Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Martingale system played conservatively......

  • 20-05-2014 11:51pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭✭ deadringer


    Hey everyone, I know the martingale system doesn't work in the long run, but I have been using it and been very strict when using it and made a nice bit of money over the last few months. When I say strict I mean that I only allow myself to win 2 bets and I leave because inevitably if I stayed at the table a bad streak would come and clean me out. I was using the system and had a bankroll for 7 losing bets. So my bets would have been 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 if I kept losing but to miss seven 50/50(roughly) bets in a row would be very unlucky and since I only played until I won twice (50 profit) I was never caught. The most I ever waged was 800.
    So in the morning Id wake up and win two bets and leave. Again in the evening Id do same and again at night time Id do the same. So Id be up 150 a day and over last 2 months I am up over 5grand and that's only when I played roughly 18 days a month.
    Id play all the games really. Roulette, craps, baccarat and blackjack.
    Can people read the following and then give their opinions on my....routine lets call it! What I want are people opinions or answers on the below questions.
    http://vegasclick.com/gambling/martingale-betting-system.html

    I know each individual bet is roughly 50/50 but to lose 7/8 in a row is very unlikely as long as you're only playing for a short time period. Agree?

    Roulette has a bigger house edge than most games and is slow whereas baccarat is only a small edge and is quick. Two winning bets could be done in minutes.

    Opinions please. Good or bad system and I was just lucky or what do you think?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭ catallus


    Lucky.

    Stop gambling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭ Gregk961


    Please stop. You WILL lose your profit and then some. The 7 or 8 in a row isnt "unlucky" its inevetible. Take your profit and either buy something shiny or find a way to gamble it that isnt 100% guaranteed to lose eventually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭ catallus


    Or just do the thing that will guarantee successful gambling!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 812 clickerquicklic


    I have seen 14 blacks in a row on roulette before , you will lose eventually please stop you can't beat the house edge long term.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,745 ✭✭✭ diomed


    There will be ups and downs, but the house's bacon slicer will win.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭ paddyg91


    It doesn't matter about it being black or red 1 time in a row, or 20 times in a row, each time its probability is 50%. (or 48, you get what I mean)


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,876 ✭✭✭✭ endacl


    OP, please post this in the mathematics forum. They're nice folks over there. They don't take the pi55. They'll explain the holes you've missed in your 'system'. Best of luck if you carry on with it, but your sums are a bit pokey.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭ paddyg91


    endacl wrote: »
    OP, please post this in the mathematics forum. They're nice folks over there. They don't take the pi55. They'll explain the holes you've missed in your 'system'. Best of luck if you carry on with it, but your sums are a bit pokey.

    There is no piss taking on my part, every bet should be taken on each merit, the chance of a colour showing up is the same every single time, previous renditions have no relevance to any martingale system. You want to go broke, then martingale roulette.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,876 ✭✭✭✭ endacl


    paddyg91 wrote: »
    There is no piss taking on my part, every bet should be taken on each merit, the chance of a colour showing up is the same every single time, previous renditions have no relevance to any martingale system. You want to go broke, then martingale roulette.

    Didn't meant to imply you were!

    The maths forum is great though for explaining this stuff in plain English. I meant they don't take the piss when non-mathematologists turn up with numbers questions!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭ catallus


    paddyg91 wrote: »
    There is no piss taking on my part, every bet should be taken on each merit, the chance of a colour showing up is the same every single time, previous renditions have no relevance to any martingale system. You want to go broke, then martingale roulette.


    Hmmm.

    Previous renditions have no relevance to the outcome of the event you are betting on, but in the martingale system (or any "system" for that matter) the previous rendition does of course have relevance to the outcome, namely the amount you have previously lost.

    You. can. not. beat. the. house.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,876 ✭✭✭✭ endacl


    catallus wrote: »
    Hmmm.

    Previous renditions have no relevance to the outcome of the event you are betting on, but in the martingale system (or any "system" for that matter) the previous rendition does of course have relevance to the outcome, namely the amount you have previously lost.

    You. can. not. beat. the. house.

    Exactly. The problem with the martingale is the stake necessary to double on each bet. If you haven't won by bet five or six, the margin that you'd win would make taking part in the first place entirely pointless. In other words, if you can afford to play the system successfully, your so loaded in the first place that, financially speaking, the win would be meaningless to you.

    Did you ever hear the story of the Chinese emperor, the chessboard, and the grain of rice...?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,110 ✭✭✭ catallus


    The Martingale is just the most basic "stop at winner" approach.

    Betting is supposed to be a bit of fun. Anyone who claims to be a professional gambler is just being silly; I've known a few in my time. And god knows I've learned the hard way that there's no such thing as a sure thing.:)

    jisseo-2-rice-on-a-chessboard.jpg

    Didn't that Emperor just cut yer man's head off? Haha, he sounds like my bookie :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭ unichall


    I suppose the simplest way to look at this OP is that it's not a very complicated system and therfore do you think you are the 1st person to think of it.

    100 's and 1000 's before you will have deployed your system and if it was so successful why did they stop? Why don't we all know about it? Because ultimately 99% of them kept going until they hit that bad run and lost it all plus more.

    You have the perfect opportunity to be in that 1%, take your 5k and quit while you are ahead. Use some of it to bankroll you in a more traditional style of gambling and enjoy the rest of it


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,002 ✭✭✭ Hulk Hands


    catallus wrote: »
    The Martingale is just the most basic "stop at winner" approach.

    Betting is supposed to be a bit of fun. Anyone who claims to be a professional gambler is just being silly; I've known a few in my time. And god knows I've learned the hard way that there's no such thing as a sure thing.:)

    Thats funny as a professional gambler has actually already posted in this thread!

    Ever hear of Patrick Vietch? Harry Findlay? If Gambling was just a bit of fun then why do bookies restrict and close hundreds of accounts daily? Many more people win at gambling than people realise, despite very few (but still a considerable amount) being professionals


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭ paddyg91


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Thats funny as a professional gambler has actually already posted in this thread!

    Ever hear of Patrick Vietch? Harry Findlay? If Gambling was just a bit of fun then why do bookies restrict and close hundreds of accounts daily? Many more people win at gambling than people realise, despite very few (but still a considerable amount) being professionals

    Hulk Hands is correct, there are a number of professional gamblers, and like in any profession you only succeed if you put the work in. I used to gamble full time but then gave it up due to the unsocial relation associated to it and the long hours you'd put in. The income was excellent, but for the hours put into it and the stress associated to it I'd not recommend it to anyone haha, the amount of years I've probably lost off my life through it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,262 ✭✭✭✭ kippy


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Thats funny as a professional gambler has actually already posted in this thread!

    Ever hear of Patrick Vietch? Harry Findlay? If Gambling was just a bit of fun then why do bookies restrict and close hundreds of accounts daily? Many more people win at gambling than people realise, despite very few (but still a considerable amount) being professionals

    There are professional gamblers. Defo. They put a lot of time and effort into it and often play the odds and make their margins there, not necessarily on the outcomes of various sporting events.

    Many more people don't win at gambling than people realise.
    Bookies profits have been on the up for years. There's only one reason for that.

    The martingale system is daft by the way. There are numerous things that the house does to reduce any risk due to the "system".

    Oh, and best advise for the OP, as given already, would be to put the majority of that 5K into something solid, a holiday, a new toy, a few weekends away etc etc
    And walk away, knowing you've done what the majority of punters have never done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭✭ ragnarl


    It's not hard to pick more winners than losers or lay more losers than winners.

    The problem is, getting the money on. Betfair have a premium charge that only the best of the best can beat. Bookies restrict all across the board. The challenge is first getting an edge and then getting the money on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭✭ ragnarl


    Martingale will get you long term by the way, unless you've got a good banking strategy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,002 ✭✭✭ Hulk Hands


    kippy wrote: »
    Many more people don't win at gambling than people realise.
    Bookies profits have been on the up for years. There's only one reason for that.

    Everyone not familiar with gambling presumes that everyone loses. The amount of time ive heard 'the bookie always wins' makes me want to bang my head on a wall, and theirs too.

    There's plenty of reasons why some, not all bookies profits are up. The main one is simply vastly increased turnover. Theres also many more winners nowadays than there used to be because the margin a bookie takes is much smaller nowadays in an aim to be more competitive. Only the well marketed big boys profits are up really (365, PP, Hills etc). Most of the independents have hit the wall. Ladbrokes are heading that way also and Coral aren't far behind them


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,262 ✭✭✭✭ kippy


    Hulk Hands wrote: »
    Everyone not familiar with gambling presumes that everyone loses. The amount of time ive heard 'the bookie always wins' makes me want to bang my head on a wall, and theirs too.

    There's plenty of reasons why some, not all bookies profits are up. The main one is simply vastly increased turnover. Theres also many more winners nowadays than there used to be because the margin a bookie takes is much smaller nowadays in an aim to be more competitive. Only the well marketed big boys profits are up really (365, PP, Hills etc). Most of the independents have hit the wall. Ladbrokes are heading that way also and Coral aren't far behind them
    I dont assume everyone loses. But far more people lose than win particularily over time.
    You mean ladbrokes that made over 130 million profit last year?http://m.independent.ie/business/world/ladbrokes-profits-to-fall-due-to-online-upgrade-30041738.html
    Orhttp://www.top100bookmakers.com/profit-margin/overall-margin.php
    Dont see any in the red.....

    There are people who win and long term losers will get their wins here and there otherwise they wouldnt gamble.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 812 clickerquicklic


    kippy wrote: »

    That's actually not referring to profit but the bookmaker overround. Therefore you would never see any in the red, even if the bookmaker is making a loss.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,262 ✭✭✭✭ kippy


    That's actually not referring to profit but the bookmaker overround. Therefore you would never see any in the red, even if the bookmaker is making a loss.

    Once the overall margin is positive....its in profit...unless their ancillary expenses wipe it out. But thats not what the punter should be worried about


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,002 ✭✭✭ Hulk Hands


    You're misunderstanding. That graph you posted is the margin (overround) a bookie takes. Like say they are betting on over 2.5 goals in a game. Bet365 go 10/11 over and 10/11 under, so they take a 4% overround. Hills go 5/6, 5/6, so they take 8% overround. That is all that link you posted is showing, nothing to do with profits


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 812 clickerquicklic


    kippy wrote: »
    Once the overall margin is positive....its in profit...unless their ancillary expenses wipe it out. But thats not what the punter should be worried about

    It doesn't really work like that. lots of reasons why , simple example

    over/under as hulk hands used lets say its 10/11 over 2.5 10/11 under 2.5
    The bookie has a margin

    lets say this bookie is slow to move its lines and on team news suarez is not starting, the real odds on under 2.5 start to come down and most bookies cut there odds Betfair goes 8/11 under 2.5 and same with asians

    the book gets hit by a load of sharp players and they are overexposed on under 2.5 , they cannot lay off without taking a loss and they can let it ride out but long term they will be losing money giving away value like that , hence making a loss while keeping an overround


  • Registered Users Posts: 956 ✭✭✭ Arrow in the Knee


    <snip>


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,480 ✭✭✭ Peintre Celebre


    Another problem with your system that you may not have encountered. Many games will restrict the stake, so for example if you do get 7 losers in a row and you have to double your stake to 3200 you might not get it on. This will ensure you're down


Advertisement