Does martingale really works?

[ondratra]

Another example come to my mind:

Let's imagine we have some epic betting strategy for dice game - every round there is generated random number between 1 and 10000. If number under 5000 is generated we have won round.

We have XY cash that is enough for YZ bets.


Now imagine the worst scenario: we come to casino and start betting, but YZ times in row we loss What can we do against it? Nothing (don't bet).

Yes YZ bad rounds in row are inprobable, but in long run it WILL appear now matter what you do - and you can't tell if it will happen after 100hours of betting or since time you come to casino.

[1715032407]

1715032407

[1715032407]

1715032407

[1715032407]

1715032407

[Cryptopher]

Look at any sites high roller page and you'll see they all busted when they tried the martingale.

Totally agree, I've seen the catastrophic losses that unfortunate users of the Martingale have incurred, of course it is a little trickier to spot their successes though.

I know a few people that have had some success with Martingale, but they've turned a little greedy then ended up losing some of their winnings. Usually the way.

[FanEagle]

Every System has a flaw,and in that second you Will find youself bankrupted.

[coincolonel]

It does increases your success / winning rate. But once you lose, it will be devastating

[W-M]

The only 'betting system' that works and will actually be able to make you a little money in the long run, is Card Counting in Blackjack.

[ondratra]

Every System has a flaw,and in that second you Will find youself bankrupted.

Read my post 3 posts above yours Their is no flaw in Martingle - you just doesn't undestand what it is meant to do. (and owners of casino like very much to confuse newbies )

When casino has house edge (should have always) their is higher chance that you will lose everything than doubling your initial money - supposing you don't cheat.

[leex1528]

Every System has a flaw,and in that second you Will find youself bankrupted.

Read my post 3 posts above yours Their is no flaw in Martingle - you just doesn't undestand what it is meant to do. (and owners of casino like very much to confuse newbies )

When casino has house edge (should have always) their is higher chance that you will lose everything than doubling your initial money - supposing you don't cheat.

This.  People who fail at Martingale have no idea how to use it.  Yes, you are not going to double your money, if you want the best odds of doubling your money.  Bet it all on 1 hand and hope for the best.  All these people who claim they can gamble good on dice are just beyond amusing.  You are going to tell me your good at luck??  Martingale is the way to go, just walk away after a few wins is what people have problems with.

[f3tus]

Martingale is the way to go, just walk away after a few wins is what people have problems with.

Indeed, it's psychological. You've got some profit, but think you could get more by wagering more, hoping luck will be on your side. It might be, but most likely it won't and you go bust.

[Cryptopher]

Every System has a flaw,and in that second you Will find youself bankrupted.

Read my post 3 posts above yours Their is no flaw in Martingle - you just doesn't undestand what it is meant to do. (and owners of casino like very much to confuse newbies )

When casino has house edge (should have always) their is higher chance that you will lose everything than doubling your initial money - supposing you don't cheat.

This.  People who fail at Martingale have no idea how to use it.  Yes, you are not going to double your money, if you want the best odds of doubling your money.  Bet it all on 1 hand and hope for the best.  All these people who claim they can gamble good on dice are just beyond amusing.  You are going to tell me your good at luck??  Martingale is the way to go, just walk away after a few wins is what people have problems with.

This is true. There are a number of ways of spreading risk to your bank roll, and each come with their compromise to the amount you can win. I've found in the past that I have expected too much from Martingale, and lost out as a result.

It's true what they say that Martingale will eventually incur you a catastrophic loss.

[leex1528]

It's true what they say that Martingale will eventually incur you a catastrophic loss.

Which brings you to the most important lesson you can gamble with, DO NOT GAMBLE WITH WHAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE

All gambling leads to catastrophic loss:)

[Cryptopher]

It's true what they say that Martingale will eventually incur you a catastrophic loss.

Which brings you to the most important lesson you can gamble with, DO NOT GAMBLE WITH WHAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE

All gambling leads to catastrophic loss:)

Haha, buying a Lotto ticket for £2 is not a catastrophic loss But I understand the message that you are sending. It's true, I think that it's easy to be blinded by the wins and the whole "surely you can't lose THAT many times in a row".

I've had some rotten luck in dice games, but I've only ever played with funds I've earned.

[leex1528]

It's true what they say that Martingale will eventually incur you a catastrophic loss.

Which brings you to the most important lesson you can gamble with, DO NOT GAMBLE WITH WHAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE

All gambling leads to catastrophic loss:)

Haha, buying a Lotto ticket for £2 is not a catastrophic loss But I understand the message that you are sending. It's true, I think that it's easy to be blinded by the wins and the whole "surely you can't lose THAT many times in a row".

I've had some rotten luck in dice games, but I've only ever played with funds I've earned.

Well I should elaborate then, say you buy a £2 100,000 times.  Much like losing at martingale, you would have to bet a lot of times or catch really bad luck to lose that many hands in a row, but after each bet your odds get worse and worse until finally you will bust!

[Cryptopher]

It's true what they say that Martingale will eventually incur you a catastrophic loss.

Which brings you to the most important lesson you can gamble with, DO NOT GAMBLE WITH WHAT YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE

All gambling leads to catastrophic loss:)

Haha, buying a Lotto ticket for £2 is not a catastrophic loss But I understand the message that you are sending. It's true, I think that it's easy to be blinded by the wins and the whole "surely you can't lose THAT many times in a row".

I've had some rotten luck in dice games, but I've only ever played with funds I've earned.

Well I should elaborate then, say you buy a £2 100,000 times.  Much like losing at martingale, you would have to bet a lot of times or catch really bad luck to lose that many hands in a row, but after each bet your odds get worse and worse until finally you will bust!

The majority of my bad luck in dice games has occurred outside of Martingale. More like losing when you have a 98% chance of winning after three rolls. That was harsh, possible of course but bloody annoying considering how seemingly improbable the reverse wager is :/

[boumalo]

When you bet at a martingale it is the same as risking everything you plan on betting to win so if you have 31BTC and starts at 1BTC you risk 31BTC to win 1 and you repeat that until you will lose your 31BTC or quit a winner but if you quit a winner you will come back and play...

[f3tus]

When you bet at a martingale it is the same as risking everything you plan on betting to win so if you have 31BTC and starts at 1BTC you risk 31BTC to win 1 and you repeat that until you will lose your 31BTC or quit a winner but if you quit a winner you will come back and play...

A person would have to be retarded to have 31 BTC and play a Martingale with 1 BTC initial wager.

[dooglus]

1. 1
2. 2
3. 4
[...]
26. 33554432
27. 67108864
28. 134217728

28 losses in a row with 49.5% odds is so rare that I am willing to bet it hasn't occurred a single time in the entire history of satoshidice and other gambling sites.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.  I've never seen more than 27 in a row, but with over a billion bets at Just-Dice I would be surprised if there wasn't at least a 28 streak at one point.  2^20 is about a million, 2^8 is 128, so it would take about 128 million bets on average to see a 28 loss streak at 50%.  And quite a few less at 49.5%.

People keep asking me "what's the longest streak on JD?".  I didn't look.  It will be a pain in the ass to go through the data and work it out.  But if you want to make a little wager on the existence of a 28 loss streak at 49.5%, that would make it worth my time.

So how about it?  Promise I won't cheat and look it up ahead of time.

Here's the 27 streak:

https://i.imgur.com/S5zjWv8.png - photo of most of it
https://i.imgur.com/AeIqshZ.png - screenshot of all of it

[Cryptopher]

1. 1
2. 2
3. 4
[...]
26. 33554432
27. 67108864
28. 134217728

28 losses in a row with 49.5% odds is so rare that I am willing to bet it hasn't occurred a single time in the entire history of satoshidice and other gambling sites.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.  I've never seen more than 27 in a row, but with over a billion bets at Just-Dice I would be surprised if there wasn't at least a 28 streak at one point.  2^20 is about a million, 2^8 is 128, so it would take about 128 million bets on average to see a 28 loss streak at 50%.  And quite a few less at 49.5%.

People keep asking me "what's the longest streak on JD?".  I didn't look.  It will be a pain in the ass to go through the data and work it out.  But if you want to make a little wager on the existence of a 28 loss streak at 49.5%, that would make it worth my time.

So how about it?  Promise I won't cheat and look it up ahead of time.

Here's the 27 streak:

https://i.imgur.com/S5zjWv8.png - photo of most of it
https://i.imgur.com/AeIqshZ.png - screenshot of all of it

27 losing streak, god dammit I would be reeling with anger and on the verge of insanity.

I would love to see the longest winning streak, they don't seem to be nearly as long or nearly as common.

[dooglus]

Lulz, you're right. This is why you don't throw something up quickly.

Here's the revised version:

1   1
2   3
3   7
[...]
22   4194303
23   8388607
24   16777215

23 losses = almost 1 BTC.

Still not right, sorry.

23 losses = 0.08388607 BTC - not even a tenth of 1 BTC.

[dooglus]

1. 1
2. 2
3. 4
[...]
26. 33554432
27. 67108864
28. 134217728

28 losses in a row with 49.5% odds is so rare that I am willing to bet it hasn't occurred a single time in the entire history of satoshidice and other gambling sites.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.  I've never seen more than 27 in a row, but with over a billion bets at Just-Dice I would be surprised if there wasn't at least a 28 streak at one point.  2^20 is about a million, 2^8 is 128, so it would take about 128 million bets on average to see a 28 loss streak at 50%.  And quite a few less at 49.5%.

People keep asking me "what's the longest streak on JD?".  I didn't look.  It will be a pain in the ass to go through the data and work it out.  But if you want to make a little wager on the existence of a 28 loss streak at 49.5%, that would make it worth my time.

So how about it?  Promise I won't cheat and look it up ahead of time.

So here's the bet for anyone who wants to take me up on it: Edit4: betting is over - the 50 BTC limit was reached

I bet there has been a streak of 28 or more losses in a row at 49.5% by a single account on JD in the first 1,216,045,813 bets (that's how many there have been up to now).  I'll ignore bets at different chances - so if they lost 15 times at 49.5%, then win one at 90%, then lose another 15 at 49.5% that counts as a losing streak of 30 at 49.5% - the 90% bet is ignored.

I don't know how many of the 1216M bets at JD were at 49.5%, but I guess it's around half of them and so I think I have a decent chance of winning this.  The offer is open to anyone who wants to take me up.  Send your bets to 1CNPpAxC5Si15qcVBQn7jEoXmBKTn7fSqg and if I lose I'll return twice as much to the first sending address of each transaction, satoshidice style.  Offer open until exactly 7 days from the time of this post.

Edit: I guess I should set a maximum so I don't bankrupt myself.  Once the total reaches 50 BTC I'll return any excess to the sending address.  First come, first served, in blockchain order.

Edit2: just to be clear, the player doesn't need to be martingale betting, and the stake doesn't matter at all; losing bets of 0 BTC are still losing bets.

Edit3: I'm talking about sequences of 28 or more bets at 49.5% (after filtering out non-49.5% bets) where the player lost.  Bets where the house lost aren't counted as "losing bets" for the purposes of this bet.

[f3tus]

Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.  I've never seen more than 27 in a row, but with over a billion bets at Just-Dice I would be surprised if there wasn't at least a 28 streak at one point.  2^20 is about a million, 2^8 is 128, so it would take about 128 million bets on average to see a 28 loss streak at 50%.  And quite a few less at 49.5%.

People keep asking me "what's the longest streak on JD?".  I didn't look.  It will be a pain in the ass to go through the data and work it out.  But if you want to make a little wager on the existence of a 28 loss streak at 49.5%, that would make it worth my time.

So how about it?  Promise I won't cheat and look it up ahead of time.

Here's the 27 streak:

https://i.imgur.com/S5zjWv8.png - photo of most of it
https://i.imgur.com/AeIqshZ.png - screenshot of all of it

Holy shit at that sucker. Is he still around in the chat or something?

128 million to one, similar to lottery wins. He just won the fail lottery, heh, poor guy. 1.216 billion bets, so it does seems plausible it happened once or more... You assume at least half of those are 49.5% bets, I think more like 25%. And also somebody could rage-quit before that...

Very interesting bet.

Would it be considered cheating to ask exactly how many of those were 49.5%?