So the martingale consistently fails... what if we invert the martingale and play a 1 unit bet, then continue to let winners ride until they are the max bet allowed at the casino? This seems like it should pay off. Any math wizards want to prove why I am wrong?
-
-
Yes, and I always lost online, probably different if liveComment -
online, live...most chance to loseComment -
Might work one time in eight to get three winners in a row but seems like it's quite a long shot to try to reach the table max...Comment -
Reverse martingale does NOT work for the same reason why regular martingale doesn't work.Any math wizards want to prove why I am wrong?
Both systems involve increasing your wagers into a -EV proposition.
Here's an example thats easy to understand:
If I am offering -200 on a coin flip but let you call the side (You have to risk $2 for every $1 you wish to win).
It doesn't matter if you keep increasing your wagers when you lose (martingale) or when you win (reverse martingale).
In the long run, you will lose money under either scenario.Comment -
kinda makes sense andy. I did turn 200 points into over 1500 using this system in the casino however. Probably just positive variance, but seems like a good way to have a high reward with a low riskComment -
Great explanation and example Andy. Thanks for sharing that.Comment
