### Author Topic: A great analysis of the Martingale  (Read 3653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### kav

• https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
• Administrator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2367
• Thanked: 1327 times
• Gender:
##### A great analysis of the Martingale
« on: April 12, 2016, 09:46:56 AM »
This guy did 10 million 200 spin tests playing the Martingale system for even chances.
Read the interesting results here.

Please discuss.

#### kav

• https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
• Administrator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2367
• Thanked: 1327 times
• Gender:
##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2016, 01:28:34 PM »
And because some of you may not have the determination to follow the link to the science20.com site, I post here some of the findings:

I decided to put together a simple program to extract winning probabilities with the above strategy. The program simulates the outcome of reds, blacks, and neutral numbers in 10,000,000 sessions of up to 200 wheel turns -the typical duration of a night-long game. The user may define the number of fiches after which he or she leaves the table (less than 200, of course, since we can win at most one fiche per turn of the wheel with our strategy), and the maximum bet allowed. Below I detail some results.

If the table has a maximum bet of 100 fiches, we get:
max 200 rolls, quit at  +10: won 93.3435%, avg win= -9.2293
max 200 rolls, quit at  +20: won 87.1386%, avg win=-17.4491
max 200 rolls, quit at  +50: won 71.2252%, avg win=-36.6622
max 200 rolls, quit at +100: won 56.9104%, avg win=-51.7284

With a maximum bet of 1000 fiches, we get instead:
max 200 rolls, quit at  +10: won 99.1284%, avg win= -9.2005
max 200 rolls, quit at  +20: won 98.2628%, avg win=-18.2627
max 200 rolls, quit at  +50: won 95.7134%, avg win=-44.6285
max 200 rolls, quit at +100: won 91.6532%, avg win=-78.0571

And with a maximum bet of 10000 fiches (if you can afford it!), we get:
max 200 rolls, quit at  +10: won 99.876%, avg win=-11.8301
max 200 rolls, quit at  +20: won 99.751%, avg win=-23.5798
max 200 rolls, quit at  +50: won 99.379%, avg win=-59.0183
max 200 rolls, quit at +100: won 97.935%, avg win=-107.22

This graph shows the distribution of the longest streak of losses. This is what determines the long negative tail in the previous graph:

#### Dane

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2016, 03:03:51 PM »
SOME OF US KNOW ON BEFOREHAND that Martingale
might be no better that a NIGHTINGALE.
Nevertheless I had the determination to follow the link
but some kind of error at the science20com stopped me.

Our  limited bankrolls and the rules (MAXIMUM LIMITS)
prevent us from winning.

The socalled d´Alembert progression (one step up as you lose - and if possible one step down
after winning) is quite different. THE MINIMUM LIMIT MAY FOOL YOU.
Every time you win with one unit, you are unable to go one step down.

"There´s  only one step down from here, baby
It´s called the land of permanent Bliss" (Bob Dylan).

The balance from d´Alembert and his Age of Enlightenment might be in our heads and nervous systems. Balance between Black and Red MIGHT come - but it is not reflected in where we are:

Three losses followed by three hits surely bring us back to one unit.
Three hits followed by three losses, however, bring us away from "balance" (one unit).
And we may never come back!

#### kav

• https://www.youtube.com/c/rouletteman
• Administrator
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2367
• Thanked: 1327 times
• Gender:
##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2016, 05:28:44 PM »
SOME OF US KNOW ON BEFOREHAND that Martingale
might be no better that a NIGHTINGALE.
Nevertheless I had the determination to follow the link
but some kind of error at the science20com stopped me.

Our  limited bankrolls and the rules (MAXIMUM LIMITS)
prevent us from winning.

The socalled d´Alembert progression (one step up as you lose - and if possible one step down
after winning) is quite different. THE MINIMUM LIMIT MAY FOOL YOU.
Every time you win with one unit, you are unable to go one step down.

"There´s  only one step down from here, baby
It´s called the land of permanent Bliss" (Bob Dylan).

The balance from d´Alembert and his Age of Enlightenment might be in our heads and nervous systems. Balance between Black and Red MIGHT come - but it is not reflected in where we are:

Three losses followed by three hits surely bring us back to one unit.
Three hits followed by three losses, however, bring us away from "balance" (one unit).
And we may never come back!

Dane,
Very god points about the d'Alembert! They will be included in the new article that should be posted by tomorrow.

Btw, 3 wins followed by 3 hits bring us 3 units down, right?
+1+1+1-1-2-3=-3

#### Sheridan44

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2016, 07:26:48 PM »
Good observation Dane. The house betting limits are an important factor.

John Scarne (noted expert on cards and other games...for those who don't know of him) relates a story of a phone call he once received by a panicked pit boss somewhere in the Carribean. The pit boss said that there was a high-roller there that had clipped his casino for like 50 grand - and was still playing. What should he do about it? Scarne asked him what the table limits were, and the pit boss said \$5 min and \$1000 max. Scarne explained that it wasn't that the max was too high, but the min was too low. The punter had a wide enough range to where he could do some serious damage. Scarne instructed the PB to raise the minimum to \$25 (or maybe \$50, I can't remember). And the story goes that the roller not only lost the amount that he had accumulated but went negative.

These tactics can easily pick apart a full blown marty (and many other systems for that matter). The roller should have ran like hell when they upped the minimum.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 07:43:23 PM by Sheridan44 »

#### Dane

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2016, 07:26:24 AM »
To kav: Right. Thanks!
To Sheridan44: Thanks! Good story.
Time to eat d´Alembert
oh sorry: CAMEMBERT cheese

#### Mike

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2016, 09:00:44 AM »
Interesting analysis, but this is false:

Quote
While one cannot change the table rules, and thus has to live with a maximum bet, the rare fluctuations can be kept rare by playing shorter games! If one defines before playing a fixed exit strategy -say, leave the table upon winning a certain number of fiches-, this is going to make it easier to prevent the killing streaks to occur during your game.

Hit & Run is a fallacy.

#### dobbelsteen

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2016, 10:22:35 AM »
SSB uses also the Martingale progression.
The important difference is, that SSB wagers on a 20 spin occurrence shall not fall.
SSB gives a profit of about 48%of the played spins.
The grand Martingale gives a much larger profit but the risk ais also bigger.
See my challenge with an excample of 150 spins.
Theoretical a 20 losing sequence is possible within a 150 spins sample.

#### Geoffrey

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2016, 12:04:23 PM »
Interesting analysis, but this is false:

Quote
While one cannot change the table rules, and thus has to live with a maximum bet, the rare fluctuations can be kept rare by playing shorter games! If one defines before playing a fixed exit strategy -say, leave the table upon winning a certain number of fiches-, this is going to make it easier to prevent the killing streaks to occur during your game.

Hit & Run is a fallacy.

This may be so Mike but it sure helps tho

#### dobbelsteen

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2016, 08:24:14 AM »
The problem in this discussions is , that wtiters donot the know the differences between  betting systems or selection, a roulette system , a roulette strategy and a roulette method.

#### scepticus

##### Re: A great analysis of the Martingale
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2016, 02:25:09 PM »
The problem in this discussions is , that wtiters donot the know the differences between  betting systems or selection, a roulette system , a roulette strategy and a roulette method.
I think we should just use the term " Method" to describe  the totality of  how we arrive at our conclusion . Otherwise we just get bogged down in  semantics.