Do YOU think you can profit using...

[GoldenQN]

110 231 485.1 1018.71 2029.29 = $3874.1
100 210 441 926.1 1844.81

Do YOU think you can profit using progressive betting in the NBA? Betting one team at a time. So possibly two games a night and can only lose after about 2 1/2 nights. Do you think you can pick 1 winner given five chances and not pick five consecutive losers throughout the season? I know this is not the best way to bet, but I want your opinions. Thanks.

[nep1293]

I think it depends on how big of a bankroll you have, if you can afford to keep doing it into 15+ games then i think you can. But i know I've lost 10 in a row before so I would never try it

[Dead Money]

Not a good system.

You might be able to get away with it short term, but EVERYONE will lose 5 in a row at some point.

Just my 2 cents.

[GoldenQN]

I know you can go on a pretty long losing streak, but given that you can bet only one/two games a night. I'm thinking bad losing streaks can mostly occur when betting many games a day. Do you think not being able to pick a winner for 3+ days will occur commonly?

[JDK192]

Martingale system is a sure loser. Especially if you're bankroll will go bust after 5 in a row. You will lose 5 in a row at some point in the season.

[GoldenQN]

My view is that I can double it before I go bust. So I will have the option to cash out or keep playing when that time comes. This system is letting a degenerate gamble almost everyday with a low chance of losing...

thanks for providing your opinion. i want to get more opinions before i decide to do/not do this.

[durito]

If making money in the long run is your goal, don't do it.

[Ganchrow]

My view is that I can double it before I go bust. So I will have the option to cash out or keep playing when that time comes. This system is letting a degenerate gamble almost everyday with a low chance of losing...

thanks for providing your opinion. i want to get more opinions before i decide to do/not do this.

If you're playing a 50/50 game without vig then regardless of the strategy you use, your probability of doubling your money is exactly the same as the probability of going bust.

If you're playing a game with vig the best probability you have of doubling your money is by betting it all in one go.

Do you think not being able to pick a winner for 3+ days will occur commonly?

I certainly do. Unless you're a sharp handicapper whose picking acumen tends to drop off the more games he caps each day (probably not true for the recreational gambler), then you're no less likely to go 0 for 10 over 10 days than you are 0 for 10 over 1 day.

Do yourself a favor and terminate this line of thought immediately. No good is likely to come of it (other than perhaps a valuable lesson learned).

[FightForCalifornia]

Martingale systems don't change your EV at all... you are just as likely to reach a given profit as you are betting evenly, and you are just as likely to go broke.

[Ganchrow]

you are just as likely to reach a given profit as you are betting evenly, and you are just as likely to go broke.

Technically speaking, this is untrue. If you were playing a juice-free game, then it should be apparent that the probability of your stake increasing by 50% will be twice the probability of losing your entire stake (50% * 2p = 100% * p). In general, the probability of your stake increasing by a factor of X will be 1/X times the probability of losing your entire stake.

If you're playing a binary¹ game with a house edge, and if your goal were to make $X before losing your entire stake, then it can be proven that the Martingale with a single unit of $X would yield the greatest possible probability of achieving that goal (unless $X were less than your stake size, in which case you would bet as much as you had) .

Now this should in no way imply that the Martingale is a sensible strategy for a typical bettor. How many bettors do you know whose sole goal it is to make $1 before losing $1,023? And in the case of a player attempting to more than double his bankroll, that player would essentially be playing a reverse Martingale, increasing his bet after each win (and going home after his a first loss²). How many bettors do you know like that?

Following is an example of one of the few situations where nearly everyone, regardless of preferences (within reason) would be best served by using the Martingale:

You're just ingested a rare poison and are told at the emergency room that you have an hour to live. There is an antidote but it costs $10,000,000. You only have $9,999,990 and have no way of contacting anyone else for additional funds. There is a casino in the lobby of the hospital that only offers American roulette.

This would be an ideal time to use the Martingale strategy as it would provide you with a large chance (the highest possible chance given that starting position, actually) of making a small amount and a small chance of losing a large amount (of course, you'd be dead ... so it wouldn't really matter)³. Nevertheless, from a pure dollars perspective, your expectation betting in this manner is still negative.

So while that's not a particularly realistic example (one might also come up with a story involving a homicidal loan shark not willing to accept less than full payment), I hope it nevertheless illustrates a point -- if your goal from any stretch of betting were not the maximization of pure dollar profit, then betting strategy selection certainly could make a difference.

<hr>
Notes:
¹By "binary" I'm referring to the property of a betting game whereby it only has two moneyed outcomes; a loss of the entire bet, or a win of some constant positive proportion of the bet. Hence, baccarat and fixed odds sports betting (even with pushes -- pushes aren't moneyed outcomes) constitute binary bets. Blackjack and Asian handicap betting with a hook of ¼ do not.

²Unless his first loss occurs when the player's bankroll is greater than half (actually, greater than the reciprocal odds if the bet's odds decimal odds) of the target stake.

³Of course one might point out that if you were to win the extra $10 and receive the antidote, you probably wouldn't survive long without food or shelter. As such, it could make sense to play a Martingale with a unit greater than $10. Try as might, however, I can't contrive a single rationale for betting a Martingale with a unit of less than $10.

[slacker00]

GoldenQN,

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with this betting strategy?

I see that you mention "profit", but profitting is more a function of good handicapping and finding an edge. Betting strategies mainly manage bankroll variance. The only thing this strategy appears to maximize is bankroll variance. Maybe you're trying to "go big or go home", in that case, this might be a fun strategy to try. But, if you want to stay in the game and be a long-term bettor without going bust, this is a terrible strategy, especially if you are incorporating your entire bankroll.

If you google "martingale", you'll get a lot of explanation of why progressive betting strategies generally don't work.

If you are confident and comfortable finding an edge, then betting 1% of your total betting bankroll per game should be optimal. Sure you don't make a huge score, but you'll weather those losing streaks and over the long run you'll be able to capitalize on those small edges adding up.

If you are just playing for fun and have money to burn, any old strategy will work for you, including this one. If you don't care about long term results, variance, or optimal +EV, just do whatever gives you the biggest rush, thrill or whatever.

[Cyclone]

Why don't you try just betting on paper for awhile? After 30 games, you should have an idea if you know what you're doing or not.

[RickySteve]

I think it's a great system, Golden.

[sportsfanatic]

110 231 485.1 1018.71 2029.29 = $3874.1
100 210 441 926.1 1844.81

Do YOU think you can profit using progressive betting in the NBA? Betting one team at a time. So possibly two games a night and can only lose after about 2 1/2 nights. Do you think you can pick 1 winner given five chances and not pick five consecutive losers throughout the season? I know this is not the best way to bet, but I want your opinions. Thanks.

Not a good idea. One bad losing streak and you're done. Even the very best at this have picked five games wrong in a row. That should tell you something.

[Lucas]

I think it's a great system, Golden.

the best
maybe only trippling is better

[tacomax]

Martingale has been the enemy of a lot of gamblers. Every so often, someone here comes up with a Martingale-based betting system, here is the last one I can recall.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/24941-ganchrow-how-about-using-kelly-wager-phoenix-suns-over-totals.html

[GoldenQN]

Yeah, you guys are right this is not a good system. Thank you for your help.

[tacomax]

Good link to the martingale system (casino rather than sportsbook specific) at wizardofodds:

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

Interesting thread here about the Martingale where raiders claims that "Theoretically the martingale system is a 100% winning system". He thinks he's sharp. Bless.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/1694-double-up-method.html

[jjgold]

Martingale will work with no limits and unlimited bankroll only. The reason why this system does not work is because of betting limits, same with casinos.

I can beat any casino with out limits and unlimited bankroll.

[Ganchrow]

Martingale will work with no limits and unlimited bankroll only. The reason why this system does not work is because of betting limits, same with casinos.

I can beat any casino with out limits and unlimited bankroll.

This is commonly held misconception about the nature of Martingale.

While it is indeed true that the probability of winning with Martingale approaches certainty as bankroll increases, the maximum possible loss also approaches infinity. So while your probability of losing 25 consecutive spins of red/black roulette is only about 0.0000107439%, were you to lose that many spins with a $1 Martingale unit you'd find yourself $33,554,430 poorer, versus only $1 richer had you won. Allow yourself to go 50 spins, and you risk losing $1,125,899,906,842,620 with probability 0.00000000000115430334%.

The more you allow yourself to bet the greater your maximum loss and the more you expect to lose.

Another way to look at this is in terms of the percentage of bankroll. Were your bankroll infinite then your maximum loss would theoretically be infinite as well; however, the most you'd stand to gain from a round of Martingale would be 1 unit, an infinitesimally small percentage of your total bankroll. Infinity + 1, after all, is still infinity.

So putting it in finite terms, if you had $1,125,899,906,842,620 you'd stand an excellent chance of winning $1 playing roulette, and a very slim chance of losing $1,125,899,906,842,620, which naturally invites the question, if you already had $1,125,899,906,842,620, how much you really care about making an additional $1?

[PeterWellington]

You can't change a negative expectation to a positive one by changing the amounts you bet. Do what Cyclone suggested, try it on paper for a while. You'll be surprised how quickly you lose your bankroll.

[jjgold]

So ganch it is true you can beat casinos and sports with maringale system as long as there are no limits and unlimited bankroll.

I think maybe horses are the only sport where it might be impossible