Anyone tried the martingale method for online gambling

Radiation said:
What i don't get is if it's about 50/50 why does it seem like people lose more than they win?

I reckon consciousness has some tiny effect on outcome and because people are often a bit negative in thinking, the result is they generally lose.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too, though then I found a method for channeling my positive energy and it worked! I've made a 500% return already this week!!!

I think I should share with the community so I'm going to setup a fund - if you want in then I'll give you my paypal details and you send me your cash - you have to promise to think positive though else the system won't work and you might lose the money you sent me.

Deal?
 
shmacks said:
It’s a proven method for winning (ignoring the green and just assume it is the colour you don’t want). The method would still work even if the casino had a 80/20 advantage over you as long as you have enough money to cover your previous bets you are fine.

When this was first developed it was used to make loads of money but of course you would need a huge bank roll to fund it as the amount you need to get increases exponentially. The casinos eventually caught on and introduced table limits (why do you think a casino has relatively small limits on all their games) to stop this doubling up system as there was no way else to stop it.

(if this has been mentioned ignore me, I just read a lot of ignorant posts and jumped straight to the end)

PS - I've heard some online sites have limit free tables which you can use to do this but I’m not really a gambling man :)
Click to expand...

[ ] proven method for winning
[ ] people have made loads of money
[ ] reason for casinos introducing limits
[ ] limit free tables on line will allow this to work
[x] martingale system is incredibly stupid, doesn't work, hasn't been proven to work and certainly isn't going to worry casinos....
 
Only gambling i've done was the Ladbrokes free £50 bet (had to turn it over 25 times). £3.50 a bet, landing on the splits I had selected was £9 and there were three on the table for £18. Definitely would have lost it all if it were my own money...just kept betting the same knowing if i lost 9 in a row, one win and i'm even, another win i'm ahead. £300 profit later i've retired :p
 
Instead of Martingaling your losses and doubling up do the opposite, Martingale your wins.

Spin Black

£1 Win Spin £2 Win Spin £4 Win Spin £8 Win £16 bank profit. Getting 5 blacks in a row is a 1 in 32 chance. If you don't achieve 5 wins in a row spin £1 again.

You'll still lose money to the house as they have the edge but Martingaling wins is better than Martingaling loses.

Your best bet is just looking out for Casino bonuses that allow you to play BlackJack or Roulette with a low WR and take the bonus money. Not a lot about at the moment though.
 
Last edited:
Statistics might be the easiest part of maths, and people still get it wrong so easily...

It's not 50:50.

First roll it's 50:50, but the 2nd roll, the likelyhood you'll lose twice in a row is 1 in 4.

........................ ------- Win 25%
.... ---- Win 50%
........................ ------- Lose 25%
1st ----------- 2nd
........................ ------- Win 25%
.... ---- Lose 50%
........................ ------- Lose 25%

Each individual round is 50:50, but it's compound results that matter.

Like, when you roll a 6 on a die, and ur buddy says "do that again", yes it's 1 in 6 that you will roll a 6, but it's 1 in 36 that you'll roll it twice in a row. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ai-sfrWa0XBLdEtNVGtxckhZNDJwSXYwVnJ6cHg4ZkE&hl=en

That's a quick spreadsheet I made, based on martingaling losses. Hand number on left, How much you bet in that hand, how much money you'll need to make that bet (cumulative with all previous hands), and %age + fraction chance of losing and having to play the next hand.

The £200 column was for reference, since casinos auto-investigate those taking over £200/day/week whichever it is. The more you lose, the quicker you'll get to £200. :rolleyes:
 
The_Sophisticate said:
Statistics might be the easiest part of maths, and people still get it wrong so easily...

It's not 50:50.

First roll it's 50:50, but the 2nd roll, the likelyhood you'll lose twice in a row is 1 in 4.

........................ ------- Win 25%
.... ---- Win 50%
........................ ------- Lose 25%
1st ----------- 2nd
........................ ------- Win 25%
.... ---- Lose 50%
........................ ------- Lose 25%

Each individual round is 50:50, but it's compound results that matter.

Like, when you roll a 6 on a die, and ur buddy says "do that again", yes it's 1 in 6 that you will roll a 6, but it's 1 in 36 that you'll roll it twice in a row. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The point is the casino dosen't pay out or even take bets for "twice in a row" it pays out on a spin by spin basis, so its still a 17/37 chance regardless of what just came in. Just because the previous spin was red dosent mean its less likely to be red the next time, or the time after that etc....

That's a quick spreadsheet I made, based on martingaling losses. Hand number on left, How much you bet in that hand, how much money you'll need to make that bet (cumulative with all previous hands), and %age + fraction chance of losing and having to play the next hand.

The £200 column was for reference, since casinos auto-investigate those taking over £200/day/week whichever it is. The more you lose, the quicker you'll get to £200.
Click to expand...

Depends on the casino, where i work all buy-ins over £100 get noted down.
 
I once saw a guy put £500 on the middle dozen, lost it.
Then he put down £1k on the middle dozen, lost it.
Then he put down £2k on the middle dozen, won it :o

So he was £2.5k up in about 5 mins :eek:

Who knows how much he has won/lost previously though...
 
The_Sophisticate said:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ai-sfrWa0XBLdEtNVGtxckhZNDJwSXYwVnJ6cHg4ZkE&hl=en

That's a quick spreadsheet I made, based on martingaling losses. Hand number on left, How much you bet in that hand, how much money you'll need to make that bet (cumulative with all previous hands), and %age + fraction chance of losing and having to play the next hand.

The £200 column was for reference, since casinos auto-investigate those taking over £200/day/week whichever it is. The more you lose, the quicker you'll get to £200. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Says no access!
 
I threw together a quick C++ app to simulate this, it's a bad system, you will just always get enough losses in a row to bankrupt you, even with a starting balance of £1000 and £1 bets it happens eventually.

The problem with it is that on any one attempt the winning never seems worthwhile, even if you bet £100 a time instead of £1, the amount of cash you would have to keep as a 'safety net' would dwarf the figure you stand to gain -- and if you keep playing bankrupting yourself just becomes a certainty.
 
Last edited:
The_Sophisticate said:
Statistics might be the easiest part of maths, and people still get it wrong so easily...
[...]

Like, when you roll a 6 on a die, and ur buddy says "do that again", yes it's 1 in 6 that you will roll a 6, but it's 1 in 36 that you'll roll it twice in a row. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

but your buddy says 'do it again' so its just 1/6

he didn't say do it again twice....

prior rolls are irrelevant

anyway your post is a bit irrelevant - I've got no idea why you tried to highlight that a 1/2 event coming up twice in a row is 1/4 as you can't bet on a number coming up twice in a row you can only bet on the current spin
 
shmacks said:
It’s a proven method for winning .......... but I’m not really a gambling man :)
Click to expand...

Right, so you and many others in this thread believe it's pretty much guaranteed method to becoming filthy rich. All you need is a few hundred quid to start you off and you can take any casino, but as you're not really a gambling man, you've decided not to bother.

Why don't you and the others in this thread that think this actually works, put your money where your mouth is, go and spend a few hours on some casinos and come back here when you have made thousands. You can then laugh at me.
 
shmacks said:
It’s a proven method for winning (ignoring the green and just assume it is the colour you don’t want). The method would still work even if the casino had a 80/20 advantage over you as long as you have enough money to cover your previous bets you are fine.
Click to expand...
No, it's a proven method for losing your money. Because there are table limits, and even if there weren't the stakes get large very fast.
Your 13th bet will cost you £8192 (assuming you start at 1 and double) and you could already have lost as much. Starting at £10 you would need over £20k to get to your 10th bet. Plus the fact that the odds of winning are less than .5 but the payout is only 1:1 means that over time the house will always win.
 
Clearly you failed to read in my post were it says it cant be used any more since casinos realised and introduced table limits but thanks for repeating it in the following posts i would not have noticed otherwise. :confused:
 
Radiation said:
What i don't get is if it's about 50/50 why does it seem like people lose more than they win?

I reckon consciousness has some tiny effect on outcome and because people are often a bit negative in thinking, the result is they generally lose.
Click to expand...

Wierdly enough I know this. Is is mainly psychological because when people win, they have the choice to continue gambling (so another opportunity to lose and leave their money at the casino) especially if they are in a casino at the very start of a night out (what, you want them to go right the way home and watch rubbish TV on their Saturday night out at 8:03pm just because they are £100 up?). When people lose and become skint, they do not have the option to keep gambling, and therefore have to go home (or hang around not gambling), effectively leaving the money at the casino.

If people have 1 gamble and double their money, they think 'Whoa I'll have a bit of that'. If people have 1 gamble and lose all their money, they HAVE to walk away as losers.
 
Last edited:
What confuses me in this thread, and pardon my ignorance, is why people think if you employ the martigale system that its always 50/50?
To me its clearly not. Its 50/50 per spin, but the odds of sequencial spins is different. I.e If i am going to flip a coin 10times, and im aiming for a target of ten heads, the odds are 50/50, there 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 1/1024 no???

So let assume they have a $5min limit, and $100 table limit, then doubling it would take 5 spins to get to $80.
So you would have a 1/32 chance of lossing actually hitting RRRRR.
However in 32 times your only going to make 32 quid and lose 80, so its not worth it.

Is that right?
 
ChroniC said:
What confuses me in this thread, and pardon my ignorance, is why people think if you employ the martigale system that its always 50/50?
To me its clearly not. Its 50/50 per spin, but the odds of sequencial spins is different. I.e If i am going to flip a coin 10times, and im aiming for a target of ten heads, the odds are 50/50, there 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 1/1024 no???

So let assume they have a $5min limit, and $100 table limit, then doubling it would take 5 spins to get to $80.
So you would have a 1/32 chance of lossing actually hitting RRRRR.
However in 32 times your only going to make 32 quid and lose 80, so its not worth it.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

a coinflip is 50/50 each time, if it landed heads several trillion times in a row, the next flip is 50/50
 
ChroniC said:
What confuses me in this thread, and pardon my ignorance, is why people think if you employ the martigale system that its always 50/50?
To me its clearly not. Its 50/50 per spin, but the odds of sequencial spins is different. I.e If i am going to flip a coin 10times, and im aiming for a target of ten heads, the odds are 50/50, there 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 1/1024 no???

So let assume they have a $5min limit, and $100 table limit, then doubling it would take 5 spins to get to $80.
So you would have a 1/32 chance of lossing actually hitting RRRRR.
However in 32 times your only going to make 32 quid and lose 80, so its not worth it.

Is that right?
Click to expand...

it's not 50/50!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom