I've tested elements of the Martingale system to work in a physical bookies using just greyhound favourites and it worked in theory against real data but only because my notional starting stake was as low as 60p, that was a big factor.
The notional money in my wallet was £600
Rule 1. Only favourites over 2 to 1 were notionally bet on
Rule 2. Where the were 'two favourites' the race was not bet on
Rule 3. When there was a win - start back at 60p stake
My findings over about 4 months worth of data were that an mean average daily profit of £202 could be achieved (this admittedly included going broke about 2 days each month)
But would a bookie let me stay and abuse the system like that using brute maths to hack a guaranteed profit everyday, no, of course he wouldn't so I hoped to get a feed to the races and do it online, but as the minimum stake is £2 on betfair, that would quadruple the rate I would go bust, clearly, I've got 2 less life lines before I go broke.
So although I agree that martingales are useless, they can actually form part of a bigger strategy if you have the capital and the desire to travel to a new physical bookie everyday.
It would be very hard work. I find it easier looking for value in football markets instead and using excel to factor in stop losses and early green ups and other healthy trading practices instead.
Very interested in achieving the following..
Sfarad,
As others have said, you will fail long-term with that approach. Let me prove it.
Open the attached spreadsheet, which shows the Martingale applied to 2,000 lays at random values of 4.0 and under.
You have a starting bank of £10,000 and the rules of the game are as follows:
A. Lay a horse for a total risk of £100, except when you are recovering your losses.
B. When you are recovering losses, your stake is simply the amount needed for you to recover all your losses to date if the horse loses.
C. If you go below £0.00 at any time, it's classed as wipeout, ie you lose.
Re-run the spreadsheet a few times by re-entering the digit 1 in the A4 column.
You'll find that probably the majority of the time you end up wiping out your bank over 2,000 lays (and when you don't, you get eye-watering liabilities just to break even).
In the words of Dirty Harry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0
Admin - Can I suggest that this thread is made a sticky please, as it might save someone from bankruptcy?
Jeff
As others have said, you will fail long-term with that approach. Let me prove it.
Open the attached spreadsheet, which shows the Martingale applied to 2,000 lays at random values of 4.0 and under.
You have a starting bank of £10,000 and the rules of the game are as follows:
A. Lay a horse for a total risk of £100, except when you are recovering your losses.
B. When you are recovering losses, your stake is simply the amount needed for you to recover all your losses to date if the horse loses.
C. If you go below £0.00 at any time, it's classed as wipeout, ie you lose.
Re-run the spreadsheet a few times by re-entering the digit 1 in the A4 column.
You'll find that probably the majority of the time you end up wiping out your bank over 2,000 lays (and when you don't, you get eye-watering liabilities just to break even).
In the words of Dirty Harry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0
Admin - Can I suggest that this thread is made a sticky please, as it might save someone from bankruptcy?
Jeff
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Iron on Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've made it easy for you - try out my attached spreadsheet and see how often you'd lose a hypothetical £10K starting stake over 2,000 bets...haichless wrote:you can do this.
however, I would advise you trial this system.
over 500 - 1000 bets see what your longest losing run is.
The rules of the game are in my previous post.
As others have said, this approach is stupid beyond words (and I write as someone who once fell for the Maringale scam!).
Jeff
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
I think everyone has tried this, I did it with a £10 free roulette bet from a certain bookmaker. Somehow through a lot of luck I got to £600, I then said to myself if I ever got to the point where I had to bet all of it I would walk away. I was only using 50p stakes but the time did come and I withdrew £300, never again!
-
CaerMyrddin
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:47 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
So, if you have a long enough run, you will go bankrupt. Simple maths
I've tried this myslef on the roulette with a bonus as well. I tweaked it a bit by generating random selections on the red/black/odd/even but it would be the same to simply gamble on a number with the proportional stake. It's all down to luck, as the numbers are against you. They are just slightly against you on each run what may give a feel of possibility. But as you have to go for long runs the numbers become heavily against you, as the law of large numbers shows.
My statistics teacher once asked the class, does anyone knows what's the probability of someone winning the Euromillions? Before anyone could answer he said: 50%! Because you wether win it, or you don't!
'Beware simplistic analisys' he added. Don't overcomplicate, I'd say!
So, if you have a long enough run, you will go bankrupt. Simple maths
I've tried this myslef on the roulette with a bonus as well. I tweaked it a bit by generating random selections on the red/black/odd/even but it would be the same to simply gamble on a number with the proportional stake. It's all down to luck, as the numbers are against you. They are just slightly against you on each run what may give a feel of possibility. But as you have to go for long runs the numbers become heavily against you, as the law of large numbers shows.
My statistics teacher once asked the class, does anyone knows what's the probability of someone winning the Euromillions? Before anyone could answer he said: 50%! Because you wether win it, or you don't!
'Beware simplistic analisys' he added. Don't overcomplicate, I'd say!
You know that betfair is a zero-sum game (or to be technical, less than zero sum because of exchange costs)? If you want to be a long term winner there has to be plenty of losers.haichless wrote:"On the other hand, having plenty of fish in the system allows money to flow up the food chain."
I must say I detest comments like this.
whenever you read a comment resembling this, its oh dear time, he/she feels soooooo superior..
Perhaps no sin so easily besets us as a sense of self-satisfied superiority to others.
If there are fewer losers, if the fish disappear, the market changes. Everyone needs to consider whether they are a shark or a fish in each market on each day. There is an excellent passage in Nate Silver's book on prediction as to his online poker career and when he realised he had moved from shark to fish.
CaerMyrddin wrote:
My statistics teacher once asked the class, does anyone knows what's the probability of someone winning the Euromillions? Before anyone could answer he said: 50%! Because you wether win it, or you don't!
young and wise , they didn't have the euromillions when i was at school, come to think the lottery wasn't even invented, we did the pools omg i feel old.
Very very good post Learn to TRADE green up and laugh at those who are trying to predict winners in those filthy shops on the high streetherbie wrote:How do I achieve this?
Please elaborate as much as you can I am new with excel hehe...
Learn excel and use it to help you trade.. use excel to help you manage your losses...control greed and instil discipline into to what you do.
Having losses is part of the game.. embrace those losses and dont try and battle them....as many people at GA meetings around the world will tell you... fight the losses and they will eat you...your family and everyone around you...
good luck trading
-
OnGoldWires
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 7:07 pm
Chasing your losses does not work, that is why Casinos do not go bust.
But there another reason why this method would be particularly bad in sports betting, your stake effects the price. In other words, when you are trying to lay the favourite after your 7th straight loss, your HUGE lay will push up the price, costing you more and possibly making it 2nd or 3rd favourite.
DON'T DO IT.
You should do the opposite, reduce your stake after a loser and if you are in profit, add a proportion of your profit to your stake. But to win, you have to have an advantage.
But there another reason why this method would be particularly bad in sports betting, your stake effects the price. In other words, when you are trying to lay the favourite after your 7th straight loss, your HUGE lay will push up the price, costing you more and possibly making it 2nd or 3rd favourite.
DON'T DO IT.
You should do the opposite, reduce your stake after a loser and if you are in profit, add a proportion of your profit to your stake. But to win, you have to have an advantage.
I 'discovered' this system for myself when fooling around in a casino for the first time. Take it from me, it may work for a while and you'll feel like the greatest man on Earth, pocketing money from the casinos or in this case the backers, but it will come crashing down, and like me you will find yourself not only having lost everything, but mired in debt as well.
A quick google search on Martingale or taking the advice of people on this forum should put an end to that idea, your time is much better invested in learning to trade or finding an edge in weak favourites.
A quick google search on Martingale or taking the advice of people on this forum should put an end to that idea, your time is much better invested in learning to trade or finding an edge in weak favourites.
The entertainment value of your comments Le Tiss are up there with the best comedians - you and Mugsgame make me laugh more than Saturday night at the Apollo - love itLeTiss 4pm wrote:Before you embark on this Sfarad, go and look in your garage for a cardboard box. Then write your name on the side of it, because that's where you'll be living very soon