Does martingale really works?

[freeyourmind]

The concept of Martingale is fantastic if you had an unlimited bankroll. Problem is one bad streak is going to wipe everything away. It has worked for me nicely when using it in moderation. For example, I start with .1 btc and when I double up, I stop. Or sometimes I withdraw .05 every time I make it until going bankrupt. Usually works out nicely unless im having really shitty luck.

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.  Overall, are you up or down using that strategy?

[dooglus]

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.

I see that strategy a lot.

What tends to happen is that the regular withdrawals make the bust come sooner. And usually when it does the very next thing that happens is that all those little withdrawals reappear as a big deposit, and the betting continues.

Making regular withdrawals is fine if they're going somewhere you don't have access to for a while, but otherwise you're probably fooling yourself that those coins are now "safe" and won't be lost back. It depends on self-discipline of course.

[laris2]

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.

I see that strategy a lot.

What tends to happen is that the regular withdrawals make the bust come sooner. And usually when it does the very next thing that happens is that all those little withdrawals reappear as a big deposit, and the betting continues.

Making regular withdrawals is fine if they're going somewhere you don't have access to for a while, but otherwise you're probably fooling yourself that those coins are now "safe" and won't be lost back. It depends on self-discipline of course.

Yup. If its a relly long streak you would be needing those coins back

[JoelKatz]

The concept of Martingale is fantastic if you had an unlimited bankroll. Problem is one bad streak is going to wipe everything away.

Easily fixable by using more sophisticated methods like d'Alembert. You can make the probability of a streak long enough to bankrupt you pretty much as low as you want. (Of course, there are tradeoffs. TANSTAAFL.)

What is the point of martingale to you?  Win a bet and then stop?

Well, yeah, that's the point of having a system. You decide what result you want, and it tells you what to do to get that result. If you don't follow the system, why have one? Progressive betting systems tells you how much to bet and when to stop. If you don't follow them, don't pretend that you are.

[SyGambler]

It may works if you have a good bankroll ( and focus in the word may  )
but you will not earn enough money to recover the stress 

for me risking huge amount in order to win small one is very unhealthy

[Astargath]

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.

I see that strategy a lot.

What tends to happen is that the regular withdrawals make the bust come sooner. And usually when it does the very next thing that happens is that all those little withdrawals reappear as a big deposit, and the betting continues.

Making regular withdrawals is fine if they're going somewhere you don't have access to for a while, but otherwise you're probably fooling yourself that those coins are now "safe" and won't be lost back. It depends on self-discipline of course.

But the system wont work even if you have self discipline and you dont deposit everything at once again you would eventually lose right? I mean lets say you deposit 100k and martingale to double then you withdraw 100k and keep playing, you will eventually lose and you will have to deposit the other 100k wich you will eventually lose without having any more btc to deposit again

[dooglus]

Easily fixable by using more sophisticated methods like d'Alembert. You can make the probability of a streak long enough to bankrupt you pretty much as low as you want.

With d'Alembert it doesn't take long streaks to bankrupt you, just more losses than wins, so I'm not sure that's true.

(It's like Martingale except you increase your stake by a fixed amount when you lose, and decrease by the same fixed amount when you win, so it goes:

  -1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1

and your net profit is the same as the number of wins, when the number of wins is equal to the number of losses.)

The problem is that the number of wins is increasingly less likely to be as high as the number of losses the longer you play.

(Of course, there are tradeoffs. TANSTAAFL.)

There Are No Such Things As Ass Flossing Lounges?

[JoelKatz]

But the system wont work even if you have self discipline and you dont deposit everything at once again you would eventually lose right?

No. This is a common misconception. You are only guaranteed to "eventually lose" if you keep playing until you lose. But progressive betting systems specifically prevent you from doing that.

I mean lets say you deposit 100k and martingale to double then you withdraw 100k and keep playing, you will eventually lose and you will have to deposit the other 100k wich you will eventually lose without having any more btc to deposit again

Right, but that wasn't Martingale's fault. Martingale doubled your money and then you went and did something else that caused you to lose.

Progressive betting systems work in the sense that they allow you to reduce your odds of losing to be as low as you want them to be. Want your odds of losing to be 1 in 1,000, done, you can have your odds of losing that low. But you have to follow the system. Obviously, your odds of losing will only be what you chose them to be if you both implement the system correctly and follow its rules.

The *only* good thing they do is reduce your odds of losing. If you keep playing after you've won, you increase your odds of losing. That means you choose to give up the only benefit you got from the system. If you do that, you are a total idiot. Bit don't blame your idiocy on the system you didn't follow.

[futureofbitcoin]

Easily fixable by using more sophisticated methods like d'Alembert. You can make the probability of a streak long enough to bankrupt you pretty much as low as you want.

With d'Alembert it doesn't take long streaks to bankrupt you, just more losses than wins, so I'm not sure that's true.

(It's like Martingale except you increase your stake by a fixed amount when you lose, and decrease by the same fixed amount when you win, so it goes:

  -1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1

and your net profit is the same as the number of wins, when the number of wins is equal to the number of losses.)

The problem is that the number of wins is increasingly less likely to be as high as the number of losses the longer you play.

(Of course, there are tradeoffs. TANSTAAFL.)

There Are No Such Things As Ass Flossing Lounges?

If you just bet the same amount every single time, your net profit is the same as the number of wins. What a "sophisticated method", huh.

[dooglus]

(It's like Martingale except you increase your stake by a fixed amount when you lose, and decrease by the same fixed amount when you win, so it goes:

  -1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1

and your net profit is the same as the number of wins, when the number of wins is equal to the number of losses.)

If you just bet the same amount every single time, your net profit is the same as the number of wins. What a "sophisticated method", huh.

I think you misunderstood. Read what I wrote, and look at the example I provided. The individual numbers are individual profits and losses, not cumulative profit. The bet size varies from 1 unit up to 4 units and back.

-1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1 = 5

and 5 is the number of wins.

[gkv9]

(It's like Martingale except you increase your stake by a fixed amount when you lose, and decrease by the same fixed amount when you win, so it goes:

  -1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1

and your net profit is the same as the number of wins, when the number of wins is equal to the number of losses.)

If you just bet the same amount every single time, your net profit is the same as the number of wins. What a "sophisticated method", huh.

I think you misunderstood. Read what I wrote, and look at the example I provided. The individual numbers are individual profits and losses, not cumulative profit. The bet size varies from 1 unit up to 4 units and back.

-1 -2 -3 +4 -3 +4 +3 +2 +1 = 5

and 5 is the number of wins.

So, the number of wins are actually profits or they are just a number and depends upon the size of the bet???
What should it be, same bets or in multiplication with what you provided in the example???

[factor280]

The concept of Martingale is fantastic if you had an unlimited bankroll. Problem is one bad streak is going to wipe everything away. It has worked for me nicely when using it in moderation. For example, I start with .1 btc and when I double up, I stop. Or sometimes I withdraw .05 every time I make it until going bankrupt. Usually works out nicely unless im having really shitty luck.

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.  Overall, are you up or down using that strategy?

Freeyourmind, I am up just a hair with that strategy. Only problem is staying disciplined. That's my biggest struggle after losing a bit. If I stick to solely withdrawing after martingale and keep to the system, it generally tends to be profitable in my limited experience.

[factor280]

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.

I see that strategy a lot.

What tends to happen is that the regular withdrawals make the bust come sooner. And usually when it does the very next thing that happens is that all those little withdrawals reappear as a big deposit, and the betting continues.

Making regular withdrawals is fine if they're going somewhere you don't have access to for a while, but otherwise you're probably fooling yourself that those coins are now "safe" and won't be lost back. It depends on self-discipline of course.

Exactly my problem. System works nice until you get that itch to gamble again! Then you give back the "safe" winnings and then some!

[gkv9]

Freeyourmind, I am up just a hair with that strategy. Only problem is staying disciplined. That's my biggest struggle after losing a bit. If I stick to solely withdrawing after martingale and keep to the system, it generally tends to be profitable in my limited experience.

True, it sometimes proves to be the best dream you ever had (when you are known to the goal you want to reach) and sometimes proves to be the worst nightmare (when you are destined to lose just because of greed)...
I played at Primedice before once with 0.1 BTC, made 0.5 BTC with martingale on the bot and withdrew... One more thing that it takes to reach such amounts is luck, you need it a lot...

[freeyourmind]

The concept of Martingale is fantastic if you had an unlimited bankroll. Problem is one bad streak is going to wipe everything away. It has worked for me nicely when using it in moderation. For example, I start with .1 btc and when I double up, I stop. Or sometimes I withdraw .05 every time I make it until going bankrupt. Usually works out nicely unless im having really shitty luck.

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.  Overall, are you up or down using that strategy?

Freeyourmind, I am up just a hair with that strategy. Only problem is staying disciplined. That's my biggest struggle after losing a bit. If I stick to solely withdrawing after martingale and keep to the system, it generally tends to be profitable in my limited experience.

Nice man.  I only started to try this strategy towards the end of a long winning streak, and haven't really gambled much since.  Good to hear that it's working for you.

[Astargath]

This is the best strategy I've used so far, with martingale + periodic withdrawals.

I see that strategy a lot.

What tends to happen is that the regular withdrawals make the bust come sooner. And usually when it does the very next thing that happens is that all those little withdrawals reappear as a big deposit, and the betting continues.

Making regular withdrawals is fine if they're going somewhere you don't have access to for a while, but otherwise you're probably fooling yourself that those coins are now "safe" and won't be lost back. It depends on self-discipline of course.

Exactly my problem. System works nice until you get that itch to gamble again! Then you give back the "safe" winnings and then some!

Well no one is going to gamble once, win something, withdraw and never play again, whay would be the point? And you could use that method using any strategy, not necesseraly martingale

[futureofbitcoin]

^Exactly.

To people that don't "get" statistics and probability intuitively: don't listen to ANY strategy. They're all losing ones, and there's no way you can find a winning strategy. If there was one, it would be common knowledge, and would be discovered by a statistician, not by someone who isn't very good at math.

If you want to play for fun, go ahead. Don't think you can win with any strategy, though. More people lose than win with any strategy.

[JoelKatz]

Well no one is going to gamble once, win something, withdraw and never play again, whay would be the point? And you could use that method using any strategy, not necessarily martingale

The point would be whatever you want the point to be. With sophisticated progressive betting systems, you can choose precisely how much you're willing to lose, what odds you want, and so on, and you know precisely what your odds are. You can calculate the mathematically optimal strategy to get you precisely the odds that you want. Got a bankroll of $1,000 and don't want a chance of more than 1 in 1,000 of losing money -- you can compute a betting strategy that meets those parameters.

However, the important thing is this -- say you've chosen the mathematically optimal strategy for a 1 in 1,000 chance of losing. You play that strategy and win. And then you play it again. Clearly, your odds of losing are no longer 1 in 1,000. But you played the mathematically optimal strategy for a 1 in 1,000 chance of losing, not for your new, lower odds. Thus you didn't actually play a mathematically optimal strategy and you will ultimately take a higher risk of going broke than you would have had you honestly specified your risk tolerance in the first place.

But don't blame that on the system because you didn't follow it. When you computed your betting strategy, you put in a risk tolerance that was lower than your actual risk tolerance, so of course it produced a sub-optimal strategy.

If you accurately specify your risk tolerance and your bankroll, you can compute a progressive betting system that precisely matches that risk tolerance. But it will only be optimal if you specified your actual risk tolerance -- repeating it will produce suboptimal results and you're always better off specifying your actual risk tolerance in the first place.

You don't really pick a specific strategy. Strategies like d'Alembert and Martingale were popular historically because they're easy for humans to do. But we all have access to computers. So it's not difficult to figure out a near-optimal strategy that maximizes the win amount and reports your odds accurately. You can then decide whether the profile is acceptable to you and, if so, execute it.

[deisik]

Well no one is going to gamble once, win something, withdraw and never play again, whay would be the point? And you could use that method using any strategy, not necessarily martingale

The point would be whatever you want the point to be. With sophisticated progressive betting systems, you can choose precisely how much you're willing to lose, what odds you want, and so on, and you know precisely what your odds are. You can calculate the mathematically optimal strategy to get you precisely the odds that you want. Got a bankroll of $1,000 and don't want a chance of more than 1 in 1,000 of losing money -- you can compute a betting strategy that meets those parameters.

However, the important thing is this -- say you've chosen the mathematically optimal strategy for a 1 in 1,000 chance of losing. You play that strategy and win. And then you play it again. Clearly, your odds of losing are no longer 1 in 1,000. But you played the mathematically optimal strategy for a 1 in 1,000 chance of losing, not for your new, lower odds. Thus you didn't actually play a mathematically optimal strategy and you will ultimately take a higher risk of going broke than you would have had you honestly specified your risk tolerance in the first place.

But don't blame that on the system because you didn't follow it. When you computed your betting strategy, you put in a risk tolerance that was lower than your actual risk tolerance, so of course it produced a sub-optimal strategy.

If you accurately specify your risk tolerance and your bankroll, you can compute a progressive betting system that precisely matches that risk tolerance. But it will only be optimal if you specified your actual risk tolerance -- repeating it will produce suboptimal results and you're always better off specifying your actual risk tolerance in the first place.

You don't really pick a specific strategy. Strategies like d'Alembert and Martingale were popular historically because they're easy for humans to do. But we all have access to computers. So it's not difficult to figure out a near-optimal strategy that maximizes the win amount and reports your odds accurately. You can then decide whether the profile is acceptable to you and, if so, execute it.

I can only add that with this level of sophistication, one had better go hunt elsewhere. I mean these strategies require so high an intellectual development and mental discipline that make the effort simply not worth it (if only for scientific ends)...

[freeyourmind]

I can only add that with this level of sophistication, one had better go hunt elsewhere. I mean these strategies require so high an intellectual development and mental discipline that make the effort simply not worth it (if only for scientific ends)...

ROI wise it is likely not worth it, but I think it's an interesting topic to investigate.

I wasn't one to really enjoy school aside from the social aspect, but when I was in high school, I remember having an interest in finite, because part of the course was based on finding probabilities on casino games.

It's also cool to be able to put your theories to the test.  A lot of people dream up some weird shit and the only way for them to know it doesn't work is to try it out and lose.

I remember when I was like 18, and going to Montreal where I believe we were at the age where we could go to casino's and gamble, and thinking of doubling my bet every loss (same as martingale, but wasn't even aware that it was a strategy at that time) and thinking I had some breakthrough in gambling lol.  I didn't have the money or guts at the time to make large bets, so I didn't go through with it, but thought that I had it figured out for many years.  Gambling on these dice sites has quickly brought me back to reality lol.