When we reach to the last step of Martingale - an idea

[huskerdu]

I know that we all hate Martingale. It is a devestating progression which may  bring us quick wins but also can wipe out all our entire wins and bankroll in a moment.
But because many systems are still based on this progression, I want to drop an idea for those who play it and reach to a desperate point of the last step and they cannot decide what to do:
Let’s say that we  play a 7-step Martingale which demands a 128 units bankroll.
When we reach to the 6th losing step (1-2-4-8-16-32) we have already spent 64 units and we are now ready to bet the last 64 units for the 7th step.
We are in a deep hole and we think, or to bet, or stop and save our rest of 64 units, but having already lost 64 units.
If we continue to the last step, we have :
•   50% Win 1 unit and save our bankroll
•   50% lose of the entire bankroll of 128 units
But there is another way of saving us from the deep hole:
Instead of betting 64 units, we bet 2 times 32 units. Let’s see the chances:
•   WIN â€" WIN: 32+32 = 64 units. We save our bankroll and gain 1 unit.
•   WIN â€" LOSE, or LOSE-WIN : we are in the same position
•   LOSE â€" LOSE: We lose all our bankroll
What’s the pros and cons of this kind of betting?
Instead of having 50% of losing our entire bankroll (128 units), we have 25% chances of losing it
But we have also 25% of saving our bankroll and win 1 unit instead of 50% if we’d proceed to the martingale 7th step.
And we have 50% of staying in the same position of the 6th step as if we’d stop there (losing  64 units).
So let’s conclude:
If we proceed the 7th step Martingale (64 units):
•   50% Win 1 unit and save our bankroll
•   50% lose of the entire bankroll of 128 units
If we bet in two steps 32+32 units:
•   25% Win 1 unit and save our bankroll
•   25% lose of the entire bankroll of 128 units
•   50% staying in the same position (losing 64 units)
That’s all. The decision is yours

[benis71]

Very smart you are Einstein

[gizmotron2]

I suggested another way to get an extra step out of it a few weeks ago, somewhere? But I like your 32 - 32 anyway.

( 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 ) = six steps, then 32 once or 16 twice.  In this method you get back your bankroll without adding that eventual one unit forward. So it's just recovery but at one less number of steps. Or it's half the bankroll to start out with 1 - 1.

So your way is recovery plus +1 net win. This suggestion is recovery without the +1 net win. It's half the bankroll for the same number of steps. But I like the flat betting after you reach the end of a streak of losses.  Here's an even better idea to add to that also. Don't flat bet the recovery during a losing streak. Postpone it to a time that is in a win phase. You will be flat betting at the high price of 16 or 32 until you have the net recovery. You might be surprised how easy it is to get one net win from a stretch of moderate or good sequences while it is not a losing streak. Could be a great addition to Reading Randomness.

I might try out ( 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 ) and then flat bet 16 at the right times using RR. It's so easy to wait for favorable conditions. It gives you a real fighting chance against that sequence of death.  It great too. It's only one net win at flat bet level 16 to recover to where you were before the losing patch.

[gizmotron2]

Cool. I tried it at MPR using $25 as the base unit and got my +$100 real fast. I never got past a fourth step at $100.

[huskerdu]

( 1 - 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 ) = six steps, then 32 once or 16 twice.  In this method you get back your bankroll without adding that eventual one unit forward.

With this kind of progression, you win only if the first bet is succesful. The others bets are only to recover.
So you just save a step of Marti, by limiting the chances of winning only to the first bet.

[gizmotron2]

With this kind of progression, you win only if the first bet is succesful. The others bets are only to recover.
So you just save a step of Marti, by limiting the chances of winning only to the first bet.

I look at it this way. You bet 64 to get 1 or you bet 32 to get 0. +1 or 0 are very close compared to losing 64. Or losing 64 is worse than losing 32. Progressions are all about hoping that you get a win that pays for all those losses in a row. Meanwhile you get to keep all those first try wins on step one. It's a way to play with half the bankroll at risk.

But do what you want because playing into a losing streak is dumb anyway. Progressions are all about putting your mind in a hammock and expecting an easy money machine to kick out a steady win for you. There's always that sequence of death that kills a progression lurking around somewhere.  The last step of playing flat to eventually recover your losses should be your first step. But that way takes a lot more work.

[huskerdu]

Progressions are all about putting your mind in a hammock and expecting an easy money machine to kick out a steady win for you. There's always that sequence of death that kills a progression lurking around somewhere.  The last step of playing flat to eventually recover your losses should be your first step. But that way takes a lot more work.

I fully agree with you!

[Steve]

The biggest mistake of progression bettors is thinking previous bets are connected.

[gizmotron2]

The biggest mistake of progression bettors is thinking previous bets are connected.

Might as well argue. There is a bigger mistake. That is in not pretending that they are connected even though they are not connected. I know for a demonstrable fact that there are times when it appears that the previous bets look like they are connected. And also that the trends and patterns are working, at times and at other times they are not.