Martingale

[Guest Whopper73]

Re: Martingale Sorry mate, was only thinking in the context of sports betting. Should really of said that. Have never betted on roulette, so never really though about it. Guess you do have a point though. I always plan a system so that it doesn't have a long losing streak as opposed to having a system that can withstand a long losing streak. Unfortunately this results in more time developing systems than actually gambling! mmmmmmm.....need to sort that out really! Whopper73

[Guest Whopper73]

Re: Martingale hmmmmmmmmm, maybe your right about the roulette thing. Just had a go on a demo one from a betting site, was 20% up in 10 minutes using the Martingale stragegies! Think I'll keep playing the demo ofr a bit longer though, see how it continues to go! Whopper73

[Guest madmick]

on the contrary Osesame I think it is more relevant for sports betting. In roulette etc, you can explicitly calculate the risk form theory. In sports betting you can only estimate, with quite a high uncertainty. As such I think it is more risky for sports betting than for games of pure chance. If you can trawl through the archives, or someone can point you to the post, you can see where Joe has done simulations comparing different staking strategies including martingale. My recollection (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong here ;) ) was that the average profit from martingale was unexceptional, while the associated risk of losing substantial proportions of the betting bank was huge.

[Guest Brightboy Dim]

Roulette Whopper73 I'm not surprised your "demo" roulette game is going well. The whole purpose of casino demo games is to lure people into playing with real money. The wheel you are playing with is not a real wheel, and the numbers are not random numbers. They are programmed numbers. You will find the demo game is programmed to be a lot more favourable to the player than the real-money version. I am not saying that is impossible to win against the casino, but I assure you that a Martingale is not the way to do it. As soon as you start playing for real, your system will blow up. It would also blow up on a real wheel. It's a sure loser. Brightboy Dim

[Osesame]

Re: on the contrary The point I am trying to make is that if you have a good selection system and you are not betting at low odds then the risk of using Martingale is considerably reduced. I believe I have read every thread at least once,I understand fully what is said and I believe that all the targetting for value and safety is all very well, but has it made anyone rich or even improved their standard of living? Estate agents have a saying that equates to value "location-location-location".The Punter's equivalent should be "selection-selection-selection" in my opinion.

[Guest Whopper73]

Re: Roulette Brightboy, Thats what I feel as well, they get you all nice and cosy, then fcuk you over as soon as you pledge any money! Although, statistically, I cannot see how they can do that as they won't know where my next bet will be so therefore cannot treat me any differently! Not sure I can trust or I want to find out as just playing the demo is bloody addictive! Whopper73

[Guest madmick]

I agree I agree with almost everything you say here. I would contend though, that for the small chance of riches that Martingale confers the associated risk is higher than with other methods, e.g. Kelly staking If, and it is a very big 'IF', you are achieving a consistent edge of 20% or higher, then it really won't matter very much which system you use - the risk of losing money will be very small. In such circumstances I can see that a very aggressive staking plan can make sense. However, most of us aren't in that position though.