck

although sometimes I finally lost, because too much change seed 

999dice is a scam, how do people not know this yet.

yes I have heard the news of the people in this forum. I am also confused as to why I always want to come and play in 999dice, but sometimes I make a profit also there, though not large only 0005 - 0.05

[rayhan]

the pattern will change when we change the seed?
didn't know about the seed but i can read the pattern when i have hi and low, not exactly 100% but when i do to "big bet" yeahh mostly i got won

[bitbaby]

Amazing explanation, Dooglus.

Yeah, very impressive. I don't even think that deep when it comes to betting, although I have been trying a strategy called modified martingale and it works better than the original one. Not full proof still but I have had less losses with it.

[jemsmuhamad]

sometimes it works on me, but sometimes martingale killing me.
so i think martingale method its just wasting your money.

[rayhan]

sometimes it works on me, but sometimes martingale killing me.
so i think martingale method its just wasting your money.

indeed.. martingale maybe only work once in a while, not in a long time ...
i only use a martingale if i am sure the results 2-3 times roll over after lost i will get win

[Mist]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

[ranlo]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

[deisik]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

The system works if it consistently brings profit, this is the only viable criterion. Whether it has a 100% success rate or just 1% (yes, one percent) is ultimately irrelevant...

[ranlo]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

The system works if it consistently brings profit, this is the only viable criterion. Whether it has a 100% success rate or just 1% (yes, one percent) is ultimately irrelevant...

Consistently bringing profit = 100% success rate. Hence "consistent" instead of "intermittently." Why just reiterate what I said, using different words?

[deisik]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

The system works if it consistently brings profit, this is the only viable criterion. Whether it has a 100% success rate or just 1% (yes, one percent) is ultimately irrelevant...

Consistently bringing profit = 100% success rate. Hence "consistent" instead of "intermittently." Why just reiterate what I said, using different words?

Because you are misusing words. The notion of rate assumes a gradual scale, as in more profit - less profit (but still profit). In the simplest case, success rate is a ratio of winning rolls to losing rolls, but, as I said before, this per se doesn't ensure either profit or loss. You could be winning even if your success rate was just 1 percent.

[Mewtwo]

I've had varied success with martingale, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. You just got to know when to stop it, and it should work out just fine.

What you just said is just like saying "I've had varied success with 1% bets. Sometimes I win and make profit and others I don't." A system either works (meaning has a 100% success rate) or it doesn't. There is no in between. Otherwise it's no different than rolling the dice (no pun intended) and hoping you won on that roll.

The system works if it consistently brings profit, this is the only viable criterion. Whether it has a 100% success rate or just 1% (yes, one percent) is ultimately irrelevant...

martingale will bring you a disaster. how many your balance will empty if you meet with long streak. i think it will save if you bet 100 btc with base bet 1 satoshi. we must use other strategies if want to save margin. if you using martingale surely your balance runs out instantly some day.