Dantheman
Joined: Apr 21, 2015
• Posts: 53
April 21st, 2015 at 9:19:57 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

say you bet on a fair coin flip at Sally's Casino

your first bet is on A side (A and Z are the bets)
you WIN!

you won 1 cuz ur 1st bet was only 1
not 3
that happens 50% of the time

now
you must calculate your average bet
for the game you wants to play in a casino
and you will C the light

have fun and win!
Sally

Would the avg win be approx 2?
Half the time win 1 unit half the time win 3 units (1+3)/2
surrender88s
Joined: Jun 23, 2013
• Posts: 291
April 21st, 2015 at 9:32:28 PM permalink
My math may be wrong here, but I'll give it a shot. if we assume that you are playing a fair coin-slip game paying 1:1, probability of winning at each flip:

1: 50%
2: 25%
3: 12.5%
4: 6.25%
Lose 5 in a row: 6.25%

Payouts at each round are: 1,3,3,3,-61

EV of 1: 0.5
EV of 2: 0.75
EV of 3: 0.375
EV of 4: 0.1875
EV of lose 5 in a row: -3.8125

Expected loss of this system is a loss of 2.75 per "round", which is playing until you win OR lose 5 times.

The expected gain or loss of flat-betting is 0. The more "levels" you play martingaling, the lower the chance of hazard, and the bigger the hazard.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
surrender88s
Joined: Jun 23, 2013
• Posts: 291
April 21st, 2015 at 9:34:46 PM permalink
EV of regular martingale with payouts as 1,1,1,1,-31:

EV of 1: 0.5
EV of 2: 0.25
EV of 3: 0.125
EV of 4: 0.0625
EV of lose 5 in a row: -1.9375

Expected loss of this system is a loss of 1.05 per "round", which is playing until you win OR lose 5 times.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
surrender88s
Joined: Jun 23, 2013
• Posts: 291
April 21st, 2015 at 9:39:14 PM permalink
Quote: Dantheman

I was playing around with different variations of martingale recently.
I worked out that if your first bet is 1 unit and you increase your second bet to anything more than 2 units (for example 4) then continue to double for say upto 3 more attempts (5 step) until winning or busting, it is approx 3 times more profitable and only costs approx twice as much as a 5 step standard martingale on a bust.
Eg
1,2,4,8,16 = 1 unit win each win, 31 unit loss each bust
1,4,8,16,32 = 3 unit win each win, 61 unit loss each bust

Can someone explain why this isnt a winning strategy?
Not interested in smart alec comments cheers

To answer your question directly, yes, you triple your wins if you win. Yes, you double your hazard if you lose. Triple is more than double, right? ... well... at first that makes sense, but it's really your brain fooling you. Tripling 1 is 3, so a magnitude of 2 change. Doubling ~30 is 60, a magnitude change of 30. Doubling the big loss is way worse than winning 2 more a few times. Cheers.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
Dantheman
Joined: Apr 21, 2015
• Posts: 53
April 22nd, 2015 at 12:31:41 AM permalink
Quote: surrender88s

To answer your question directly, yes, you triple your wins if you win. Yes, you double your hazard if you lose. Triple is more than double, right? ... well... at first that makes sense, but it's really your brain fooling you. Tripling 1 is 3, so a magnitude of 2 change. Doubling ~30 is 60, a magnitude change of 30. Doubling the big loss is way worse than winning 2 more a few times. Cheers.

Thats what is confusing me-
If it is still going to lose with the same frequency as the standard martingale, doesnt the extra amount in wins before that happens mean it is better?
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
• Posts: 3030
April 22nd, 2015 at 4:19:54 AM permalink
Quote: Dantheman

Thats what is confusing me-
If it is still going to lose with the same frequency as the standard martingale, doesnt the extra amount in wins before that happens mean it is better?

Like every other martingale variant, it works great until you can't place a big bet.

When you can't place a big bet - either due to table limit or bankroll constraint - you've lost a big chunk of money, and that is quite hard to recover from, even winning 3 units at a time.
May the cards fall in your favor.
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
April 22nd, 2015 at 4:29:09 AM permalink
Systems (that don't work) are the worst thing. It's sad to see. I see players all the time, they're tracking the amount of rolls people get on the dice, or what numbers they're hitting, or the time it takes between each roll -- whatever their system is. And others do this sh** where they press, martingale, decrease, parlay, whatever their bets because they think they have some magical system.

These people spend hours a day (daily) in a casino with some losing system. They treat it like it's a job. They've figured out how much \$\$\$ they think they should be making per roll/shooter/hour/day whatever. But they THINK they're gonna be winners.

With that being said, do what you want with your money -- the casino will be glad to take it from you.
ThatDonGuy

Joined: Jun 22, 2011
• Posts: 5360
April 22nd, 2015 at 7:13:58 AM permalink
Quote: Dantheman

Thats what is confusing me-
If it is still going to lose with the same frequency as the standard martingale, doesnt the extra amount in wins before that happens mean it is better?

Actually, if "lose" means "reach the point where you can't make the next bet necessary," then losing will happen more often if you bet more because the amounts you bet after each number of losses are larger as well.

Compare the examples, and assume your bankroll is 1500:
"Normal" Martingale: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024; after 10 losses, you are behind 2047
"1-4" Martingale: 1, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. 128. 256, 512, 1024; after only 9 losses, you are behind 2045
And don't even think about going to the ATM and "temporarily borrowing" the money for your next mortgage payment, under the assumption that "I'll win it back eventually."
Remember the words of Oscar Madison (that's Quincy Oscar Madison, not the new Chandler one): "There's no such thing as a sure thing; that's why they call it gambling." ("Pro wrestling is fixed, right? There's no possible way Vince McMahon lets Brock Lesnar beat Undertaker at WrestleMania...")
TwoFeathersATL
Joined: May 22, 2013