Would martingale be successful in this scenario

Say you were using a 4 step martingale in bac and instead of busting out approx 6.5% of time, you would only bust out approx 4% of time.
Would would your edge be?

What factor(s) are altering your ruin %? Do those same factors also affect flat betting and other multi-step betting systems?

You know if you have a 53% to almost 54% strike rate at baccarat, the 4 step Wink Martindale would probably work!

I think I see what you're going for here: the chance of four straight player wins, if you count ties toward the four, is very close to 4%.

As always, you're only winning one unit (less a commission that could be as high as 40%), and while the ties will mean you don't always lose as much, it'll still make up for it.

Quote: 24Bingo

I think I see what you're going for here: the chance of four straight player wins, if you count ties toward the four, is very close to 4%.

As always, you're only winning one unit (less a commission that could be as high as 40%), and while the ties will mean you don't always lose as much, it'll still make up for it.

Thanks but no thats not what I was thinking- its purely to see the maths for the stated scenario.

The game has a built-in edge, so your 6.5% number isn't quite right to start. But if we use 4% instead, you'll lose 15 units 4% of the time, and win 1 unit 96% of the time. (1*.96)-(15*.04)=.36 units won.

Quote: rdw4potus

The game has a built-in edge, so your 6.5% number isn't quite right to start. But if we use 4% instead, you'll lose 15 units 4% of the time, and win 1 unit 96% of the time. (1*.96)-(15*.04)=.36 units won.

Thanks

Except what should be stressed is that the only way the odds could get that way is if individual trials were such that there would by just about any metric exist smarter ways to bet.

Quote: 24Bingo

Except what should be stressed is that the only way the odds could get that way is if individual trials were such that there would by just about any metric exist smarter ways to bet.

Can you explain what you mean?

Let's say the bets are identical. If there's a 4% chance of four losses in a row, there's a 55.3% chance of winning any individual bet. The thing to do then, pretty much everyone credible will tell you, is to bet in proportion to your bankroll, somewhere between flat-betting and a weak press. Your 4-step Martingale, depending on where you begin and end in relation to your bankroll, only either sets you up for slow growth punctuated by hefty setbacks, or sets up a short period of apparent growth while awaiting nigh-certain ruin where a flat bettor would have more likely experienced slow but sustainable growth.

If the bets aren't identical, it's a little different, but pretty much always there's a better idea than Martingaling.