Does martingale really works?

[hunkey600]

so if I have .5 btc to work with how much can I make .1 btc using it?

Pantheon if your aim is to make 0.1 BTC from that 0.5 BTC. I would suggest just making 2 bets at 90% and stopping after that. Because if you start from a small amount as 0.0001 . You will bust in less than 12 rolls, which can very well happen in a few hundred rolls. Martingale is usually worth with a large bankroll even then there is a big risk . Starting with 0.5 BTC will bust you much before you make any serious money with it.

Even if you are planning to make two consecutive bets at 90% still those two can be a loss if not both atleast one. So risk is always there, just try your luck. Thanks

[Astargath]

so if I have .5 btc to work with how much can I make .1 btc using it?

Pantheon if your aim is to make 0.1 BTC from that 0.5 BTC. I would suggest just making 2 bets at 90% and stopping after that. Because if you start from a small amount as 0.0001 . You will bust in less than 12 rolls, which can very well happen in a few hundred rolls. Martingale is usually worth with a large bankroll even then there is a big risk . Starting with 0.5 BTC will bust you much before you make any serious money with it.

Even if you are planning to make two consecutive bets at 90% still those two can be a loss if not both atleast one. So risk is always there, just try your luck. Thanks

No shit sherlock, the risk is always the same no matter what strategy or odds but you can save time by betting only 2 times instead of thousands that you would need to bet using martingale.

[panjul07]

so if I have .5 btc to work with how much can I make .1 btc using it?

Pantheon if your aim is to make 0.1 BTC from that 0.5 BTC. I would suggest just making 2 bets at 90% and stopping after that. Because if you start from a small amount as 0.0001 . You will bust in less than 12 rolls, which can very well happen in a few hundred rolls. Martingale is usually worth with a large bankroll even then there is a big risk . Starting with 0.5 BTC will bust you much before you make any serious money with it.

Your suggestion is also a big risk, bet all balance in 90% win chance does not guarantee that he will win. Even he can get busted at first bet.
And yeah its a gambling, it's all about luck and risk.  

[Astargath]

so if I have .5 btc to work with how much can I make .1 btc using it?

Pantheon if your aim is to make 0.1 BTC from that 0.5 BTC. I would suggest just making 2 bets at 90% and stopping after that. Because if you start from a small amount as 0.0001 . You will bust in less than 12 rolls, which can very well happen in a few hundred rolls. Martingale is usually worth with a large bankroll even then there is a big risk . Starting with 0.5 BTC will bust you much before you make any serious money with it.

Your suggestion is also a big risk, bet all balance in 90% win chance does not guarantee that he will win. Even he can get busted at first bet.
And yeah its a gambling, it's all about luck and risk.  

Omg are you guys for real? You seriously dont get it do you? I guess thats why dice casinos make so much money, your risk is not bigger or lower DOESNT MATTER WHAT, the odds are odds and are always the same of course it doesnt guarantee he will win, nothing does. Jesus..

[Coef]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

[Astargath]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

The chances are indeed just a little little better on a single bet but your calculations are wrong. From what i understand you said that you have 66% chance vs 55% which is totally wrong there is no way the difference would be that big, i could link you something so you can see, give me a sec.


Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0

Read the second post and you will understand.

[Coef]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

The chances are indeed just a little little better on a single bet but your calculations are wrong. From what i understand you said that you have 66% chance vs 55% which is totally wrong there is no way the difference would be that big, i could link you something so you can see, give me a sec.


Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0

Read the second post and you will understand.

I don't think my calculation is wrong. The reason the difference is so big in my example is that I exaggeratedly set the base bet to a tiny amount, ie 1 satoshi.
Basically, the smaller the base bet, the more you have to wager in total to reach the same goal given that you have not encountered a long losing streak and get busted in the middle of the process.
And, the larger your wagered amount, the more negative your EV will be, and hence the lower the chance of success for reaching the same goal.

Also, the house edge in keepinquiet's example is 0.1%, while the one in my example is 10 times higher as 1%.

Theoretically speaking, you could also be flat betting 1 satoshi, and hope to get 500000 winning bets more than losing bets before getting busted. It definitely could happen, but the chance would be just a tiny fraction of 66%.

Edit: fixed some typos

[erpbridge]

so if I have .5 btc to work with how much can I make .1 btc using it?

Pantheon if your aim is to make 0.1 BTC from that 0.5 BTC. I would suggest just making 2 bets at 90% and stopping after that. Because if you start from a small amount as 0.0001 . You will bust in less than 12 rolls, which can very well happen in a few hundred rolls. Martingale is usually worth with a large bankroll even then there is a big risk . Starting with 0.5 BTC will bust you much before you make any serious money with it.

Even if you are planning to make two consecutive bets at 90% still those two can be a loss if not both atleast one. So risk is always there, just try your luck. Thanks

Like Astargath said risk is the same. But if you go about doing a martingale you would need to win atleast 1000 times before he gets his 0.1 BTC. I feel seeing a streak of 12 is very common in a couple thousands of rolls. And since its  1000 wins he need, he would be betting more than 4-5K rolls.
He could just get there by making 2 bets at 90% and hope for the win. Or rather just martingale once or twice starting with 0.05, and stop after it .

[Poppy]

someone should just screen cap the martingale in action with a 1 btc bankroll to see if its worth it.

[erpbridge]

someone should just screen cap the martingale in action with a 1 btc bankroll to see if its worth it.

There won't be any point of that. Some people will be lucky and will not bust and some people will. It won't prove anything at the end of it. There is no guaranteed strategy to win. It all depends on your luck .

[Astargath]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

The chances are indeed just a little little better on a single bet but your calculations are wrong. From what i understand you said that you have 66% chance vs 55% which is totally wrong there is no way the difference would be that big, i could link you something so you can see, give me a sec.


Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0

Read the second post and you will understand.

I don't think my calculation is wrong. The reason the difference is so big in my example is that I exaggeratedly set the base bet to a tiny amount, ie 1 satoshi.
Basically, the smaller the base bet, the more you have to wager in total to reach the same goal given that you have not encountered a long losing streak and get busted in the middle of the process.
And, the larger your wagered amount, the more negative your EV will be, and hence the lower the chance of success for reaching the same goal.

Also, the house edge in keepinquiet's example is 0.1%, while the one in my example is 10 times higher as 1%.

Theoretically speaking, you could also be flat betting 1 satoshi, and hope to get 500000 winning bets more than losing bets before getting busted. It definitely could happen, but the chance would be just a tiny fraction of 66%.

Edit: fixed some typos

No, im sorry you are wrong, house edge doesnt matter. Dont you think that if something like what you say was true there would be thousands of strategies and guides about it? Everyone would be doing it to get a 15% better chance, unfortunately its not possible.

[Coef]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

The chances are indeed just a little little better on a single bet but your calculations are wrong. From what i understand you said that you have 66% chance vs 55% which is totally wrong there is no way the difference would be that big, i could link you something so you can see, give me a sec.


Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0

Read the second post and you will understand.

I don't think my calculation is wrong. The reason the difference is so big in my example is that I exaggeratedly set the base bet to a tiny amount, ie 1 satoshi.
Basically, the smaller the base bet, the more you have to wager in total to reach the same goal given that you have not encountered a long losing streak and get busted in the middle of the process.
And, the larger your wagered amount, the more negative your EV will be, and hence the lower the chance of success for reaching the same goal.

Also, the house edge in keepinquiet's example is 0.1%, while the one in my example is 10 times higher as 1%.

Theoretically speaking, you could also be flat betting 1 satoshi, and hope to get 500000 winning bets more than losing bets before getting busted. It definitely could happen, but the chance would be just a tiny fraction of 66%.

Edit: fixed some typos

No, im sorry you are wrong, house edge doesnt matter. Dont you think that if something like what you say was true there would be thousands of strategies and guides about it? Everyone would be doing it to get a 15% better chance, unfortunately its not possible.

Would you mind telling me exactly which step is wrong in my calculation?

And BTW what do you mean by house edge doesn't matter? Are you saying house edge does not affect your win chance?
When the house edge is 0.1%, the chance to win a x2 bet is 49.95%, but when the house edge is 1% the chance to win a x2 bet will be 49.5%. The difference looks small, but the effect will be very significant as you make thousands or even millions of bets.

[XinXan]

Everyone who has been a part of any gambling site must have tried martingale. so i just wanted to know your experience that have u ever gained profit from martingale? or its name should be changed to martinfail?

I'm agree, the name must be changed for Martinfail.

One time i was making martingale at 95% to win, i was sure to lost 4 consecutive times was imposible but then it happen, 5 consecutive loss at 95%.

and i have another experience with that betting method, once at bones, martingale to win x2.5 i make 0.3 from 0.02... and then all gone.

But all the strategies should be named fail because all of them suck, people just complain about martingale because its the most famous one but it doesnt matter, one thing is sure, if you want to make x profit, instead of using martingale and waiting hours to get there just bet on the necessary odds with 1 bet and save yourself time, the odds would be the same.

In fact, the odds would be better with making just 1 bet than with using martingale.
You may want to take a look at my previous post in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=610339.msg11502113#msg11502113

The chances are indeed just a little little better on a single bet but your calculations are wrong. From what i understand you said that you have 66% chance vs 55% which is totally wrong there is no way the difference would be that big, i could link you something so you can see, give me a sec.


Here you go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=948965.0

Read the second post and you will understand.

I don't think my calculation is wrong. The reason the difference is so big in my example is that I exaggeratedly set the base bet to a tiny amount, ie 1 satoshi.
Basically, the smaller the base bet, the more you have to wager in total to reach the same goal given that you have not encountered a long losing streak and get busted in the middle of the process.
And, the larger your wagered amount, the more negative your EV will be, and hence the lower the chance of success for reaching the same goal.

Also, the house edge in keepinquiet's example is 0.1%, while the one in my example is 10 times higher as 1%.

Theoretically speaking, you could also be flat betting 1 satoshi, and hope to get 500000 winning bets more than losing bets before getting busted. It definitely could happen, but the chance would be just a tiny fraction of 66%.

Edit: fixed some typos

No, im sorry you are wrong, house edge doesnt matter. Dont you think that if something like what you say was true there would be thousands of strategies and guides about it? Everyone would be doing it to get a 15% better chance, unfortunately its not possible.

Would you mind telling me exactly which step is wrong in my calculation?

And BTW what do you mean by house edge doesn't matter? Are you saying house edge does not affect your win chance?
When the house edge is 0.1%, the chance to win a x2 bet is 49.95%, but when the house edge is 1% the chance to win a x2 bet will be 49.5%. The difference looks small, but the effect will be very significant as you make thousands or even millions of bets.

House edge doesnt matter if you are calculating the chances of winning of 2 different strategies since you are aplying the same house edge for both of them, if you use martingale and plain bet the house edge could be 1% or 2% the idea would still be the same, that it doesnt matter what you bet you will have almost the same risk, yeah you have a little bit of advantage by betting only once but that wouldnt change if the house edge was bigger or lower, it would be proportional sort of.

[foxbitcoin]

Martingale has proven time and time again to get people to go broke. Better system is to start with 1 unit and increase after every win by 1 unit. If you get on a hot streak, you might be on to something good!

[Quinn]

in the end you`ll be broke, I mean I seen it done on akcminer or whoever when he lost -100 btc.

[Compa]

i think no, if do you have btc very much, very nice to use martiangle system.

[pooya87]

someone should just screen cap the martingale in action with a 1 btc bankroll to see if its worth it.

the problem is, if you start really small - that is starting from 0.00000001 BTC - and start betting, your winnings will not be of any significance.

for example you will win after 5-6 times or even the first time and the amount you win is going to be less than 100 satoshi every time. so the accumulated amount is nothing.

besides you only need 24 loses (if i am not mistaken) to go bankrupt and lose everything. which means you worked so many hours for 100 satoshi wins and lost 1 btc.

[arallmuus]

someone should just screen cap the martingale in action with a 1 btc bankroll to see if its worth it.

There is no need to screenshot it in action though, you can always use this site to calculate how many lose streak your balance could sustain without even risking any penny trying to do it http://dicesites.com/tools

besides you only need 24 loses (if i am not mistaken) to go bankrupt

Mistaken, You will need 26x lose streak and the chance for it will be 0.00000193%

i think no, if do you have btc very much, very nice to use martiangle system.

No its not, if you have a lot of BTC and only wagering a few satoshi for your martingale then it is a complete nonsense . Your lost add up with your lose streak thus the amount that you will win will stay the same (assuming you are using a 49.5 % for it ).
All sites got its own max win limit, thus at some point even if you have a lot of BTC, your martingale will not be able to bet the next one if it hit the maximum win limit already

[XinXan]

Martingale has proven time and time again to get people to go broke. Better system is to start with 1 unit and increase after every win by 1 unit. If you get on a hot streak, you might be on to something good!

Thats the same as martingale but with wins instead of loses and no that system is not any better, its the same, it could be better because it could be faster if you get to a hot streak fast enough and you stop when you are ahead but in the end you would just lose like every other strategy with no better odds.

[nikona]

Martingale has proven time and time again to get people to go broke. Better system is to start with 1 unit and increase after every win by 1 unit. If you get on a hot streak, you might be on to something good!

Thats the same as martingale but with wins instead of loses and no that system is not any better, its the same, it could be better because it could be faster if you get to a hot streak fast enough and you stop when you are ahead but in the end you would just lose like every other strategy with no better odds.

That is actually called the anti-martingale strategy with the difference that you double after every win. But even that doesn't guarantee winning. The user has to decide till what amount would he continue increasing after every win, and once you get to 1-2 BTC on the wins starting from something like 0.005 , it is difficult to keep risking a lot of money. Overall the math will beat you due to the house edge.

the problem is, if you start really small - that is starting from 0.00000001 BTC - and start betting, your winnings will not be of any significance.

There was a user who did that on Justdice , but eventually lost his bankroll after a long losing streak .