[SBR Drew]

The Martingale system has you double your bet after every loss, so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus a profit equal to the original bet. For example, say you started with a $100 bet and lose. You would then double your bet and continue doubling each bet until you finally win ($100, $200, and so on.). By the time you reach your fifth bet, you’d be risking $1,600. The Martingale betting strategy is seen as a sure thing by some since a gambler with an unlimited bankroll will eventually win.

[trytrytry]

not true at all

OUTs might not allow for the larger bet sizes.

also its a terrible idea to double up on a negative expectation wager in all cases.

plus this is a sign of tilt...

[KVB]

I agree with triple try on all fronts.

Plus..

...The Martingale betting strategy is seen as a sure thing by some since a gambler with an unlimited bankroll will eventually win...

Whaaaaat?

[TommieGunshot]

The Martingale betting strategy is seen as a sure thing by some since a gambler with an unlimited bankroll will eventually win.

No one sees it like that. And if anyone did, they would try it out and quickly learn it isn't a sure thing. Which would bring us right back to no one seeing it like that.

[footballkelly31]

No one sees it like that. And if anyone did, they would try it out and quickly learn it isn't a sure thing. Which would bring us right back to no one seeing it like that.

I guess you missed the part about if you had an unlimited bankroll... I believe it’s meant in theory as it’s highly improbable to lose every bet.

[TommieGunshot]

No one sees it like that. And if anyone did, they would try it out and quickly learn it isn't a sure thing. Which would bring us right back to no one seeing it like that.

I guess you missed the part about if you had an unlimited bankroll... I believe it’s meant in theory as it’s highly improbable to lose every bet.

Any betting system would end up with the same exact results given an unlimited bankroll. After each bet, the bankroll remains the same: unlimited. Does that mean every betting system is seen as a sure thing by some?

[ArunSh]

The Martingale betting strategy is seen as a sure thing by some since a gambler with an unlimited bankroll will eventually win.

If I had an unlimited bankroll, why would I be gambling in the first place? If I already have an infinite amount of $, gambling to try to get extra money unfortunately won't make my bankroll go higher

[Optional]

If the table limit is 100x the minimum bet, ie $5 - $500, then you only get 6 shots before the limit ruins the plan.

if it's 200x then you still only get 8 shots.

[footballkelly31]

Any betting system would end up with the same exact results given an unlimited bankroll. After each bet, the bankroll remains the same: unlimited. Does that mean every betting system is seen as a sure thing by some?

Agreed....I don’t like the concept at all and it’s a stupid statement but isn’t incorrect....best play is consistent wagers on ur perceived edge

[BETTIX]

Forget this sh..t

[semibluff]

Forget this sh..t

You think anyone here needed you to bump this 7 month old piece of crap to be told that?

[andersonlee]

I mean if you have an unlimited bankroll what's the point of betting?

[thomorino]

The martingale system is a fail because it has the built in presumption that losing a previous bet makes you more likely to win the next one, a winning bettor doesn’t need to significant change their bet size unless they think their edge against the book is greater. It makes no sense to change your bet size if you think you have the same edge against the book in your next bet as you had in your previous bet.

[Bsims]

There is another thread running in Think Tank that uses a modified version of the Martingale system. It will fail as all will. You'll either run out of money to make the required bet, or be limited by the book maker.

[KVB]

The martingale system is a fail because it has the built in presumption that losing a previous bet makes you more likely to win the next one...

Why is this troll in the Think Tank? It's BigDaddy all over again.

This post is not true, that's why the martingale bettor increases his bet to get even or just above.

He does this because there is not a presumption you claim.

And there are many situations in the sports betting where losing one bet does, in fact, make you more likely to win the next. Event's are rarely, if ever, acyually independent of each other.

[thomorino]

Why is this troll in the Think Tank? It's BigDaddy all over again.

This post is not true, that's why the martingale bettor increases his bet to get even or just above.

He does this because there is not a presumption you claim.

And there are many situations in the sports betting where losing one bet does, in fact, make you more likely to win the next. Event's are rarely, if ever, acyually independent of each other.

Yeah dumb shit - that's why this system fails - it adjust bet size without accounting for the edge against the book.

[Runeblade]

There is another thread running in Think Tank that uses a modified version of the Martingale system. It will fail as all will. You'll either run out of money to make the required bet, or be limited by the book maker.

If my simulation fails, then I have proven you correct sir.

[thomorino]

Why is this troll in the Think Tank? It's BigDaddy all over again.

This post is not true, that's why the martingale bettor increases his bet to get even or just above.

He does this because there is not a presumption you claim.

And there are many situations in the sports betting where losing one bet does, in fact, make you more likely to win the next. Event's are rarely, if ever, acyually independent of each other.

You are too dumb to understand what I am saying. Any system that raises your bets size without an increased edge against the book is a dumb system because it does not balance risk and reward.

[thomorino]

The main reason this system fails is it’s designed to minimize losses not maximize gains, since bet size is not proportional to the edge someone has against the book. Any effective system should focus equally on minimizing risk and maximizing gain.

[Runeblade]

The main reason this system fails is it’s designed to minimize losses not maximize gains, since bet size is not proportional to the edge someone has against the book. Any effective system should focus equally on minimizing risk and maximizing gain.

Ahhhh see thats the key to the lock right there. I'm modifying this system on underdog prices to maximize gains. So I'm flipping the script a little bit. Now maybe I will lose in the end but for me I just want to find out. I know lightning will strike but I just want to see that before it does I can profit enough to take the hit.

[ninjagorn]

It will fail as all will. You'll either run out of money to make the required bet, or be limited by the book maker.[/QUOTE]

That is the point. Go to a casino and bet on rulette (black or red), and double it when you lose, eventually you will be at the table limit.

[thomorino]

Ahhhh see thats the key to the lock right there. I'm modifying this system on underdog prices to maximize gains. So I'm flipping the script a little bit. Now maybe I will lose in the end but for me I just want to find out. I know lightning will strike but I just want to see that before it does I can profit enough to take the hit.

It will fail as all will. You'll either run out of money to make the required bet, or be limited by the book maker.

That is the point. Go to a casino and bet on rulette (black or red), and double it when you lose, eventually you will be at the table limit.[/quote]

I think the commentary on the martingale system failing because of betting limits or bankroll limitations misses the point. The reason this system is a failure is the whole system is built around ensuring losses won’t exist, the system has no focus on maximizing or finding the most efficient ways to maximize profit. You have to talk risk to get rewards, that’s the core nature of gambling, their is no point in gambling if your sole focus is risk limitation.