Martingale Revisited

[Derek27]

Ok Im convinced Martingale can work as Ive seen the figures and I am going to modify my strategy to do another strategy and supply the sheet for all with the workings to prove how it can work. Be back tomorrow with that.

When I read the first 4 words I assumed you realised it doesn't work! The advice you've been given isn't opinion, it's straightforward maths and common sense.

[ruthlessimon]

Baffles me that it isn't a BA feature.

One "tick" is just an arbitary movement. If you want the same effect all over the card then you'd want the same PL for the same size change in implied chance. One tick movement on an odds on shot isn't the same probability change as one tick at 200/1 so it shouldn't be the same profit or loss......presumably. There's no reason why Betfair couldn't change the tick sizes tomorrow, or a different exchange might have different tick sizes, then where would you be?

Actually, I've just recalc'd my strategies using a fixed stake rather than tick based - & my return on stake is slightly higher. I'm gonna have a real good dig at that in the next few days, really really surprised; cos I've always thought fixed staking is dumb. But if that's a genuine result, sure as heck makes my life easier

So, weirdly, although I disagree with what you've written your post made me challenge something I'd have never looked at.

big +1 from me

[rik]

martingale is the opposite of accumulator betting, where with accumulator you stake small to win huge, martingale you stake huge to win tiny, there is no mathematical logic behind staking a high multiple of your initial stake to recover it, just retarded gambling logic
you can see the series of double up bets as one bet so your putting huge stake on 1.01 or whatever the series of odds equates to, if your picks are rubbish which they probably are if you think martingale is good you might be getting 1% profit on a 2% chance going bust as bad value multiplies, if they are good you might get 1% profit for 0.5% chance of going bust, but you didnt maximize your profit relative to bank size and you still have a chance of going bust, regardless if your picks are good or not is no way thats optimal staking, you want to maximize value, minimize variance, martingale does neither

[ShaunWhite]

I've always thought fixed staking is dumb.

The only staking method that makes sense for me is maximum staking either the largest liability I want to have, or the most the market can stand. To do anything else would be saying that some entry prices have a different probability of profiting and needed to be traded with more or less confidence, I don't find that. My goto would be liability staking across the board but that's only because I don't have an assessment of the given situation and have to just go with what the data says is best.

I guess a manual trader uses a much more subtle staking approach based on what they're seeing, either a fiver as a dabble or lumping the mortgage money on if it's a 10/10. And when you're trading in and out and adjusting your position who knows what staking method that is. Ie just set your presets and start positioning offers of a size that feels right.

Btw I can't see how staking per tick can work, fine for scalping but if you swing the amount per tick changes anyway the further you get from your entry.

[ruthlessimon]

I've always thought fixed staking is dumb.

The only staking method that makes sense for me is maximum staking either the largest liability I want to have

Yup, that's what the data says.

For backs, fixed stake (i.e. fixed liability).
For lays, variable stake (i.e. fixed liability)

[ShaunWhite]

Straight backing or laying I might use that staking but to clarify my idea of max liability is the potential max loss on my trade, not my stake 'liability' which I obviously plan to get some or all of back. So I use the same stake either side to make the tick gains or loses equiv sizes rather than having £500 backs and £1 lays on longshots.

[MemphisFlash]

Let him do the martingale. The only way for him to know for sure is to lose.
What do we care if he loses money, he will probably give it to one of us anyhow.

[gazuty]

Scepticism is healthy and is fine. Fixed mental thinking is the danger - "this can't be possible because I can't do it". Humans seem to readily accept our physical limitations but less ready to accept our mental limitations ....

This kind of thread pops up of course from time to time (on a similar frequency to Martingale).

Ha. And now this thread. You just can’t make this stuff up.

[TraderFred]

I was doing the martingale earlier on this year. Thought everything was going well, spent the lockdown dreaming about new cars and champagne for breakfast.

Now I have nothing.

[Headless Chuck]

I was doing the martingale earlier on this year. Thought everything was going well, spent the lockdown dreaming about new cars and champagne for breakfast.

Now I have nothing.

Funny you should say that. I work with a bloke who is a compulsive gambler and we have long conversations about football, betting etc. Before the lockdown we got onto Martingales and recoveries etc. and bashed out the most robust theoretical system we could come up with. Obviously I never actually followed it through but a look at my data suggested that from the beginning of the year to the time UK racing ceased it would have done OK - returning several times the initial bank. I never went back to it, and couldn't anyway as running it with real money would interfere with things that I actually want to do, but perhaps early 2020 was just a particularly kind set of cirumstances for that specific system.

[Euler]

Everybody has touched martingale at some point.

Thankfully most of us realise it's folly before we get in too deep, but plenty do not and end up losing a lot of money.

There are many ways to stake, but I stake by fixing liability on either the back or lay side. That means my payoff is a direct result of my edge over time. It also means I can raise or lower stakes as required and keep it consistent.

Martingale just doesn't work as there is no edge it in. It's a staking system and will, therefore, break-even at best before costs. But eventually, you hit a number that you can't reasonably stake and therefore it's a double failure from that viewpoint.

You also realise that no matter what you say, people will still try to make it work.

[Leeds1919]

There are many ways to stake, but I stake by fixing liability on either the back or lay side. That means my payoff is a direct result of my edge over time. It also means I can raise or lower stakes as required and keep it consistent.

Probably a stupid question but what does that look like? Is it backing say for £10 at 3.00 and laying at 3.00 for £5 so your liability is the same or backing and laying a the same odds for the same stake?

[jamesedwards]

I was doing the martingale earlier on this year. Thought everything was going well, spent the lockdown dreaming about new cars and champagne for breakfast.

Now I have nothing.

Funny you should say that. I work with a bloke who is a compulsive gambler and we have long conversations about football, betting etc. Before the lockdown we got onto Martingales and recoveries etc. and bashed out the most robust theoretical system we could come up with. Obviously I never actually followed it through but a look at my data suggested that from the beginning of the year to the time UK racing ceased it would have done OK - returning several times the initial bank. I never went back to it, and couldn't anyway as running it with real money would interfere with things that I actually want to do, but perhaps early 2020 was just a particularly kind set of cirumstances for that specific system.

Martingale systems will usually work for a decent period of time and then one day it will crash. That's what makes the system so dangerous - it's easy to believe and/or make others believe that it works.

[ShaunWhite]

Utterly pointless running a whole sequence of bets just to win back a pound. The maths is blindingly obvious, for a martingale to "work" you have to start on pathetically low stakes and even with a 100% strike rate you make almost nothing. You make far more using a proper stake on each trade and just doing the job properly.

Yeah you can stake so it means you theoretically never lose, but you don't win anything much either so it's just a parlour trick rather than being something of interest to anyone being serious. You won't find many successful traders starting the day using £1 stakes so they can escape at 8pm with a £1025 bet to win a whole 95p for a full day's work.

[Tuco]

You won't find many successful traders starting the day using £1 stakes so they can escape at 8pm with a £1025 bet to win a whole 95p for a full day's work.

...profit is profit Shaun, lol