Okay, let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong. How did you get that number, that is 2 million bets to get a profit of 0.01 btc using martingale and the base bet set at 1 satoshi? You double your stakes until you win, then jump back to the base bet of 1 satoshi and restart...
It's hard to assume you're wrong because it's not clear what you're even saying. You talk about "reaching 0.01 BTC" but aren't clear whether you mean betting that amount or having that amount of profit.
1. Each complete martingale sequence starts with a bet of 1 satoshi, doubles on loss, and finishes when you win a single bet. Can you see that each complete sequence nets you a profit of 1 satoshi? For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1
2. If you agree, do you see that in order to make a profit of 0.01 BTC you will have to run a million martingale sequences, since each one wins 1 satoshi, and 0.01 BTC is a million satoshis?
3. If you agree, do you also accept that the average length of a martingale sequence is 2 bets?
4. And if so, do you agree that a million sequences of average length 2 will have a combined length of 2 million?
And if so, what's the problem?
Maybe you can let us know at which point (1 through 4) you start to disagree.
theres either an awful lot of stupidity on this thread
or maybe its just gambling site owners trying to encourage fools to lose their money
I've been repeatedly asserting that for most purposes Martingale betting is a bad strategy, and outlining one of the few cases where it helps.
any house advantage no matter how small it looks is enough to keep them on top ALWAYS
That's not true. Players are sometimes able to overcome the edge for short periods of time. At one point Just-Dice had made a net loss of around 6000 BTC. It recovered, and ended up with a large profit, but it's not true to say that the edge is enough to ensure profit ALWAYS. Just EVENTUALLY, given enough play.
the only way casinos could remain profitable is by having a slight or not so slight advantage depending on the bet
That's not true either. A casino could have a zero house edge and still have a chance of being profitable either by getting lucky or through other revenue sources such as selling ad space.
if there was a simple working strategy to " beat the house " everyone would just use it and casinos would bleed money until they were in the red
There are various ways to "beat the house", as used by advantage players. Taking advantage of deposit bonuses, only playing when the progressive pot is over a certain size, counting cards at blackjack, etc. They all take discipline and you'll often get cut off by the house if you do it too much.
