Anyone have any success using Martingale system?

[SsgKen]

Martingale does not work in a casino. That is why a table has a $10 min to $200 maximum. Seven losers in a row are common.

Old news. In 2007 Bodog advertised a 49% win rate in Blackjack. What they did was have a string of losers followed by a streak of winners. The latest math on random numbers was to use solar radiation. One evening I tried a $500 bet because it was the exact time by the sun's shadow as yesterday. I hit a streak of 10 hands with a split and double for up $6,000. The 11th hand I lost, dropped to $250, lost and quit up $5250.

I think it was just luck. I was using Martingale on other days because I was betting $5 table min, counting losers in a row, then when a winning streak hit, I upped the bet but these loopholes have been fixed long ago.

[ridgeway]

Martingale does not work. The dimensioning return on unit/bet factor based on table limits will always supersede the martingale system.

[Slurry Pumper]

I use a modified version in CRAPS.
I start with 1 unit on the don't come line, then after the first roll, I will place the 6 and 8 if possible, then make 2 don't come bets. I back all three with 1 times odds. If one number comes up, I double the odds bet for the other 2 . Then if another number comes up, I double the last number. Regardless of the outcome, I reset to the base 1 unit for the next round.

[SsgKen]

I was playing blackjack for several hours. In one period, the dealer drew to or was dealt a 19 hand, 19 times in a row. I won my 20s and 21s and even hit some hard 17s after about hand ten.

Martingale would have required deep pockets.

[Dark Data]

Bingo...And honestly if you picked your spots and did lose 10 picks in a row and blew your entire bankroll do you have any business sports betting? You likely would be headed that same direction flat betting or playing 5% of roll each bet you just got there a hell of a lot faster and saved yourself the time and aggravation.

A bettor that wins 50% of the time has a 19% chance of losing 10 bets in a row during a 500 game span. But let's say you are so good that you are a 55% bettor. You still have a 13% chance of losing 10 bets in a row. If you think 13% is not a high number, consider how often you have seen the zero hit on a roulette wheel during 500 spins. And the zero only has a 5.2% chance of hitting.

[SsgKen]

... consider how often you have seen the zero hit on a roulette wheel during 500 spins. And the zero only has a 5.2% chance of hitting.

All bets in roulette have same -EV odds except one. Splitting 6 numbers is one style but sitting a chip on the 0,00, 1, 2, and 3 for 5 numbers pays worse -EV. Just FYI.

[JacketFan81]

All bets in roulette have same -EV odds except one. Splitting 6 numbers is one style but sitting a chip on the 0,00, 1, 2, and 3 for 5 numbers pays worse -EV. Just FYI.

Ah, the ole Basket bet. The only bet in the casino dumber than Big 6/Big 8 on the Craps table.

[Bluehorseshoe]

If you knew something would hit within 6 tries and paid out a +200 price, would you martingale it?

[JacketFan81]

If you knew something would hit within 6 tries and paid out a +200 price, would you martingale it?

Of course. But you don't know that anything will hit in 6 tries. Each "try" is an independent event. If it weren't, why would anyone give that kind of odds?

[Bluehorseshoe]

Of course. But you don't know that anything will hit in 6 tries. Each "try" is an independent event. If it weren't, why would anyone give that kind of odds?

It's backtested.

[Believe_EMT]

It's backtested.

whether you were joking or not

it's funny

[SsgKen]

Sometimes a betting game can be not random. In Europe a few decades ago someone came up with the idea of having a giant roulette wheel. The trouble was some of the dealers did not randomized their spins and players could time their bets and target their bets to certain numbers groups.

Then the house had to change.

[JacketFan81]

It's backtested.

It always is....

[tsty]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

[dante1]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

lol, did you just watch Einstein's quantum riddle? If so, explain that to me. Wow!

[Believe_EMT]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

that is just dangerous and misguided

randomness rules our lives and the universe. the sooner you adapt to this fact and let go of the arrogant thought that we have some sort of control over outcomes the sooner you will live a happier, more productive life

[stevek173]

Martingale ftw

[Sanity Check]

AFAIK.

Martingale was created by casinos to boost their profit $$$.

.

[KVB]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

Speak for yourself.

Some of us can take the available information and manipulate it to become relevant and predictive.

It proves that, especially sports, are anything but random.

It's not the information, it's how you use it.

[Believe_EMT]

Speak for yourself.

Some of us can take the available information and manipulate it to become relevant and predictive.

It proves that, especially sports, are anything but random.

It's not the information, it's how you use it.

looking forward to you accurately forecasting every turnover in the NFL this season.

[KVB]

looking forward to you accurately forecasting every turnover in the NFL this season.

Not necessary.

What we know, and it's pretty much public knowledge now, is that the first half and second of the season will even out when it comes to the predictability of turnovers or at least of turnover ratio to spread adjustments.

So stay the course, stay disciplined and ride out the turnovers. They are a part of the game and largely noise anymore.

[BeatTheJerk]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

The only thing that is not trurly random in life is everyday hunger.

[pretentiousGuy]

You misinterpreted tsty's post, due to your urge to write a self-aggrandizing post.

[Combato]

Humans have a strong tendency to "see" patterns where none exist. Gladwell in "Blink" says this is actually an adaptive response inherited from a long ago past when humans had to make snap decisions about life and death. Our brains our still wired for such an environment when we had to make important life and death decisions based on incomplete data ( read small sample size).

I have always said that human beings make very poor intuitive statisticians based on this brain wiring.

This is the basis of "gambler's ruin" using roulette as the example. 6 blacks in a row mean red is more likely to come up next. Not.

[BeatTheJerk]

You misinterpreted tsty's post, due to your urge to write a self-aggrandizing post.

I made a generalization (I disagree with his gambling logic), when your done with tsty’s motherfukKing dick in your mouth. Come back with your own unbiased thoughts “ya heard” ?

[pretentiousGuy]

That was directed at KVB

[BeatTheJerk]

That was directed at KVB

Oh excuse me then & carry on

[tsty]

that is just dangerous and misguided

randomness rules our lives and the universe. the sooner you adapt to this fact and let go of the arrogant thought that we have some sort of control over outcomes the sooner you will live a happier, more productive life

your post makes zero sense

if we can predict the future then it is the opposite of having control

[Sanity Check]

AFAIK.

Martingale was created by casinos to boost their profit $$$.

.

^

[StackinGreen]

Nothing is truly random

We just lack the information and computing power

You've obviously never heard of quantum mechanics.

The world, on its most basic level (from a human point of view certainly) is absolutely random. It is a feature of it, in fact.

Your scientific materialist claim is one put forth that is really getting old at this point.

[Believe_EMT]

if we can predict the future then it is the opposite of having control

read this sentence multiple times. it's still pure drivel.

humbly suggest you read Taleb.

stand by my original assertion. your claim that nothing is random is just plain dangerous. if you're not broke at this point in life, you will be soon enough. or you could just be an incredibly lucky idiot. the problem there is, the idiot does not realize he is lucky, benefiting from the role of randomness in his life. as such he will think success to this point was all his own doing. sets up for quite the fall.

i wish you luck.

[Believe_EMT]

Not necessary.
What we know, and it's pretty much public knowledge now, is that the first half and second of the season will even out when it comes to the predictability of turnovers or at least of turnover ratio to spread adjustments.
So stay the course, stay disciplined and ride out the turnovers. They are a part of the game and largely noise anymore.

so you are stating that during a 16 game sample turnovers will regress to the mean?

i know, i know.

you're +6,000 units in the nfl since 2001

[JacketFan81]

so you are stating that during a 16 game sample turnovers will regress to the mean?

i know, i know.

you're +6,000 units in the nfl since 2001

Well, I'm way smarter after reading that response....

[StackinGreen]

The paradox is that there is order to the world at the same time.

[Chi_archie]

ah we talking the Garden Weasel in here?


I miss good ole Wink