[maxkim12]

We all know the risks of the martingale strategy that make it a bad option, but is there any way to modify it to make it +ev? basically, we would have to find something to martingale that's relatively "streak proof." has anyone ever tried anything like this, and if you did, does it work?

[e_thorpe 88]

I have been pondering this myself. Interested to see what people come up with.

[NunyaBidness]

No martingale strategies work.

There is no way to turn a series of -EV bets into +EV bets.

[josie88]

The insideous part of this is it can go months, even years, showing big returns. Then, you have series losses that erase the winnings and then some. There is no way an -EV play can be permutated to equal an +EV outcome.

Have you ever noticed the martingale crowd, when confronted with a losing series or two, immediately refer back to a "modified" martingale that still shows a profit? They will say, "this progression was the one you should have been following", or some other nonsense.

Follow John Morrison and the other scammers at your own peril. If his rubbish worked, don't you think he'd be a multimillionaire, featured on every TV show, and worshipped by all the hot girls? Instead, he's a nobody (if he even exists, which I really don't think he does). Not a picture exists or a reliable story about him.

Do your homework, create your model, test it on unseen data with proper kelly betting, and if it shows a statistically measured profit, then by all means, let us know.

You won't know 'till you bet. Good luck.

[Ruifgalmeida]

The odds are what give EV+, no staking system will dever be EV+

[snapperman2]

Martingale systems are the worst betting systems possible, because they force you to bet more when you're losing. If you use them, you will one day have a disastrous loss that will wipe out your whole bankroll. A better betting system would be one where you increase your bets when you're winning and decrease them when you're losing. Like the Kelly system for instance. Martingale systems make you bet until you lose it all.

[bihon]

With a positive edge any reasonably designed system is profitable.
Not the other way round.

[akphidelt]

Think about it mathematically. If you martingale you're really admitting you have no clue about individual outcomes. So let's hypothetically say the outcomes are 50%. Next, you have to account for juice. Let's just use -110 as an average generously. Pretty much 91%.

Let's say you have a 5 step martingale. 20-40-80-160-320. The odds of losing 5 games in a row at 50% is 3%. So already you have a 97% chance of winning a set of 5 games. So let's take 100 sets as an example. You win 97 sets at -110. Since I'm not at a computer I'll leave the fact that the juice can increase after each bet.

So a modest -110. So let's do the math.

97*20*.91 = $1,765

Wow hitting 97% and getting $1,765 is amazing. Next calculation.

You lose 20+40+80+160+320 in a set for $620.

So 3 losses *$620 = $1860.

A generous $95 loss.

This is why martingales are so appealing. Because you will win 97% of the time (in a 5 setter at 50%). But you will lose in the long wrong unless you have +$ juice or pick greater than 50%. Most likely 99% of martingale systems are losers over time.

[Domestic]

No, there is no way to make it +ev, not mathematically possible.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

We all know the risks of the martingale strategy that make it a bad option, but is there any way to modify it to make it +ev?

If there was, nobody is going to post it publically, because the bookies would take counter-measures and ruin it.

More generally: a skill-free way to get rich? Hehe.

[dbartinbwgc]

Dont use martindale
Use Labby!!
Keep bets small and let it roll and accumulate

[ericc]

If there was a system (martingale or otherwise) that worked, there would be no Las Vegas, Macau, Monte Carlo, Carribbean sportsbooks, Cosa Nostra, etc., etc., etc.