Does martingale really works?

[sidhujag]

Let me put an end to the new ppl that keep coming back.


Read hanovers posts about martingale.

http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=8495533#post8495533

unfortunately this is not going to work. martingale is an easy way to gamble dice and everybody new thinks that it will work someday and they can get rich so they come back. so they have to learn it the hard way , by losing a lot and giving it up entirely.

Just point them to the math. Its the best explanation. Thats all we can do.

[relq]

No, I Lost 0.40 the other day on primedice 

You should try another dice site like magicaldice or anyelse. i think its not your luck on there. about martingale, i think its works depend your bankroll, more bigger your bankroll more chance you win and will comeback for sure.

[phibay]

No, I Lost 0.40 the other day on primedice 

martingale doesn't really works, i also lost weeks ago on primedice, im not lucky on that site   i'll gamble on magicaldice on this monday, tsk tsk you should have gambled that on magicaldice maybe our luck is on MD

[Betwrong]

From my experince it doesn't. I'd call it martinfail as you suggested. I had once 15 lose streak betting at 50% chance. How messed up is that?! 15 reds on 50% win chance. Just do the math if you are starting at say just 0.0001 what a tremendous amount of your sats you will lose in the case of 15 reds.

[GannickusX]

No, you are wrong, that is not the gamblers fallacy and you are wrong thinking martingale works at short term because it doesnt, the term does not matter, no strategy works at short, mid or long term.

No, that is Gamblers Fallacy....

DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect because past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future.

So him saying if short term is good, or past events(martingale short term)  Past events do not change the probability of certain things happening in the future.


I am defining short term in this case as this:  say I have .01 coins.  I want to gain .00001 coins.  If I played martingale with a base bet of .000001.  I would need to win 10 times before losing 9 in a row.  Your odds are pretty damn great you are going to win 10 times before you lose 9 in a row. 

Nothing is guaranteed to work short-term, though. Every single time you bet you have a 50% chance to lose. You could lose everything or lose nothing.

With gambling and especially with online bitcoin dice, short term has greater odds than long term.

Generally with small house edges, gamblers lose money when they gamble long term.

No it doesnt have greater odds, if you play at 50% the odds will always be 50% no matter what, i dont really understand what are you trying to say

[leex1528]

No, you are wrong, that is not the gamblers fallacy and you are wrong thinking martingale works at short term because it doesnt, the term does not matter, no strategy works at short, mid or long term.

No, that is Gamblers Fallacy....

DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect because past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future.

So him saying if short term is good, or past events(martingale short term)  Past events do not change the probability of certain things happening in the future.


I am defining short term in this case as this:  say I have .01 coins.  I want to gain .00001 coins.  If I played martingale with a base bet of .000001.  I would need to win 10 times before losing 9 in a row.  Your odds are pretty damn great you are going to win 10 times before you lose 9 in a row. 

Nothing is guaranteed to work short-term, though. Every single time you bet you have a 50% chance to lose. You could lose everything or lose nothing.

With gambling and especially with online bitcoin dice, short term has greater odds than long term.

Generally with small house edges, gamblers lose money when they gamble long term.

No it doesnt have greater odds, if you play at 50% the odds will always be 50% no matter what, i dont really understand what are you trying to say

Yes, you are correct if you play at 50% you have a 50% chance of winning that roll no matter what.

What I am saying, if you want to want to win 10 hands of martingale, your odds will be greater than 50% if you have a large bankroll and are hoping for a small profit.  The problem is, the more and more you play(increase number of wins) the closer you get to the house edge, and eventually you are going to lose.

[minerbit hill]

Martingale increases the odds for you to win though.  But just like every method, the more you play, the more the odds go against you.

[GannickusX]

No, you are wrong, that is not the gamblers fallacy and you are wrong thinking martingale works at short term because it doesnt, the term does not matter, no strategy works at short, mid or long term.

No, that is Gamblers Fallacy....

DEFINITION of 'Gambler's Fallacy' When an individual erroneously believes that the onset of a certain random event is less likely to happen following an event or a series of events. This line of thinking is incorrect because past events do not change the probability that certain events will occur in the future.

So him saying if short term is good, or past events(martingale short term)  Past events do not change the probability of certain things happening in the future.


I am defining short term in this case as this:  say I have .01 coins.  I want to gain .00001 coins.  If I played martingale with a base bet of .000001.  I would need to win 10 times before losing 9 in a row.  Your odds are pretty damn great you are going to win 10 times before you lose 9 in a row. 

Nothing is guaranteed to work short-term, though. Every single time you bet you have a 50% chance to lose. You could lose everything or lose nothing.

With gambling and especially with online bitcoin dice, short term has greater odds than long term.

Generally with small house edges, gamblers lose money when they gamble long term.

No it doesnt have greater odds, if you play at 50% the odds will always be 50% no matter what, i dont really understand what are you trying to say

Yes, you are correct if you play at 50% you have a 50% chance of winning that roll no matter what.

What I am saying, if you want to want to win 10 hands of martingale, your odds will be greater than 50% if you have a large bankroll and are hoping for a small profit.  The problem is, the more and more you play(increase number of wins) the closer you get to the house edge, and eventually you are going to lose.

''closer and closer to the house edge'' You are always playing at the house edge, there is some technique to improve your odds so slightly but its so small it doesnt really make a difference, but your odds are not better, if you want to win only once, your odds are always 50% even if you have 100 bitcoins and you keep doubling your odds are still 50%

[Monopoly]

Yeah , It works if you have Infinite Money

[GannickusX]

Yeah , It works if you have Infinite Money

Dude, are you serious? Like are you serious now? This post has 87 pages and you have the courage to post that stupid shit? NO IT DOES NOT WORK EVEN WITH INFINITE MONEY BECAUSE OF CASINO BETTING LIMITS, i mean if you want to increase your post count dont be so fucking obvious.

[ranlo]

Yeah , It works if you have Infinite Money

Dude, are you serious? Like are you serious now? This post has 87 pages and you have the courage to post that stupid shit? NO IT DOES NOT WORK EVEN WITH INFINITE MONEY BECAUSE OF CASINO BETTING LIMITS, i mean if you want to increase your post count dont be so fucking obvious.

I just hope he actually believes the crap he's posting and tries it out at one of the casinos I have a bankroll investment in, .

[Zackgeno96]

Yeah , It works if you have Infinite Money

Dude, are you serious? Like are you serious now? This post has 87 pages and you have the courage to post that stupid shit? NO IT DOES NOT WORK EVEN WITH INFINITE MONEY BECAUSE OF CASINO BETTING LIMITS, i mean if you want to increase your post count dont be so fucking obvious.

I just hope he actually believes the crap he's posting and tries it out at one of the casinos I have a bankroll investment in, .

he can't be serious.... nobody has infinite money to gamble with and that isn't even the main point here as you stated it wouldn't work because of Casino Betting Limits, If you could find a casino that had unlimited betting limits and was provably fair well then martingale would be a sure thing....   but there are betting limits etc set in place so this never happens

[adaseb]

Yeah , It works if you have Infinite Money

Dude, are you serious? Like are you serious now? This post has 87 pages and you have the courage to post that stupid shit? NO IT DOES NOT WORK EVEN WITH INFINITE MONEY BECAUSE OF CASINO BETTING LIMITS, i mean if you want to increase your post count dont be so fucking obvious.

I just hope he actually believes the crap he's posting and tries it out at one of the casinos I have a bankroll investment in, .

he can't be serious.... nobody has infinite money to gamble with and that isn't even the main point here as you stated it wouldn't work because of Casino Betting Limits, If you could find a casino that had unlimited betting limits and was provably fair well then martingale would be a sure thing....   but there are betting limits etc set in place so this never happens

This was discussed many and many times.

If you had infinite money, why gamble in the first place? You can just gamble with play money.

The point of martingale is if you can find an area where if you have slightly better probability of winning the next roll or losing.

For example, you had 30 losses in a row at 50/50 odds, what are the chances that the next 30 rolls will be mostly winners?

[birdcat90]

btw guys..house of edge 1% mean we will always lose 1% from total bets right?

so if i roll for 100k bets then i will have 1000 rolls loss more than win roll right?

but sometimes its not that accurate...confuse here

[sidhujag]

btw guys..house of edge 1% mean we will always lose 1% from total bets right?

so if i roll for 100k bets then i will have 1000 rolls loss more than win roll right?

but sometimes its not that accurate...confuse here

You have 51% chance of losing. It's basic statistics,

[ralle14]

it doesnt work for me though it justs another way to get broke more faster

[Coef]

The point of martingale is if you can find an area where if you have slightly better probability of winning the next roll or losing.

For example, you had 30 losses in a row at 50/50 odds, what are the chances that the next 30 rolls will be mostly winners?

What do you mean by that? The bets are independent of each other, and your win chance of the next roll is always the same, regardless of your previous rolls. After having 30 losses in row at 50% bets, you still have 50% chance to lose the next one.

[Coef]

btw guys..house of edge 1% mean we will always lose 1% from total bets right?

so if i roll for 100k bets then i will have 1000 rolls loss more than win roll right?

but sometimes its not that accurate...confuse here

With a 1% house edge, the house has a EV of positive 1% and the player has a negative 1% in each of the bet.
So if the multiplier is x2, your win chance would be only 49.5% (you can expect to get back 49.5%*2=99%) rather than 50%.
And if the multiplier is x100, you win chance would be only 0.99% rather than 1%.

A win chance of 49.5% means that you will win roughly 49.5% of your bets (the more bets you make, the closer it will be), but it doesn't mean you will win exactly 49.5% of your bets.

[GannickusX]

btw guys..house of edge 1% mean we will always lose 1% from total bets right?

so if i roll for 100k bets then i will have 1000 rolls loss more than win roll right?

but sometimes its not that accurate...confuse here

What do you mean? It cant always be totally 100% accurate, otherwise every 100 rolls you will always win once and that is not true, the more bets happen the closer it gets to 1% but it´s never going to be perfectly accurate

[ranlo]

btw guys..house of edge 1% mean we will always lose 1% from total bets right?

so if i roll for 100k bets then i will have 1000 rolls loss more than win roll right?

but sometimes its not that accurate...confuse here

What do you mean? It cant always be totally 100% accurate, otherwise every 100 rolls you will always win once and that is not true, the more bets happen the closer it gets to 1% but it´s never going to be perfectly accurate

This. To take it further, anyone that's looking at statistics and probability won't make any claim as to how many you should win in x rolls. Generally speaking, it takes at LEAST 100 million tries to get near the "expected," but will still never be accurate.