Martingale machine

[Maximus]

I'm gonna put myself on the line here because Ive read the stuff that every one posts whenever anyone mentions the word 'Martingale'. I have been the victim of thinking it would work a few years ago but I learnt pretty quickly about the problems. However, I met a professional poker player the other day and he was speaking about value bets and how it related to poker in that one can only judge success in the long term. For a pro poker player this is apparently 100,000 hands. This led me to wonder whether the fact that any Martingale system is 100% destined for failure is simply due to the fact that human nature makes us to aware of what we're doing and therefore prevents us from backing the system to infinite. Like any other sane person, I am not willing to pet 1000 quid in order to maybe make a 1 quid profit, which is what Martingale ultimately leads to after a bad run (ten defeats consecutively betting red or black at roulette) As a result I wonder if a 'Martingale machine' was made with no brain but a bank of enormous quantities, would it not just churn out money....? I'm sure this has probably been discussed before but I'd be grateful of any discussion. Having said that, I must reiterate that I'm not some idiot that has just discovered this system and feels he never needs to work again. The problem I see is reaching the maximum bet that any casino is prepared to take, Are there any other constraints? Maximus:D

[PAULM03]

Re: Martingale machine I think it would just break even after an infinite number of bets. I'm off to check.

[slapdash]

Re: Martingale machine It really depends exactly what you mean. Suppose you make bets at even odds, starting with a one unit stake, doubling your stake after every loss, and going back to a one unit stake after every win. Consider three possibilities: (-) The bets have negative expectation (i.e., less than 50% chance of winning). (0) The bets are fair (i.e., exactly 50% chance of winning). (+) The bets have positive expectation (i.e., more than 50% chance of winning. Of course, in any of these cases you will be ahead after each winning bet, and after the 2005th winning bet you will be 2005 points up. But half the time your last bet will have been a losing one. If you ask what will happen after some large fixed number of bets (say a million), then probably you will be ahead. However, if you ask whether, on average, you will be ahead, the answer is that in case (+) you will be, in case (0) you will on average be even, and in case (-) you will on average be behind. The point is that although you will probably be ahead, on those occasions when you are behind you are likely to be a long way behind. Also, even if you are ahead after a million bets, if you carry on for ever, then in cases (-) and (0) there is a 100% probability that at some point in the future you will be behind. In fact, there is a 100% probability that at some point in the future you will be a million points behind. In case (+), if you are far enough ahead then there will only be a small chance of ever going behind. But in case (+) there are of course less volatile ways of making money from the bets.

[AJ]

Re: Martingale machine I don't think it would at roulette because the game has an house edge (just under 3%) which is always going to get you. House limts will always kill you, because runs happen. I was in the NY NY casino in Vegas a couple of year back, I was playing Blackjack, a game which is as close to even as any in the casino (if played well). I got a run of 14 winning hands in a row, I wasn't playing any differently from before, and I won a lot of cash. But it could just as easily have been 14 losing hands in a row. Martingdale would have destroyed me

[ONEDUNME]

Re: Martingale machine

. The problem I see is reaching the maximum bet that any casino is prepared to take,

Spot on :ok

[Maximus]

Re: Martingale machine Cheers for the constructive comments. Its not something I plan on doing in the future but an interesting concept.

[Moo-e]

hi I tried also Martingale in real roulette a few years ago, first three times I made nice profit, in fourth time house did take those all and little more, 7 reds in a row.. Its just stupid to risk everything for a penny. It was good lesson and now I play "reverse-Martingale" (reverse-Labouchére). reduce stake when losing, increase stake when winning. It has been working well for now... :hope

[Lardonio]

Re: Martingale machine To be fair, reverse martingale or labouchere or whatever is just as stupid mathematically but the staking part might not be so dangerous.

[Moo-e]

Re: Martingale machine Still I rather chase jackpot with a penny than chase a penny with a jackpot. ;) And too much mathematics is boring :lol ;) It all comes to ability to pick winners with a good price. And how something can be just as stupid mathematically but still be less dangerous moneywise ? ;) ? Reverse-Labouchére is for patient gamblers, you may be losing a very little in long period of time and then suddenly hit a jackpot in a few days. Now after hard workday I´m gonna :beer and look something up for my NHL Reverse-Labouchére-system. :) . :ok

[Lardonio]

Re: Martingale machine

And how something can be just as stupid mathematically but still be less dangerous moneywise ? ;) ? :ok

Well, you could start betting 10p on a 20-draw accumulator each week. If a bookie would let you, it would be stupid mathematically but not very dangerous moneywise :cow :tongue2 I see your point. Gambling can be recreational, they say. I'd say the real recreation comes from spending the winnings :spank Not that I ever win anything. :cry

[Moo-e]

Re: Martingale machine I like reverse-Labouchére system in sports-betting for following reasons... I´m spending too much time in work (havent hit the jackpot yet :lol ) and so on I dont have enough time to serious betting with serious amount of money. But I´m so frikin addicted to betting that I just have to keep on betting and my system is very cheap option to reach big wins with little money. Some of my picks has value and some of them are just pure crap. My original Reverse-Labouchére thread has been in ice for couple of months now because I reached a point that next bet is quite big :) and I dont want to blow it away with some stupid picks. Such a dilemma I got now :\ That was the reason I started same thing in NHL, it is such a lottery that it suits well with this system I hope, and there is games on every night. Every system needs good picks to work I believe, and we are talking now systems (Martingale vs Reverse-Martingale) wich are based on staking, so to me it is mathematically wiser to play Reverse version than the original Martingale, because if I believe that I can make profit in gambling, I rather win a lot with a little staked than other way around. Just want explain my approach to gambling with this system. :ok FOOLSGOLD, just think how much you would have won with "my" staking plan then in that blackjack table :eek :) Thats it for me now, Happy Huntings (sorry Mongoose) for everybody :)