Martingale Strategy: Good or bad?
@16:11 “Jackpot Famous” talks about how the Martingale strategy on low bets in games like Baccarat and Roulette is “fine”. Is there any weight to this argument? Is the Martingale a bad strategy in all instances or does it depend?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, it’s just the person in the video states things very confidently.
Thanks!!
A Martingale is 'fine' as long as you aren't unlucky enough to get involved when there's a streak of events that go the other way.
And, with most people's bankrolls, and/or table limits, it doesn't take many consecutive losses to have one of those events.
Imagine running a Marty on red when 9 blacks in a row comes up. It DOES happen:
For instance- years ago the buffet at Virginia City in AC was $10. I'd play roulette and put $10 on Red. If I won, I'd take the money and eat. If I lost, I'd repeat the bet. If I won, I was even and would start the cycle over with a $10 bet. If I lost I'd double my bet to $20.
I enjoyed many more meals than there were times I lost my grubstake. I could have simply paid $10 out of pocket each time, but this was more fun. While it doesn't change the odds against you( Expected value), it may change the entertainment value( little e.v.)
Like your brother-in-law, it might be useful under the right circumstances, but generally should be avoided.
Martingale does the reverse, so most the time you win a small amount but every now and then you lose a lot. In your case, suppose you wagered even money (lose on zero) ten times, then 99.87% you'd win $10 and one time in 784 you'd lose $10,240, that would be an expensive dinner! That is to say if you played every day, you'd only lose one day ever two years, but it would cost you a lot; the fun would be you'd never know when that was going to happen!
Still want to do it?
Quote: charliepatrickMost people bet odds against, so are happy to lose a certain amount every time and get the occasional win. A simple version of this might be to make ten $5 bets on a number (single zero) and hope some of them win. About 3 times out of 4 (76.03%) you lose the lot, about 1 time in 5 (21.12%) you have one win and gain $130, other times (2.85%) you win $310 or more. (On average it costs you $1.35 to have this play.)
Martingale does the reverse, so most the time you win a small amount but every now and then you lose a lot. In your case, suppose you wagered even money (lose on zero) ten times, then 99.87% you'd win $10 and one time in 784 you'd lose $10,240, that would be an expensive dinner! That is to say if you played every day, you'd only lose one day ever two years, but it would cost you a lot; the fun would be you'd never know when that was going to happen!
Still want to do it?
link to original post
Absolutely, because there is simply no way I'd ever lose $10,000 on it. This is what absolute math people don't appreciate.
I'm playing for lunch. If I am successful, I get a free $10 lunch. If I'm not successful, I lose $40 and don't eat. I'll eat more days than I won't .Pretty simple.
"Martingale is fine"
"Your odds are way better" (17:33)
"It's a very slow progress, but you will get it back"
"You are going to inch your way back to the $100 you lost" (18:42)
Based on the evidence provided in the video, it is clear that this is a way to combine multiple bets to make a positive expected value for the player.
The person in the video gets his revenue from Youtube's partner network.Quote: Roberto21https://youtu.be/5QdxDOfRu_Y
@16:11 “Jackpot Famous” talks about how the Martingale strategy on low bets in games like Baccarat and Roulette is “fine”. Is there any weight to this argument? Is the Martingale a bad strategy in all instances or does it depend?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, it’s just the person in the video states things very confidently.
Thanks!!
link to original post
Martingale is a fun way to lose money.
Marty is useful if you are in a war zone with $990 and the price of a flight to freedom is $1000. Marty with $10 base and you will probably get on the flight.
