Does martingale really works?

[gcseybolt]

When I did martingale I found that over the long run it averages out so that you win 1/4 of your bet per roll.  So for example lets say you bet 1 btc per roll and rolled 1000 times, you'd either have a profit of 250 btc or go bust.

[Shogen]

What martingale does is to create "very high win chance" bets.

With a strategy of base amount 0.001, 2x on loss, total budget 1.024 (busted in 10 consecutive losses), what you are really betting is 99.89% (=1-0.505^10) win chance bets.

So, you are just hoping you will never see a rare event happens (10 consecutive losses in this case).

The other thing to consider is how long it takes to get there. At 0.001 BTC, to get 1 BTC you'd need to win 1000 times before that happens. The chances of this are 1/1024, but you have to consider that it's inclusive of all rolls. So you aren't rolling 1000 times. Every loss adds another to it. If you win and lose 50%, it would take 2000 rolls to get there, but there is a 1/1024 chance you're going to cap out and lose it all.

Another thing to note is that, you don't get the option of "very high win chance" bets for free.
Indeed, you are paying a high price (a much higher equivalent house edge).

Take my above case as an example, and assume the house edge is 1% (as in PD and JD).
The chance of 10 consecutive losses is indeed about 1/927 (=0.505^10, for 1% edge), much higher than 1/1024.
So, the equivalent house edge is much higher than 1% now.

If you are doing martingale with lower base amount (or higher budget, ie more rounds to get busted), the equivalent house edge would be even much higher.
Say for base amount 0.000001, total budget 1.048576 (busted in 20 consecutive losses), the chance of losing would be about 1/859354 (=0.505^20) instead of 1/1048576.

Fixed a typo.

[ranlo]

What martingale does is to create "very high win chance" bets.

With a strategy of base amount 0.001, 2x on loss, total budget 1.024 (busted in 10 consecutive losses), what you are really betting is 99.89% (=1-0.505^10) win chance bets.

So, you are just hoping you will never see a rare event happens (10 consecutive losses in this case).

The other thing to consider is how long it takes to get there. At 0.001 BTC, to get 1 BTC you'd need to win 1000 times before that happens. The chances of this are 1/1024, but you have to consider that it's inclusive of all rolls. So you aren't rolling 1000 times. Every loss adds another to it. If you win and lose 50%, it would take 2000 rolls to get there, but there is a 1/1024 chance you're going to cap out and lose it all.

Another thing to note is that, you don't get the option of "very high win chance" bets for free.
Indeed, you are paying a high price (a much higher equivalent house edge).

Take my above case as an example, and assume the house edge is 1% (as in PD and JD).
The chance of 10 consecutive losses is indeed about 1/927 (=0.505^10, for 1% edge), much higher than 1/1024.
So, the equivalent house edge is much higher than 1% now.

If you are doing martingale with lower base amount (or higher budget, ie more likely to lose), the equivalent house edge would be even much higher.
Say for base amount 0.000001, total budget 1.048576 (busted in 20 consecutive losses), the chance of losing would be about 1/859354 (=0.505^20) instead of 1/1048576.

Hmm, you're right on the numbers as well. I wasn't thinking about how you actually earn less or have a lower than 50% chance. I simply rolled with 0.5^10 for my calculation, but you're right: it would be less than this (or, rather a greater chance of failure).

But wait a minute, why are we even talking about this? We should be pushing people to martingale and then invest in the sites they're playing on, :p.

[Shogen]

But wait a minute, why are we even talking about this? We should be pushing people to martingale and then invest in the sites they're playing on, :p.

Very true lol.

And that's why I find it very funny that the gamblers always ask the site owner to add an auto-bet bot.

[Malin Keshar]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money.

Otherwise, even in provably fair systems, it is always possible for you to lose any times in a row, so you can always fail and end with no money. By the law of large number, it WILL happens if you insists for long enough with the martingale stuff.

So martingale can work, if you start with much less than you have( 1/1024, say), and end your bet after some wins. If you try to make infinite money with martingale, sooner or later you will lose. Anyway will probably will end with end with few more than you started

[cp1]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money

Martingale doesn't work at all.  It doesn't matter how much you start with or how small your base bet is.  The odds are with the house no matter how much you bet.  And it's even worse because you're doubling your bet when you lose.  Doubling your bet in a game where the house has an edge can never be a winning strategy.

[ranlo]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money

Martingale doesn't work at all.  It doesn't matter how much you start with or how small your base bet is.  The odds are with the house no matter how much you bet.  And it's even worse because you're doubling your bet when you lose.  Doubling your bet in a game where the house has an edge can never be a winning strategy.

Not to mention even with infinite funds, at some point it would hit billions of failures in a row. So the idea that it works "100%," regardless of the number, is false.

[cp1]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money

Martingale doesn't work at all.  It doesn't matter how much you start with or how small your base bet is.  The odds are with the house no matter how much you bet.  And it's even worse because you're doubling your bet when you lose.  Doubling your bet in a game where the house has an edge can never be a winning strategy.

Not to mention even with infinite funds, at some point it would hit billions of failures in a row. So the idea that it works "100%," regardless of the number, is false.

Also the idea of adding money to your infinite bankroll is silly

[Benjig]

Martingale is the fastest way to lost all your money

[ranlo]

Martingale is the fastest way to lost all your money

Technically it can be a slow way to lose it (I've had the martingale work for 36+ hours before finally crashing), so that's not entirely true, :p.

[Benjig]

Martingale is the fastest way to lost all your money

Technically it can be a slow way to lose it (I've had the martingale work for 36+ hours before finally crashing), so that's not entirely true, :p.

If you are betting in roulete lets say, only red, i have 1 btc and my bets are 0.05... if there are lets say, 10 blacks in a row.. i would had only lost .5, but if i were martingaling.. 0.05 - 0.1 - 0.2 - 0.4 - 0.8 ..  at the five black im completely knocked out.. you can understand this example..

[ranlo]

Martingale is the fastest way to lost all your money

Technically it can be a slow way to lose it (I've had the martingale work for 36+ hours before finally crashing), so that's not entirely true, :p.

If you are betting in roulete lets say, only red, i have 1 btc and my bets are 0.05... if there are lets say, 10 blacks in a row.. i would had only lost .5, but if i were martingaling.. 0.05 - 0.1 - 0.2 - 0.4 - 0.8 ..  at the five black im completely knocked out.. you can understand this example..

Oh, I got that part. I just meant that in theory it would take hours to end up at a loss (assuming you accounted for, say 16 losses in a row worth of funds).

[leex1528]

I still think Martingale is one of the best strategies you can use.  The problem is people are trying to play for HOURS upon HOURS with it....of course you are going to fail.

I usually can go from Faucet to around .005 before I bust...Guess what I usually cash out around then.  Yes sometimes I bust before that but it still works...

I think its funny that a lot of people say Martingale sucks but then do something like 10% win chance and 20% increase on loss....you do realize that is so far worse the martingale it is not even funny?

Heres the thing, when playing Martingale, don't try to make what your current balance is....say make like 10% of what your balance is...odds are really great that way.

[zeeshanblc]

It doesn't work, people never know when to stop and this is why

[hensi]

It doesn't work, people never know when to stop and this is why

Well then can you guide me when do i stop?

[leex1528]

It doesn't work, people never know when to stop and this is why

Well then can you guide me when do i stop?

I would aim for like 5-20% of your bet bankroll.

Ex:  You have 1BTC, start with bets around .001 or so, aim for around .1 to .2 of income.  This requires around 100-200 wins before you reach 9-10 losses in a row, odds are in your favor, not saying it won't bust but better odds than what most people got.

[Malin Keshar]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money

Martingale doesn't work at all.  It doesn't matter how much you start with or how small your base bet is.  The odds are with the house no matter how much you bet.  And it's even worse because you're doubling your bet when you lose.  Doubling your bet in a game where the house has an edge can never be a winning strategy.

Martingale works if you know how to stop. Otherwise you'll be eaten, like all others noobs that refuse to stop when they are winning.

And infinite money is a mathematical concept, so not existent in the real world. Would be like $0.01 when you have 10 billion dollars

[Malin Keshar]

martingale works 100% if you have infinite money

Martingale doesn't work at all.  It doesn't matter how much you start with or how small your base bet is.  The odds are with the house no matter how much you bet.  And it's even worse because you're doubling your bet when you lose.  Doubling your bet in a game where the house has an edge can never be a winning strategy.

Not to mention even with infinite funds, at some point it would hit billions of failures in a row. So the idea that it works "100%," regardless of the number, is false.

with infinite money(not much money), no matter how much you lose, you'll always have more money. I think it is mathematically impossible lose infinite times( not billions or trillions of times, but infinite). It is more like a mathematical concept

[wayneyoyo]

I have use to martingale 3x on Primedice and Just dice , have made 1 btc to 12 before it just all about luck mostly .

Like other say unless you have infinity Bitcoin .

[hensi]

I have use to martingale 3x on Primedice and Just dice , have made 1 btc to 12 before it just all about luck mostly .

Like other say unless you have infinity Bitcoin .

And i just lost 0.1 on pd using martingale!!!! So the final verdict is that there is nothing like martingale, its just martinfail