Tonight, as I stated earlier in this thread I took the yanks with the martingale. They lost the first and won the second.
If I would have bet individually, I basically would have lost the juice as they were a slight dog in the second. So if I did it the way everyone else does, I would have lost money.
If I would have bet individually, I basically would have lost the juice as they were a slight dog in the second. So if I did it the way everyone else does, I would have lost money.
It does actually, as successful gamblers are more likely to hang around. Most I know don't post on this forum, but I can also guarantee that they would not be supporting martingale.
Also, if martingale was so successful, many of these pro-martingale gamblers would be coming back to throw their successes in the face of those who advised against it. Sure, some may not be bothered once they're living the high life, but at least one of them would be back here to cause a storm.
Depends on the forum and the person. Some will generally lurk and have low post counts, while others will get into discussion and have high post counts. The easiest way to tell a sharp bettor by the terms they use and the concepts they understand.
This means nothing not because of your credibility (and I never suggested post count creates credibility), but because the sample size is too small. It takes thousands of bets for a proper sample size.
As to why you aren't credible, it's because you're not knowledgeable. You have no idea of sample size, don't understand why martingale won't work, overbet, and have made no mention of how your bets are +ev. Like I said before, the terms someone uses and the concepts they understand says everything about their level of skill, and unfortunately this all suggests that you don't have any, and that you're just a regular gambler. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you'll need to provide mathematical proof to do it. I can save you time by stating that the maths isn't on your side, but I doubt you will believe me. I'm sure you're convinced that your system works as it seems logical in your mind and has worked for you so far.
It may seem I'm being rude and blunt and it's likely you'll dismiss me as being an arrogant fool who doesn't know what he's talking about, but the true fool is someone who doesn't even consider advice. There's no harm in considering my advice, even if you don't think it has merit. I suggest you read the previous martingale threads here and also do your own research, and if you're still satisfied that your strategy will work, go ahead. If it will work as good as you think then taking the time to prove so won't really hurt, unless of course you're afraid to do a little work.
Who says I have no idea about sample size?
And who is to say how long I have been on the forum? Who says how long I have been betting? I never stated any of that information.
I don't dismiss people as being arrogant fools and the reason is most that know me or know of me woluld dismiss me as the same. I may post plays and all of that but my main reason I don't is because I don't like alot of people on the forums as I can prove point after point with so many people and they still will not get it or dismiss it as "arrogant" and many other terms I won't get into. And no, I am not saying this is one of those points. yes, using the martingale, the odds are against you. People just select random games and can take heavey heavy faves in bases which can offset alot of numbers. The example Ace Ace uses above is why it is not such a great tool among many. Liked I said, the way I do it is different from what others do. I just use 3 different selections; sometimes less at a time and go to a max. of 4 games before I call that selction a loss.
As for my time here and posting, who knows. To be honest, it gets frustrating as I'm sure you've seen, some like me could make being here a full time job as it is such a busy place that I would have to bwe defending myself every other minute on a post. I don't count this as one of them. This is just a discussion.
But there are other things I could prove and others still won't get it but i am aware of the math on this and I can't back anything up I say right now on this subject as i have no valid proveable sample size. Just explaining a little of what I do.
And there is nothing wrong with being arrogant, weak people just don't understand that it is just when confidence meets annoyance of morons
I suggested that because you gave the impression of "well it's worked so far this year".
It's far less significant than your opinions. I'm not judging individuals based on this, but when newcomers talk about how easy it is and are never heard of again a part starts to emerge. Also, the majority of the 'established' posters that I've seen advising against martingale are people I would think are profitable bettors.
Many would dismiss my post and I believe all who have championed martingale (or any other system that relies on a betting system) have not considered anything I or anyone else has had to say. Generally they believe they're right and that's all that matters to them.
My issues with what you have described:
1. Your betting system. A betting system won't change the profitability of the system, it only changes the distribution of profits and losses. Your system will mean you will nearly always make a profit, but when you do lose it will be quite large. These losses will almost certainly happen over the long run as you can't avoid probability. There's a reason casinos allow use of these kind of systems.
2. Overbetting. Check out the Kelly Criterion. It's something the most intelligent bettors have paid attention to for decades.
Any two losses in a 4 bet series almost wipes you out (you said you bet 5%, which I assumed is the first bet of the series and doubles until you get to 40% for the fourth bet). Losing four bets in a row is not an uncommon event. Again, you can't beat the probabilities.
It's good that you're taking this discussion in a positive way.
No, my first bet is 1% of my bankroll and the it gradually goes up from there.
And I've done the same in basketball and football with a profit.
Trust me, I've learned the hard way when I started out. Especially when you say "1 loss takes out all of your profit" or something like that. In the beginning I would take huge ML faves but if you take -700 everynight and go 6-1 for the week, you lose money.
we'll see. I've had the padres using this system for the last 2 games and they have lost both of them. So I have them today for game 3.
Also, something I've never looked up but wondered speaking martingale is look up what the longest MLB losing streak has been in the last 12 years or something and say it is 14 games. Then just plan a martingale system for 15 games? Just thinking outloud on that one. I think that falls more into just randomly selecting games
And I've done the same in basketball and football with a profit.
Trust me, I've learned the hard way when I started out. Especially when you say "1 loss takes out all of your profit" or something like that. In the beginning I would take huge ML faves but if you take -700 everynight and go 6-1 for the week, you lose money.
we'll see. I've had the padres using this system for the last 2 games and they have lost both of them. So I have them today for game 3.
Also, something I've never looked up but wondered speaking martingale is look up what the longest MLB losing streak has been in the last 12 years or something and say it is 14 games. Then just plan a martingale system for 15 games? Just thinking outloud on that one. I think that falls more into just randomly selecting games
Well that's obviously much, much less risky. The problem is no matter what betting system you use, you need the underlying selections to be profitable. Betting strategy isn't where you may your profit, it's just how manage your risk. If you're confident you can make good selections then it's fine, but don't rely on the betting system to produce the profit. I'd still recommend that you simply flat bet since it doesn't change your long term profit, but does reduce the swings you'll experience.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future. If you were flipping coins and it landed on heads 14 times in a row, would you think it's more likely to give heads for the 15th result? Each flip is an independent event, i.e. the previous results have no influence on the next event, and it's important to understand this when it comes to betting. This is why a betting system that relies on the previous result (such as martingale) is not profitable over the longrun.
LOL
I never said I'd do it.
So if I start with 50 bucks, I guess I'll need to find a book that will take my $ 819,200
Nothing like risking $819,200 to get my original $50 I laid
This is kinda like I thought of I just wanted to post 1 play in the forum per season but have that play be for 500 units, so if it wins, I'll just post everyday saying I am up 500 units and if I lose, never post again. Hahaha.
So with just 3 winning plays, i can claim to be up 500 units in baseball, football, and baseball.
