Quote from: ranlo on March 12, 2015, 12:52:45 AM

Quote from: Hfleer on March 12, 2015, 12:38:30 AM

Quote from: ranlo on March 12, 2015, 12:34:43 AM

Quote from: Hfleer on March 11, 2015, 11:48:41 PM

Quote from: ranlo on March 11, 2015, 11:44:36 PM

Quote from: Hfleer on March 11, 2015, 11:41:11 PM

Quote from: JimClone on March 11, 2015, 08:18:45 PM

If martingale worked there would be a lot of dead dice sites but sadly I have tried to use it and end up losing all.

That is actually a good argument. People are still believing in martingale, so you could use that to convince them Wink

People believe in it because in theory, it would work. The reality, though, is that there are two things stopping it:

1) Player bankroll
2) Site max bet allowance

One of these is going to be hit, as neither of these can be infinite. Should these be removed, it would change things, as you could lose millions of times in a row and still not have "lost" yet.

Even in theory there is a third limitation: House could just stop anytime they want to. So if you are down 40 bets in a row, they could just say: "Thanks, good bye"

This is true as well, but we make decisions based on the assumption this won't happen. Otherwise we wouldn't be playing on the site/in that casino regardless as to if we wanted to martingale or not,

.

But it is a good point, that there's also the risk of them running. And in that case, when dealing with cryptos we can throw out another: the risk that the site is hacked (or "hacked") while you're trying to martingale.

That is the problem, there are so many limitations that even theoretical its impossible. But its a nice thought experiment nontheless. People have been grinding their brain on this for centuries for a reason.

The theory would state that you're dealing with a reputable (read: they won't run off) casino and the site/casino can't be hacked, though (or at least would be insured). So it really just deals with the numbers of betting vs. return.

I've run many simulations, trying to find a "sweet spot," including bets that differ from the 2x/50%, such as going to 3x, 4x, etc., and all end up the same way. With that said, I have found methods that statistically are a LOT safer than the straight 2x/50% way, but they all ultimately result in losses at some point.

The question has then always been to me... when do you stop? Mathematically speaking, you have a great chance to build up to SOMETHING. It's the continuing on that causes losses. I have yet to get anything built 2x its starting amount, for what it's worth, though I did come close with one (and it failed after repetition like 41k or so).

It is actually pretty easy to double your starting bankroll if you use 2x. No matter with what amount you start, the chance to double up will be aroung 50% - the houseedge you are betting with.

On the other hand. If you have unlimited funds, its impossible to double them. because you can't double unlimited founds per definition Wink