Was on a gambling site and thought of the martingale strategy and wondered how the strategy would work if the win loss ratio was 2:1 or higher. I might be a retard that doesn't know how to google. if you use the martingale strategy you can lose, if the max is 100, [1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64] 7 times, but with my version, you can lose, [1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 21, 31, 47, 70], 12 tiems.
>>16282788Why are you considering a strategy that assumes you have infinite wealth?
>>16282791Not considering to use it myself. Was just wondering if anyone has thought of this before. Again I might be a retard that doesn't know how to goodle search. Just wanted to share the code
>>16282794>Was just wondering if anyone has thought of this beforeIt's the exact same idea. If you understood why the martingale strategy doesn't work for 1:1 odds you should understand why it doesn't work here too
>>16282788this kind of problem is called a random walk. specific examples you could look at are called “drunkards walk” and “gamblers ruin”.btw the betting strategy you wrote is not a martingale strategy. the martingale strategy increases like 1->2->4->8->16 but yours is more like 2->4->6->8->10
>>16282791You don’t need infinite wealth, only enough for like 6 retries or so. Losing a 50/50 6 times in a row will never happen if you gamble sparingly.
>>16282921It happens 1 out of 64 times. So you have a high probability of winning small and a small probability of losing your whole bankroll. If that's your thing go for it, but you can't cheat the expected value, that's the point.
>>16282930It’s safe money if you gamble very sparingly. Abuse it and you will hit the 1/64 that bankrupts you eventually.
>>16282788The best way to make Martingale work is to pray long and hard that you win the favor of the infinite wealth of the Godhead.
>>16282962>It’s safe moneyit's not, every time I've heard someone talk about martingale as a serious casino strategy unironically, they wind up being a massive fucking moron who deserves to loseAnyone who is thinking of this as a real strategy should calculate the variance of your winnings following a martingale strategy. If they're too dumb to know how to do that then they should go ahead and burn their money, otherwise they should pretty quickly see why the martingale strategy is a bad idea for anyone with a finite bankroll
>>16282921This. If it were good for casinos to allow Martingale Chads, then casinos wouldn't impose stake limits. They're deathly afraid of Martingale Chads.
>>16283294>If they're too dumb to know how to do that then they should go ahead and burn their money,Cool, sounds like guaranteed bucks for a casino to let people burn their money. So...would you mind pointing out a casino that doesn't try to stop Martingale players?inb4>they don't want to take money from fools because reasons
>>16283367If you play just one slot, you dumb. The winning slot always changes. You can evolve a magic eye that can spot winning slots.
>>16283367>So...would you mind pointing out a casino that doesn't try to stop Martingale players?I have never encountered a casino actually do this in real life. Would you care to name one where you personally saw this happen, or are you going off what you've seen in media?>>16283364Stake limits are good for casinos because the games are biased to give house edge. Allowing large stakes means people can bet large amounts on a small number of rounds and exploit the fact that they're far more likely to take a profit early on and can then leave. It has nothing to do with a martingale strategy. It's because when you have edge you want someone to be forced to play a large number of rounds so that the law of large numbers works for you and the probability of them making a profit shrinks rapidly.
>>16283822>Allowing large stakes means people can bet large amounts on a small number of rounds and exploit the fact that they're far more likely to take a profit early on and can then leave.It sounds like you are making a fallacy yourself here. It doesn't matter if some individual player gets lucky and leaves a winner. Some other sucker will sit down and take his place.
When you bet 3 you've already lost 4 dollars. Even if you win on 3 you're down a dollar. 1, 1, 2, 4... Would be a better sequence.
