[raiders72002]

Redwings

[InTheHole]

Redwings

Those are heavy odds. -180 tonight--- if they lose, which they wont, they'll be even higher tommorow. Anythings possible but it is a good situation.

[tacomax]

Those are heavy odds. -180 tonight--- if they lose, which they wont, they'll be even higher tommorow. Anythings possible but it is a good situation.

Nice avatar.

[pat venditto]

if they lose today im gonna martingale the next 3

[mathdotcom]

thats a terrible martingale

if they lose tonight, and especially if they lose game 5, you do not want to be making huge bets on them

of course theyll win tonight though

[pat venditto]

yes u just have to lay more

[mathdotcom]

AAO u idiot

u call urself a gambler?

And martingale doesnt work, strictly speaking, regardless of the odds

[mathdotcom]

yes i only follow your posts, kid

i just come across your posts and they are invariably stupid

[mathdotcom]

Get a phuckin spell check, high school dropout

[raiders72002]

And martingale doesnt work, strictly speaking, regardless of the odds

The odds of Martingale working over 4 games at pk em are 15 out of 16. The odds of Martingale working on odds that Det will be given are much greater, a guess would be 70 out of 71. Martingale is almost a sure thing used short term.

The problem is that long term sooner or later you'll take a beating.

[raiders72002]

raiders, you really think someone couldnt strickly use ** to bet?

no, sooner or later you'll run out of funds or you'll be above the max limit that you can bet.

[Ganchrow]

The odds of Martingale working over 4 games at pk em are 15 out of 16.

Taking it a step further ... if the games were all offered at -110, then a loss of the Martingale series would result in a loss of 18.4481 units, while a win of the series would result in a gain of 1 unit.

This is the equivalent of US-style odds of -1844.81.

Odds of -1844.81 on a bet winning with probability 15 16 implies vig of 1.1682%, while vig of 1.1682% on a bet winning with probability 1 16 implies odds of +1481.31.

So ... a a 4-tier Martingale all at -110, has the exact same characteristics of a bet on the favorite at an unbiased market of -1844.81 / +1481.31. Now granted that is a pretty tight market but is it really what a Martingale player is looking to accomplish?

What about you, AAO? Are you satisfied betting chalk at low vig?

[mathdotcom]

lol

If I had a nickel for every moron on here who thinks it's okay to play russian roulette... but uhh.. only like..uh.. once or twice..

Two words: expected value

[raiders72002]

If I had a nickel for every moron on here who thinks it's okay to play russian roulette... but uhh.. only like..uh.. once or twice..

Two words: expected value

I'll bet you have no idea what the expected value is of using martingale two times.

just screwing with a math guy.

[Ganchrow]

care to explain why?

You can't change a collection of -EV bets into a +EV bet simply by selecting a sufficiently creative (although there's nothing particularly "creative" about Martingale) staking strategy.

In that sense there's absolutely nothing to be gained betting Martingale.

Now that said, one thing you can accomplish with Martingale is the lowering of your effective vig (calculated as a percentage of max possible loss). For example ... if we assumed a 4-game series with each game offered at odds of +300 and at 4.545% vig (an admittedly unlikely scenario -- but we're just keeping it simple), then by Martingaling the 4-game series you'd "lower" your vig to 2.870% (loss = 2.160 units, win = 1 units, win prob = 66.40%).

This would result in a bet on the favorite NOT to sweep at odds of about -216.

Now if that were the bet you really wanted to make, AND if you were assured you'd be able to make each bet at +300 even after the previous game had been decided, AND if the odds on the favorite not to sweep as a single bet were worse than -216, then indeed the Martingale series would provide your best value.

But that's the union of the 3 necessary conditionals that in reality probably won't hold. Of course even if they did, the above analysis completely overlooks the issue of risk. Even if the games were (equivalently) +EV and independent of previous results, there would be no reason (now from a Kelly perspective) to ever increase your bet size after a loss. Ever. You'd be decreasing your bet size after each loss (and you'd keep betting even after a win).

If you want to bet Martingale you should only do so because you find it fun (the satisfaction of the above 3 conditions within a sufficiently risk-neutral framework notwithstanding -- and I'll also mention that the fun you initially envisioned at the start of the series would likely be a fair bit greater than the fun you actually experienced after 3 consecutive losses); but if you think you've found some sort of sensible betting system in Martingale then you're sorely mistaken.