Does martingale really works?

[ondratra]

Basically unless you have infinite money supply, you will lose.

However the chances of getting 10-15 consecutive losses is rare.

So basically the less you play the better are your odds.


Basically get in and get out asap.

Not exactly.

a) You will probably ruin casino if you have more capital than casino on start(almost sure if you have significantly more than casino); no need for infinity (of course infinity money supply means 100% chance)
b) 10-15 losses in rows are NOT rare. It depends on point of view. During 15 rounds it is really rare to have 15 losses, but when you do like trilion rounds 15 in rows are actually very common.

[1714675507]

1714675507

[Cryptopher]

Basically unless you have infinite money supply, you will lose.

However the chances of getting 10-15 consecutive losses is rare.

So basically the less you play the better are your odds.


Basically get in and get out asap.

Haha, 10-15 consecutive loss on 49.5/50.5 is a hell of a lot more common than you might think over say 2000 rolls. You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

[Yuki1988]

Basically unless you have infinite money supply, you will lose.

However the chances of getting 10-15 consecutive losses is rare.

So basically the less you play the better are your odds.


Basically get in and get out asap.

Haha, 10-15 consecutive loss on 49.5/50.5 is a hell of a lot more common than you might think over say 2000 rolls. You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

It is rare to have 10 consecutive losses.
It is not rare to have 10 consecutive losses for making 5000 bets.

[Cryptopher]

Basically unless you have infinite money supply, you will lose.

However the chances of getting 10-15 consecutive losses is rare.

So basically the less you play the better are your odds.


Basically get in and get out asap.

Haha, 10-15 consecutive loss on 49.5/50.5 is a hell of a lot more common than you might think over say 2000 rolls. You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

It is rare to have 10 consecutive losses.
It is not rare to have 10 consecutive losses for making 5000 bets.

Yeah the number of times that it occurs will increase as the number of bets increases significantly. The trouble is that you tend to run into your first instance of this bad streak fairly early on - which is potentially enough to incur a catastrophic loss for the player.

[boumalo]

Basically unless you have infinite money supply, you will lose.

However the chances of getting 10-15 consecutive losses is rare.

So basically the less you play the better are your odds.


Basically get in and get out asap.

Not exactly.

a) You will probably ruin casino if you have more capital than casino on start(almost sure if you have significantly more than casino); no need for infinity (of course infinity money supply means 100% chance)
b) 10-15 losses in rows are NOT rare. It depends on point of view. During 15 rounds it is really rare to have 15 losses, but when you do like trilion rounds 15 in rows are actually very common.

You'll break the casino, you will not lose.
i don't see how anyone with infinite supply could lose. that would simply be a disgrace to all gamblers out there.

Infinite supply doesn't suffice since all casinos implement max bet

[Phildo]

You bankroll can never hit 0, but if you are super super super super super ..... super super unlucky the bankroll can get so small, and therefore the max bet so small that no one will play and then you aren't bankrupt according to the rules of monopoly, but you also aren't making any moey.

This is true, but the greater threat is that once the bankroll has halved a few times nobody trusts that the site is ever going to recover its losses and so the remaining bankroll evaporates as people pull out.

Exactly. There is some risk of the thing falling apart, but not because someone winning a bet that you can't afford to pay. Plus the way it's set up means that you will have to be extremely unlucky for that to happen. And judging from the posts on this thread, I don't think you have much to worry about.

[dooglus]

You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

I wouldn't say so.

10 losses is 1 in 927
10 wins is 1 in 1132

15 losses is 1 in 38100
15 wins is 1 in 28225

The loss streaks aren't even twice as likely as the win streaks.

I was recently looking into the history of Just-Dice 49.5% rolls, to find the longest streaks there have been.  I was surprised to find the following:

There have been 13 streaks of length 26 or more, and they break down as follows:

length 26: 3 losing, 3 winning
length 27: 1 losing, 4 winning
length 30: 0 losing, 1 winning
length 32: 1 losing, 0 winning

ie. there were 8 winning streaks and only 5 losing streaks of length 26 or more.  That's not what you would expect at all, given that losing streaks are meant to be more common.

Edit: I think I just figured out why that would be.  If you get 24 steps through a long winning streak, you don't stop playing.  If you get 24 steps through a long losing streak, you may well be bust if you're doubling on every loss, and so you stop playing and the rest of the streak never happens.  My analysis also ignored bets of 0 BTC, so if you got part way through your long losing streak, ran out of coins, and then bet 0 over and over just to see how long the streak was, it wouldn't show up in my count.

[dooglus]

And judging from the posts on this thread, I don't think you have much to worry about.

Are you saying "people are dumb so they'll lose"?

Because there's no skill to playing dice games.  It's all about luck.

[Phildo]

And judging from the posts on this thread, I don't think you have much to worry about.

Are you saying "people are dumb so they'll lose"?

Because there's no skill to playing dice games.  It's all about luck.

there is skill in making smart bets. Lots of people are martingaling and will keep martingaling and that's great for you. When they succeded you lose a peanut when they fail you make back all the peanuts they took from you and then some

[bitbaby]

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?

It doesn't work for me, it requires a bigger bank role for it to work and I don't play with that much but I met a guy and for a few bits he explained me a strat which actually works but it pays very little per bet and takes a long time to make anything.

[Light]

there is skill in making smart bets. Lots of people are martingaling and will keep martingaling and that's great for you. When they succeded you lose a peanut when they fail you make back all the peanuts they took from you and then some

That's not skill again. Your assuming incorrectly that people will eventually fail - which is true for an infinite case but at any non infinite case there is a possibility that they will continue to win and stop before that loss. Gambling is entirely luck, if you were to flat bet you could also go broke on the variance that gives you x losses in a row. Stratagems may deviate but if any was truly better than the others people would quickly use it to try and gain the best advantage they can get.

[Wardrick]

It doesn't work as well as some people think. It could work for awhile, but you'll eventually be risking a lot of money to make a small profit and that's where it fails. Casino's wouldn't be in business if there was a system that ends with the player always winning. You have to have some serious discipline and a huge bankroll to win in the long run in a Casino.

[Phildo]

there is skill in making smart bets. Lots of people are martingaling and will keep martingaling and that's great for you. When they succeded you lose a peanut when they fail you make back all the peanuts they took from you and then some

That's not skill again. Your assuming incorrectly that people will eventually fail - which is true for an infinite case but at any non infinite case there is a possibility that they will continue to win and stop before that loss. Gambling is entirely luck, if you were to flat bet you could also go broke on the variance that gives you x losses in a row. Stratagems may deviate but if any was truly better than the others people would quickly use it to try and gain the best advantage they can get.

There is skill/smarts in knowing smart ways to bet. Doing martingale is stupid, not doing martingale is a type of skill. No matter what bet you make it has the same ev, but not all strategies are equal. A martingale strategy (for the player) minimizes the amount you can win and maximizes the amount you can lose. Not realizing that makes you stupid, plenty of people on this thread don't realize it, and these stupid people have made and will continue to make dooglus lots of coins.

[Light]

There is skill/smarts in knowing smart ways to bet. Doing martingale is stupid, not doing martingale is a type of skill.

Subjective statement, cannot argue against someone else's truth.

No matter what bet you make it has the same ev, but not all strategies are equal.

Actually, doog and I have been discussing specific bet patterns that so far suggest that you get a better EV than normal. Please check previous posts.

A martingale strategy (for the player) minimizes the amount you can win and maximizes the amount you can lose.

As I've stated, variance changes everything, if you were to win your second bet every single time, you'd be winning with a martingale and breaking even on a flat betting system. Unless you are going to compare probability over an infinite case, chaos will always rule - meaning that no 'strategy' is really better than the other. It's only better if the variance is and will be the same (which it won't except over infinite bets).

Not realizing that makes you stupid, plenty of people on this thread don't realize it, and these stupid people have made and will continue to make dooglus lots of coins.

Subjective statement, cannot argue against someone else's truth.

[Phildo]

There is skill/smarts in knowing smart ways to bet. Doing martingale is stupid, not doing martingale is a type of skill.

Subjective statement, cannot argue against someone else's truth.

No matter what bet you make it has the same ev, but not all strategies are equal.

Actually, doog and I have been discussing specific bet patterns that so far suggest that you get a better EV than normal. Please check previous posts.

A martingale strategy (for the player) minimizes the amount you can win and maximizes the amount you can lose.

As I've stated, variance changes everything, if you were to win your second bet every single time, you'd be winning with a martingale and breaking even on a flat betting system. Unless you are going to compare probability over an infinite case, chaos will always rule - meaning that no 'strategy' is really better than the other. It's only better if the variance is and will be the same (which it won't except over infinite bets).

Not realizing that makes you stupid, plenty of people on this thread don't realize it, and these stupid people have made and will continue to make dooglus lots of coins.

Subjective statement, cannot argue against someone else's truth.

You and doog are not discussing martingale, you are discussing another type of strategy, that appears to be much smarter than martingale and may be smarter than just making random regular bets. They don't appear to be good enough to be +ev, but you guys are also doing some actual math and putting work into it, and that strategy would work better than martingaling because it's smarter.

I called the people doing the regular martingale over and over again stupid, because they are. Your other system is something different and you and doug are using math and critical thinking scales to improve your chances of doubling in a game that is 100% luck, while people using martingale are using stupidity to increase their chances of having a catastrophic loss.

[Light]

You and doog are not discussing martingale, you are discussing another type of strategy, that appears to be much smarter than martingale and may be smarter than just making random regular bets. They don't appear to be good enough to be +ev, but you guys are also doing some actual math and putting work into it, and that strategy would work better than martingaling because it's smarter.

I called the people doing the regular martingale over and over again stupid, because they are. Your other system is something different and you and doug are using math and critical thinking scales to improve your chances of doubling in a game that is 100% luck, while people using martingale are using stupidity to increase their chances of having a catastrophic loss.

It is was in response to this. Some strategies it seems do have different EV.

No matter what bet you make it has the same ev, but not all strategies are equal.

There's not much I can say about martingale being stupid. All dice games and 'strategies' are going to be -EV, it's just a matter of how much. I stopped dice betting a long time ago because a) I always seemed to have really shitty luck b) I felt bad about having a -EV even if it only had a small impact on my short term betting. Much better to try my hand at something else. That being said, I've stopped gambling all together...

[boumalo]

You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

Edit: I think I just figured out why that would be.  If you get 24 steps through a long winning streak, you don't stop playing.  If you get 24 steps through a long losing streak, you may well be bust if you're doubling on every loss, and so you stop playing and the rest of the streak never happens.  My analysis also ignored bets of 0 BTC, so if you got part way through your long losing streak, ran out of coins, and then bet 0 over and over just to see how long the streak was, it wouldn't show up in my count.

Are you sure? It feels a bit weird since when you keep playing you still have more chance to lose each time you play than to win

[Cryptopher]

You will see 10-15 consecutive losses a hell of a lot more than 10-15 consecutive wins.

I wouldn't say so.

-snip-

Edit: I think I just figured out why that would be.  If you get 24 steps through a long winning streak, you don't stop playing.  If you get 24 steps through a long losing streak, you may well be bust if you're doubling on every loss, and so you stop playing and the rest of the streak never happens.  My analysis also ignored bets of 0 BTC, so if you got part way through your long losing streak, ran out of coins, and then bet 0 over and over just to see how long the streak was, it wouldn't show up in my count.

Hello dooglus,

Thanks for your analysis of the problem. You are right, the part about the psychology and betting limit of losing and winning x times in a row.

I suppose my observation was from a small sample of data in my experience, and in the case of a friend's experience. You always notice the effects of a string of losses in Martingale because of the noticeable effect that it has on your bankroll.

In my experience I have seldom seen winning streaks over five possibly six rolls. You have to review the rolls to confirm this usually as you tend not to notice the effects of wins.

[omahapoker]

i bet there is one 31 bet losing streak

... you would have either won or lost depending on whether you mean "exactly 31" or "at least 31".  There's a 32!

i meant i thought there was one at least 31 or more.






its amazing to watch you explain numbers. you make it look simple

[Cryptopher]

www.999dice.com - 200 satoshi every 10 min

In this game you can get 200 free satoshi every 10 minutes and game for it.

I won 80000 MARTINGALE in it just with free bonus )

You can get more than that at PrimeDice every minute