Does martingale really works?

[Hfleer]

But is that really "working"? I would just call that shortterm luck.

That is like a fish in poker playing horrible and still having inredible luck. Sure he can win in the shortterm, but that doesn't mean his strategy works.

Do you get my angle?

No, I wouldn't call it sheer luck. You know what you're doing...

Ok, so we do have very different definitions of "working" then

When you toss a coin, chances that it lands on the same side are diminishing with each toss. Would you call this short-term luck if the coin does not fall 10 times in sequence on the same side? I would say quite the contrary!

I call it chance. But I see that you are ignoring that.

The chance for it not to happen is: 1-0.5^10 , still if you make a martingale bet on it, then you will lose longterm...

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

[deisik]

But is that really "working"? I would just call that shortterm luck.

That is like a fish in poker playing horrible and still having inredible luck. Sure he can win in the shortterm, but that doesn't mean his strategy works.

Do you get my angle?

No, I wouldn't call it sheer luck. You know what you're doing...

Ok, so we do have very different definitions of "working" then

When you toss a coin, chances that it lands on the same side are diminishing with each toss. Would you call this short-term luck if the coin does not fall 10 times in sequence on the same side? I would say quite the contrary!

I call it chance. But I see that you are ignoring that.

The chance for it not to happen is: 1-0.5^10 , still if you make a martingale bet on it, then you will lose longterm...

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

[Hfleer]

But is that really "working"? I would just call that shortterm luck.

That is like a fish in poker playing horrible and still having inredible luck. Sure he can win in the shortterm, but that doesn't mean his strategy works.

Do you get my angle?

No, I wouldn't call it sheer luck. You know what you're doing...

Ok, so we do have very different definitions of "working" then

When you toss a coin, chances that it lands on the same side are diminishing with each toss. Would you call this short-term luck if the coin does not fall 10 times in sequence on the same side? I would say quite the contrary!

I call it chance. But I see that you are ignoring that.

The chance for it not to happen is: 1-0.5^10 , still if you make a martingale bet on it, then you will lose longterm...

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Exactly. And it is pretty logical. Luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average. Do you understand that?

[SelbyTsang]

But is that really "working"? I would just call that shortterm luck.

That is like a fish in poker playing horrible and still having inredible luck. Sure he can win in the shortterm, but that doesn't mean his strategy works.

Do you get my angle?

No, I wouldn't call it sheer luck. You know what you're doing...

Ok, so we do have very different definitions of "working" then

When you toss a coin, chances that it lands on the same side are diminishing with each toss. Would you call this short-term luck if the coin does not fall 10 times in sequence on the same side? I would say quite the contrary!

I call it chance. But I see that you are ignoring that.

The chance for it not to happen is: 1-0.5^10 , still if you make a martingale bet on it, then you will lose longterm...

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Say, if I make an all-in 10x bet, and I luckily win the bet.
Does that mean that "all-in 10x" strategy is working? IMO, nope.

[deisik]

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Say, if I make an all-in 10x bet, and I luckily win the bet.
Does that mean that "all-in 10x" strategy is working? IMO, nope.

This is precisely what I would call a short term luck and absolutely not the other way round!

[Hfleer]

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Say, if I make an all-in 10x bet, and I luckily win the bet.
Does that mean that "all-in 10x" strategy is working? IMO, nope.

This is precisely what I would call a short term luck and absolutely not the other way round!

Let me rephrase it.

Someone is holding a revolver to your head and in the chamber is exactly 1 bullet and there are 5000 chambers. Now he spins the chamber so he doesn't know hwere the bullet is. He now pulls the trigger. "Klick". Nothing happens.

Were you still not lucky?

[deisik]

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Exactly. And it is pretty logical. Luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average. Do you understand that?

On average means that you should make an infinite number of rolls (as per theory), but in practice you can't make an infinite number of rolls. Are you going to deny even that? 

[deisik]

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Say, if I make an all-in 10x bet, and I luckily win the bet.
Does that mean that "all-in 10x" strategy is working? IMO, nope.

This is precisely what I would call a short term luck and absolutely not the other way round!

Let me rephrase it.

Someone is holding a revolver to your head and in the chamber is exactly 1 bullet and there are 5000 chambers. Now he spins the chamber so he doesn't know hwere the bullet is. He now pulls the trigger. "Klick". Nothing happens.

Were you still not lucky?

I think you are trying to confuse matters...

[Hfleer]

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Exactly. And it is pretty logical. Luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average. Do you understand that?

On average means that you should make an infinite number of rolls, but in practice you can't make an infinite number of rolls. Are you going to deny even that? 

I already noticed that you are no fan of statistics..

Average doesn't mean infinite number of rolls or anything, it is a theoretical concept that holds true if your math is correct.

[Hfleer]

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Say, if I make an all-in 10x bet, and I luckily win the bet.
Does that mean that "all-in 10x" strategy is working? IMO, nope.

This is precisely what I would call a short term luck and absolutely not the other way round!

Let me rephrase it.

Someone is holding a revolver to your head and in the chamber is exactly 1 bullet and there are 5000 chambers. Now he spins the chamber so he doesn't know hwere the bullet is. He now pulls the trigger. "Klick". Nothing happens.

Were you still not lucky?

I think you are trying to confuse matters...

No, but I think you don't see that the situation is exactly the same.

You "expect" an outcome that is related on chance because it is the situation that will happen most often, and when it happens, you still don't agree that you didn't overperform?

[deisik]

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Exactly. And it is pretty logical. Luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average. Do you understand that?

On average means that you should make an infinite number of rolls, but in practice you can't make an infinite number of rolls. Are you going to deny even that? 

I already noticed that you are no fan of statistics..

Average doesn't mean infinite number of rolls or anything, it is a theoretical concept that holds true if your math is correct.

Okay, you said that "luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average". What do you mean by "average" here?

[Hfleer]

Ignoring what? You didn't answer my question...

I answered it...

But to make it obvious: Yes it is luck. Because you got a situation that happens only 99.9902% of the time. I doged the 0.0018% chance that it happens, and thus was lucky.

So a situation that happens 99.9902% of the time you call a short term luck? Did I get you right?

Exactly. And it is pretty logical. Luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average. Do you understand that?

On average means that you should make an infinite number of rolls, but in practice you can't make an infinite number of rolls. Are you going to deny even that? 

I already noticed that you are no fan of statistics..

Average doesn't mean infinite number of rolls or anything, it is a theoretical concept that holds true if your math is correct.

Okay, you said that "luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average". What do you mean by "average" here?

If you flip a coin and win --> over average --> lucky
If you flip a coin and lose --> under average --> unlucky

If you win a 1% chance --> over average --> lucky
If you lose a 1% chance --> under average --> unlucky

If you win a 99.9902% chance --> over average --> lucky
If you lose a 99.9902% chance --> under average --> unlucky

Do you see some kind of pattern?

[dooglus]

Still people try martingale constantly. I am watching primedice and dicebitco.in and people use the bots (or manually) and grind away martingale for 10000s of bets. I guess they like the fact that they constantly win money until the big bang.

If you deposit 1 BTC and martingale from 1 satoshi, doubling on loss, you will probably never reach a long enough losing streak to bust. It takes around 100 million bets on average (very roughly).

Still, if everyone did the same, an unlucky few would bust, and that would pay for all the small gains made by everyone else.

So even when a strategy is overwhelmingly likely to result in a gain for individual players, it's still a net positive for the house too.

[deisik]

Okay, you said that "luck describes a situation, where you perform better than you would on average". What do you mean by "average" here?

If you flip a coin and win --> over average --> lucky
If you flip a coin and lose --> under average --> unlucky

If you win a 1% chance --> over average --> lucky
If you lose a 1% chance --> under average --> unlucky

If you win a 99.9902% chance --> over average --> lucky
If you lose a 99.9902% chance --> under average --> unlucky

Do you see some kind of pattern?

You still didn't explain what you meant by "average" and how you measure it. You said that not getting 10 coin flips in succession with the same outcome was a short term luck, since, according to you, this would be "over average". How come? 

Maybe, I am not a big fan of statistics, but you seem to be failing at simple logic...

[deisik]

Still people try martingale constantly. I am watching primedice and dicebitco.in and people use the bots (or manually) and grind away martingale for 10000s of bets. I guess they like the fact that they constantly win money until the big bang.

If you deposit 1 BTC and martingale from 1 satoshi, doubling on loss, you will probably never reach a long enough losing streak to bust. It takes around 100 million bets on average (very roughly).

Still, if everyone did the same, an unlucky few would bust, and that would pay for all the small gains made by everyone else.

So even when a strategy is overwhelmingly likely to result in a gain for individual players, it's still a net positive for the house too.

Even if martingale fails in theory with an infinite number of rolls*, in practice you can only make a limited number of rolls (even if you roll through all your life) and the number of players is limited at that. So the chances of losing deposit may still be lower then the chances of winning for every player in particular and the whole group in general (provided that they don't exceed their individual limits of total rolls determined by balance and the number of players). In this case the house will have a net loss even if some of the players lose in the end...

*in fact, this is the only case about which you can say anything specific without taking into account other factors (like total number of rolls and players)

[boumalo]

Still people try martingale constantly. I am watching primedice and dicebitco.in and people use the bots (or manually) and grind away martingale for 10000s of bets. I guess they like the fact that they constantly win money until the big bang.

If you deposit 1 BTC and martingale from 1 satoshi, doubling on loss, you will probably never reach a long enough losing streak to bust. It takes around 100 million bets on average (very roughly).

Still, if everyone did the same, an unlucky few would bust, and that would pay for all the small gains made by everyone else.

So even when a strategy is overwhelmingly likely to result in a gain for individual players, it's still a net positive for the house too.

Even if martingale fails in theory with an infinite number of rolls*, in practice you can only make a limited number of rolls (even if you roll through all your life) and the number of players is limited at that. So the chances of losing deposit may still be lower then the chances of winning for every player in particular and the whole group in general (provided that they don't exceed their individual limits of total rolls determined by balance and the number of players). In this case the house will have a net loss even if some of the players lose in the end...

*in fact, this is the only case about which you can say anything specific without taking into account other factors (like total number of rolls and players)

If you bet 100 to win 1 your chances of  winning are greater than your chances of losing but you have a negative expectation because the house has an edge, it is the same with the martingale : you can bet a lot to win a little and you are likely to win but it is still a bad bet because you have a negative expectation

If you can make 100,000$ to play once the russian roulette with a 6bullets revolver you have 5/6 chances to win but it is still a bad bet because you are risking too much

[deisik]

Still people try martingale constantly. I am watching primedice and dicebitco.in and people use the bots (or manually) and grind away martingale for 10000s of bets. I guess they like the fact that they constantly win money until the big bang.

If you deposit 1 BTC and martingale from 1 satoshi, doubling on loss, you will probably never reach a long enough losing streak to bust. It takes around 100 million bets on average (very roughly).

Still, if everyone did the same, an unlucky few would bust, and that would pay for all the small gains made by everyone else.

So even when a strategy is overwhelmingly likely to result in a gain for individual players, it's still a net positive for the house too.

Even if martingale fails in theory with an infinite number of rolls*, in practice you can only make a limited number of rolls (even if you roll through all your life) and the number of players is limited at that. So the chances of losing deposit may still be lower then the chances of winning for every player in particular and the whole group in general (provided that they don't exceed their individual limits of total rolls determined by balance and the number of players). In this case the house will have a net loss even if some of the players lose in the end...

*in fact, this is the only case about which you can say anything specific without taking into account other factors (like total number of rolls and players)

If you bet 100 to win 1 your chances of  winning are greater than your chances of losing but you have a negative expectation because the house has an edge, it is the same with the martingale : you can bet a lot to win a little and you are likely to win but it is still a bad bet because you have a negative expectation

If you can make 100,000$ to play once the russian roulette with a 6bullets revolver you have 5/6 chances to win but it is still a bad bet because you are risking too much

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

[Hfleer]

Still people try martingale constantly. I am watching primedice and dicebitco.in and people use the bots (or manually) and grind away martingale for 10000s of bets. I guess they like the fact that they constantly win money until the big bang.

If you deposit 1 BTC and martingale from 1 satoshi, doubling on loss, you will probably never reach a long enough losing streak to bust. It takes around 100 million bets on average (very roughly).

Still, if everyone did the same, an unlucky few would bust, and that would pay for all the small gains made by everyone else.

So even when a strategy is overwhelmingly likely to result in a gain for individual players, it's still a net positive for the house too.

Even if martingale fails in theory with an infinite number of rolls*, in practice you can only make a limited number of rolls (even if you roll through all your life) and the number of players is limited at that. So the chances of losing deposit may still be lower then the chances of winning for every player in particular and the whole group in general (provided that they don't exceed their individual limits of total rolls determined by balance and the number of players). In this case the house will have a net loss even if some of the players lose in the end...

*in fact, this is the only case about which you can say anything specific without taking into account other factors (like total number of rolls and players)

If you bet 100 to win 1 your chances of  winning are greater than your chances of losing but you have a negative expectation because the house has an edge, it is the same with the martingale : you can bet a lot to win a little and you are likely to win but it is still a bad bet because you have a negative expectation

If you can make 100,000$ to play once the russian roulette with a 6bullets revolver you have 5/6 chances to win but it is still a bad bet because you are risking too much

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

You don't know what expectation means. And please don't say that it can mean different things.... it is a definition.

CHANCE*PAYOUT= EXPECTED VALUE
if you win more than your expected value, you are OVER the average as I said before. And vice versa.

Also, good job in trying to twist dooglus words. You are on of the best examples of GAMBLERS FALLACY.

[BigMac]

Negative expectation is based, well, on the expectation that you will continue to play indefinitely long. As long as it is not that long (which is always the case since no one can bet indefinitely long), things change drastically. Whether it is worth the gamble is not strictly relevant to the question...

Also, if you bet 100, you could win up to 100 (100 when you make just one bet for a full amount) in a 49.5% game, right?

If you play just one bet of 100 btc on 49.5%, you will end up with +100 (49.5%) and -100 (50.5%), but still the EV of the game is -1 btc.
The calculation of EV never assumes you continue to play the game.
But according the law of large numbers, if you repeat the game continuously, your actual result will converge to the EV.

[Nexigen]

Martingale does not work.... for everyone.
In fact, the majority of the gamblers are not successful when it comes to Martingale.
Why? because of one simple yet crucial mistake. They do not stop when they are ahead.
The majority of gamblers tend to think that after having a bad roll twice or more often should increase their chance on a positive roll the next turn.
This, is the gamblers fallacy and will lead to profit for the casino owner.. not for the gambler.

However, there are people that actually do profit out of Martingale. You just need to know how, and you need to say no to your gambling instincts once you start making a profit.