Is this guaranteed profit method effective enough to stick with?

lol this is the martingale 'system'. Doubling your bet every time you lose. Anyone who has ever placed more than a few bets has had this thought cross their mind. It'll work until it doesn't. Eventually youll have a run where you lose 4 or 5 in a row and youll be wiped out. Im sure you wont listen to me though so keep doing it and report back in a month

Thanks for answering.

What I do is slightly different than what I posted, and I am deeper rolled than you probably think. Even 1,20 is rare for me now. I choose bigger favorites.

Usually, I am involved in 3 bets at the same time. And they all have to fail for the 4th bet to be 0,25% of the remaining roll. Three losses in a row have not happened in 500 bets, and when it finally happens I am still a massive favorite to win the 4th bet of course for less than 0,5% of that days starting roll.

I do not see this as a thing to be in just for profit though. There must be something better.

I do not know of many other methods though. I was involved in Matched betting some years ago, but although profitable it was the most annoying thing I have been involved with. It really does not suit me(somewhat visually impaired)

There are no self-weighted methods to turn a losing bettor into a winning bettor.

That is, if you're choosing your bet sizes according to some fixed scheme, and not an analysis of a probability of the underlying event, then you're wasting your time.

If you think you found 'guaranteed profit' then you're doing the math wrong.

It is not guaranteed that your child will be shorter than 8 feet, but how often will something that is 90% likely to happen not happen 11 times in a row? That is basically what has to happen for me to stay on the minus side for good. I am sure I would have lost interest/died or got limited before that day.

That doesn't have to be an abstract question, You can do the math to determine that.

But, short answer:

---On any pre-chosen 11 trials, it will be very rare to happen.

--If you make 1,000,000 bets over time (number randomly chosen), then it is very likely that it will happen at some or multiple 11 streak of trials.

Where did you pull the 90 percent from?

How are you choosing which wagers to make, that would be anywhere near that kind of probability?

Once you can answer THAT question, then you can skip the idiotic betting pattern and just make smart wagers according to the chance of winning the bet, compared with the payout for winning.

This is the answer.

There is no way to turn a combination of bad bets into a good bet.

Its like the economy or with science. You cant get more out of something than you produce. You have to be making positve EV wagers, period. But again, you probably wont listen to anyone to keep doing it and report back. We'll see.

Have moved on to value betting now.

I'm on a site that does not limit people, but they are quicker than I like to change their Odds. Around 20% of my attempted bets are not accepted because they are in the process of changing the odds.

Thanks for participating.

I can attest to that. I am a new bettor, and thought I was oh so smart. Did the doubling down, it worked a few times, and I felt like a genius. UNTIL that time when it didn't, and I lost my shirt. Now I'm in a huge hole. I wish I would have found and read the above comment first. Lesson learned the hard way

Yup.

The single best answer to this question or really about 90% of all new bettors questions is this: There is no possible combination of bad bets that you can make that will equal a good bet. You have to be making +EV wagers if you want to make money betting. Anything else is literally a fools errand.

I was thinking about the martingale system as there's this roulette game online in my state that allows a 10 cent min bet, 10k max bet. So if you started at a 10 cent bet betting on red for example, if you have the 10k bankroll you would have to lose 17 flips in a row to go broke. The odds of losing 17 flips in a row is roughly 100,000 to 1 - number is slightly lower given there's two double zeros. Inevitably yes you will lose 17 flips in a row at some point, but at that point you might of won so much that you're well ahead. Say you use this system and now have 20k - you could avoid total risk of ruin by deciding for example if I lose 12 flips in a row I'll take the loss and start back at my original bet. In theory if you had infinite money you would never lose.

If I have a 1 billion bankroll and bet 1 dollar per spin doubling it up on each loss you will in theory make money longterm. The only problem is the betting limits, your true bankroll limits, and the casino potentially refusing you business at some point.

You still crash out. It's just that by setting that ratio of bankroll and bet, you're just slowing down the inevitable. Same math, different time scale.

Sure, the time scale of your inevitable crash out is longer, but so is the time scale to achieve significant wins.

If you won't have enough time to get a big loss, you won't have time to get meaningful wins, either.

At this rate you'd probably lose more to inflation than you gain at the tables.

I guess the argument is even if you had to lose 100 flips in a row to go busto the chances of losing 100 flips is greater than 0.

It isn't an argument it is just math

You could start betting 1 cent with a 200 billion dollar bankroll and yes you would need to lose more spins but you will still go broke more than 50 percent of the time making minus ev bets before you get to 400 billion dollars because while super unlikely that long losing streak is a favourite to hit before you have won enough spins to double your bankroll. The same is true whether you start with 200 dollars, 200k, 200 million or 200 trillion dollars.

Out of curiosity - to lose 7 flips in a row it's 256/1. Does that mean 256 flips or 256 times where you flip 7 times?

if we start with $1

1-2-4-8-16-32-64

that requires a bankroll of $127 to pull off

so you are essentially asking yourself will you successfully win 127 wagers before you lose 7 in a row

you gotta remember, each win, no matter what stage it occurs at, is just $1 profit

Neither. It's a mathematical construct of probability.