Does martingale really works?

[dooglus]

I think you need to define what you mean by "better".

If two things are identical except that one has a higher chance of winning than the other, I think it's pretty clear that the one with the higher chance of winning is "better".

It's hard to conceive of a definition whereby it isn't. Unless you think winning is bad, I guess.

Edit: are you thinking that for something to be better than something else it has to be good?

It is better to only lose the tip of a finger to an industrial accident than to lose a whole arm. Neither is good, but the less serious accident is "better" than the more serious accident.

Edit2: and so while I wouldn't recommend industrial accidents, I can say that if you're going to have one, try to have a minor one.  Because they are "better" than major ones.

Edit3: lol

[cp1]

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play. 

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1.  Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

[dooglus]

Both have the same EV

How do you figure?

[sidhujag]

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play. 

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1.  Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

Correct but I think he showed that the expectancy was better with a 7 series martingale, very slightly. In the end it won't matter in this type of game.

[tspacepilot]

You are confused about what "expected profit" means.

I think you are slightly confused about what "expected profit means.

Here's what everyone except you is talking about when they say 'expected profit':

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

What are you talking about?

I am talking about a 1 time run where your odds are 99% chance of winning.  I have been saying that the entire time.  I have already said countless times that over the course of time, you are going to lose money.  But if you say, had a 20 bet limit, and you rolled 20 times, you have a 99.99% chance of gaining a very small amount of coins/money...etc

It's a very weird casino game where you have a 99% chance of winning.  I guess the win is <1% of the bet?  What game is this?

No, you would have a 50% chance of winning any given bet, or 49.5 for most house edge places. 

But Martingale works in the very short run.  So I am saying you do a small amount of bets...and then quit...

Ok, well if the game is a 50/50 game (or 49.5/50.5, similarly) then you're completely wrong about having a 99% chance of winning.  I guess as typical in martingale you bet 1 unit to start, so you are going to bet 20 times, is that right?

I think maybe your mistake is that you tried to consider that the probablility of losing all 20 bets is very low, is that right?  But consider that you don't have to lose all 20 bets to come out negative.  For fun, I generated a random series of 20 plays using python's bin(random.getrandombits(20)).  Assume you start with 1000 units and that you start betting at 1 unit, first column is W/L, second column is the amount won/lost, third column is your balance.

W +1    1001
W +1    1002
L   -1    1001
L   -2      999
L   -4      995
L   -8      987
L   -16     971
L   -32     939
L   -64     875
L   -128   747
L   -256   491
L   -512    -21  !!! you just went broke!!!
W  +1024 ...
L   -1
L   -2
L   -4
L   -8
W  +16
W  +1
L   -1

Ok, for fun assume you had 10,000 starting units instead of only 1000, then in that case, the simulation can continue:

W +1    10001
W +1    10002
L   -1    10001
L   -2      9999
L   -4      9995
L   -8      9987
L   -16     9971
L   -32     9939
L   -64     9875
L   -128    9747
L   -256    9491
L   -512    8979
W  +1024  10003
L   -1       10002
L   -2       10000
L   -4       9996
L   -8       9988
W  +16    10004
W  +1      10005
L   -1       10004

So, in this single instance simulation, if you had 10000 units and you play martingale starting with 1 unit then you came out +4 units after 20 bets.  However, I hope you see that that long string of negatives can just as easily happen towards the end of your 20 bets and then you come out negative.  Also, I hope you see that you need a huge bankroll in order to support losses that double each time and not go broke.

So I am guessing you missed tons of this conversation we had?  Its okay I will review it for you.  I don't mean an exact amount of hands.  For example, if you wanted to just win 1 base unit, and you were rolling 5-20 times.  Your odds are EXTREMELY high that you are going to win.  It doesn't mean yeah I am just rolling 20 times...or x amount of times.  It just means Martingale works in small doses, which GREATLY increase your odds.  But the problem with Martingale is that you keep doing it, and odds are you are going to bust eventually.  All I was saying is it works in extra small to small doses, and only once. 

I don't think I missed so much, but thanks for the recap.  I think that my example shows very acutely how easy it is to go broke.  In my example you'd either have to have quit on 1st or 2nd bet for a profit of 1 or 2, or you could quite later on one of the winning bets for again very small profits.  But who walks into a betting game with 10,000 units and feels satisfied to walk away as a winner with only 2 units profit?!  And this example shows how easy it is to bust unless you have a huge bankroll/base-bet ratio.

[sidhujag]

With infinite balance martingale is never going to break you but what system would? The key is to strike a balance between potential risk and reward and a favourable expectancy over the long haul. Anything else and you are going to learn the hard way.

[Buziss]

You could define it as higher chance of winning, or as a higher EV play. 

Betting 100 with 99% chance to win 1 vs betting 1 with 49.5% chance to win 1.  Both have the same EV, but the first has a higher chance of winning, so is that better?

Both game has the same EV, but the former one has a house edge of 0.01% while the latter one has a house edge of 1%.

[Buziss]

Your 2nd part, Martingale doesn't always have negative expectancy(I don't think).  If you were to play up to 20 hands, and you had enough to cover 20 losses.  The odds of you winning just 1 roll, you would have a positive expectancy...

If you're playing a game with a house edge then you always have a negative expected value. Anything else is silly.  Consider a game where the site gave the player the edge.  Could you think of any way of betting that would give you a negative expected value?

Yep, I could.  If you went all in every time you bet to infinity, you are going to lose eventually.  Thus, negative expected value.


Yes, even with a house edge you can have a positive expected value(math someone?)  Like in my example.  20 losses, or if you had 200 losses to cover, and you only wanted to win 1 base bet.  Your expected value should be darn close to the base bet no?  Any math people out there, Doog you have been good at this, I could be wrong as well just figured

Looks like you have a misunderstanding on "expected value".

Take your 20-hand martingale as an example.
P(20 consecutive losses) = 0.505^20 ~= 0.000116366%
P(win 1 base unit) = 1-0.505^20 ~= 99.999883633%
EV = P(win 1 base bet) * 1 - P(20 consecutive losses) * 2^20 = -0.22019120361 < 0

So, you have a very high chance to win 1 base unit, but you are still having a negative EV.

[sidhujag]

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

[Buziss]

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based.

[chaosPT]

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based.

All game have -ve EV but you just cant feel it 

[sidhujag]

I think we've proven that it doesn't work for dice games... but anyone do any math around modelling martingale around bitcoin trade setups or any other markets?

Not quite sure what you mean by "martingale around bitcoin trade setups".

Anyway, if a game has -ve EV and each bet is independent from the others, there is definitely no strategy can help you beat the house.
But not all games have -ve EV and are purely luck-based.

You just answered your own question.

If you have been reading the thread I talk about the supposition that market=non independent bets.

[deisik]

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat


and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! 

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well?

[picolo]

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat


and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! 

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well?

Some do : http://www.crimelibrary.com/blog/2012/12/26/five-people-who-played-russian-roulette-and-lost/index.html

You can get 10k-100k$ to play in once

[MoneyGod]

omaha poker says to leave house keys under the mat


and for the liver, you can keep it.

It's all or nothing! 

Why not try playing Russian Roulette as well?

Russian Roulette is best solution for Martingale and its give success already to many and some still looking for this 

[robhimself]

All bets have a negative expectation equal to the house edge, regardless of strategy.

[snuffish]

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..  

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

[robhimself]

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..  

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

Unlimited supply of money wouldn't even help you since sites have maximum bets that you'll hit quickly using martingale.

[snuffish]

I made from 0.3 -> 5 BTC in 10 hours with martingale on PrimeDice.
It were so freakin crazy.. that "ride" raised my total wagered to 113 BTC.

Then I cashed out and lost it all back 3 weeks later..  

My highest bet were around 1.25 BTC.

Martingale is always a losing strategy in the long-run.. if you don't have unlimited money supply.

Unlimited supply of money wouldn't even help you since sites have maximum bets that you'll hit quickly using martingale.

Yea, but in "theory" martingale would work if you have a unlimited money supply. But not on PrimeDice

[PacoMartin]

Yea, but in "theory" martingale would work if you have a unlimited money supply.

It's really a mathematical question, but it wouldn't work "in theory". "In theory" if you had an unlimited money supply, then "in theory" your losing streaks could be infinitely long.

Martingale doesn't make the odds any better, nor do they make them any worse. The problem with it is it encourages you to divide up your bankroll into the smallest possible bits. That is bad because it makes it harder to accomplish a given objective (say to double your bankroll).

Just Dice had a martingale player win an unprecedented 32 times in a row. "In theory" those odds are comparable to winning the Mega Millions Jackpot. But he won less than 5 cents because he was playing martingale.