Does the martingale system really work? | Page 19 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Martingale, Anti-martingale, and Compounding 40 replies

Martingale, Reverse Martingale, Modified Martingale, Maths 1 reply

How to change this Martingale to Reverse Martingale ? 3 replies

Martingale vs. Non Martingale (Simplified RoR vs Profit) 1 reply

Does this simple system by Richard Donchian really work? 134 replies

Attachments: Does the martingale system really work?
Exit Attachments

Does the martingale system really work?

  • #361
  • Nov 29, 2013 5:12am Nov 29, 2013 5:12am
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} The increase of probability is a required yet not sufficient condition. The optimal bet size of a system can be calculated from a choosen utility function, based on personal risk aversion. The most known example is the log return which leads to the Kelly bet size. If you don't know the characteristics of your system, i.e. its winrate and R:R and their associated confidence intervals, such a function still exist. You simply dont know it. If you look at the Kelly curve you notice that it drops more sharply after the optimal point (too big...
But if you accept his approach why you disregard mine.I was also talking about martingale until the power of 7, and after that repeat, not about infinite doubling of money.You assumptions are correct if we would talk about infinite doubling of the sum, since we either run out of cash at some point and inevitably fail or reach our 1 million $ goal.

That doesnt necessarly have to be in 1 session,and doesnt necessarly have to blow your account. 0.64 lot size on a 100-200 $ startick pack is not a relatively huge risk.If we scalp small pieces of a candle when the probability of its reversal is good, we could theoretically get an edge if the spread & slippage is good.That would provide us a 55 or so permanent winrate (theoretically) and if its from 1 to 20 pips size with 1:1 RR of course, a 0.64 lot size loss would be only max ~12$ on a 5 decimal broker.

Quote
Quote
we still avoid the losing strikes more efficiently with martingale
Not correct. Your probability of winning is independent of the betting size.

Not with the martingale, since we are talking about relative loss.What you count loss here, we must define the word "loss" in the martingale context, the actual trade that was gone negative? Or the actual loss after we ran out of levels , ie we reached the 8 losses in a row, since i was talking about lot^7 system.

So of course if we imagine the market as a 50-50 system and apply martingale to it it wont change the actual/individual outcome of the trade so you are partially correct.

But with marty we are not interested in the individual outcome of the trade, but rather that our doubling series will end in a win or a lose.
And for that my friend, (given that you say that the bets are independent from eachother) we can use hannover's nice binomial distribution table to find out.

So,lets take 100 trades for example.We will only trade 100 trades in a set, now since we only lose at 8 losses in a row, so thats the only loss that we are interested in.We have a 31% of getting an 8 times a row loss, which is the real loss, not the hedged ones, which will result, in our case in a LOT^7 loss which in our case (given that we start with 100$ and our initial lot size is 0.01 with a 5 decimal broker) we only lose 12$

So we have a 12$ loss with a 31% probability in 100 trades while we got a 69% probability that the other trades will end in a hedged loss (anything below LOT^7), OR an initial win.And since each real loss will deplete 8 trades the probability now becomes dependent of the outcomes of the row, and continuous.So the next trade since we depleted 8 trades will only have 92 trades left to run so the distribution will now be different.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #362
  • Nov 29, 2013 7:33am Nov 29, 2013 7:33am
Quote
But if you accept his approach why you disregard mine.I was also talking about martingale until the power of 7, and after that repeat, not about infinite doubling of money.You assumptions are correct if we would talk about infinite doubling of the sum, since we either run out of cash at some point and inevitably fail or reach our 1 million $ goal.
The problem doesn't come from the rate of growth of the increase nor with the capped vs unlimited martingale. It comes down to the reason behind the increase of the wager. It makes sense that if your probability of winning is bigger the bet size should be bigger too (and conversely). But we need to prove that this increase of probability indeed exists. For example, let's say you have a very high success rate, like 90%. If you look at a sequence of trades it may look like this:
win-win-win-win-win-loser-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-loser-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-loser-win-win-win-win
At first glance you can say that after a loser is ALWAYS a winner. But the reason is simply that there is 90% chance of finding a winner ANYWHERE, independently of the outcome of the trade right before. To validate the increase of wager you must have a real dependence between a trade and the previous ones. I'm not saying that a martingale won't work in the example above. I'm saying that it is better to directly use a bigger but constant bet size. With such a killer system betting X% will always outperform a martingale. Even with X small. This is because an exponential growth is faster (and always accelerating!) than a linear progression.

On the other hand with a system showing only 55% winrate, the martingale will produce crazy swings in the equity. Here you only rely on the volatility of the balance (and luck) to try and stop at an equity high before getting broke. This is gambling territory.

Quote
(Your probability of winning is independent of the betting size.) Not with the martingale, since we are talking about relative loss [...] But with marty we are not interested in the individual outcome of the trade, but rather that our doubling series will end in a win or a lose.
No no no! This is very important to understand. You feel it like an increase of winrate because you look at all the sequences (loss-...-loss-win) as ONE unit. This is what I explain in post #218. You win almost surely the expectancy but if the expectancy is zero, in 100% of the cases you win 0. True that the winrate is 100% but that's not exaclty the holy grail.
Now in the case where the expectancy is not zero. The amplitude of the swings in the equity are quickly too wide to not hit the banckruptcy level. Unless you use such a small initial size that makes the martingale a nonsense (see Hanover's point 4 and the previous paragraph about linear vs exponential growth).

Quote
So,lets take 100 trades for example.We will only trade 100 trades in a set, now since we only lose at 8 losses in a row, so thats the only loss that we are interested in.We have a 31% of getting an 8 times a row loss, which is the real loss, not the hedged ones, which will result, in our case in a LOT^7 loss which in our case (given that we start with 100$ and our initial lot size is 0.01 with a 5 decimal broker) we only lose 12$
So we have a 12$ loss with a 31% probability in 100 trades while we got a 69% probability that the other trades will...
Your example is very interresting. The starting bet size is $0.10. You have 31% chance of losing $12.7 and 69% chance of only having winning groups: all the sequences of 1 to 6 losers followed by one winner. The length of the sequences is between 1 (immediate win) and 7 (6 losers + 1 winner). Out of 100 trades, in the very best possible case, you only have groups of length 1. That is you don't get a single loser. In this perfect case you win 100 times 10 cents. A jackpot of 10 bucks by risking $12.7!
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
  • #363
  • Nov 29, 2013 12:01pm Nov 29, 2013 12:01pm
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} {quote} Your example is very interresting. The starting bet size is $0.10. You have 31% chance of losing $12.7 and 69% chance of only having winning groups: all the sequences of 1 to 6 losers followed by one winner. The length of the sequences is between 1 (immediate win) and 7 (6 losers + 1 winner). Out of 100 trades, in the very best possible case, you only have groups of length 1. That is you don't get a single loser. In this perfect case you win 100 times 10 cents. A jackpot of 10 bucks by risking $12.7!
It is actually a series of 7, but you lose at the 7th trade, sorrry for mistake there my ba:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64 and the 7th is the permanent loser.

And you'd risk actually 12.8 for 12.8, the last trade will be in either way the last, either win 12.8 or lose 12.8, of couse the win can be sooner, even at the first trade so there will be no need to double the lot in that case, but the permanent loser is only at the 7th trade.

I actually get now your point, but the argument that you said about, the logical way is only to increase the bet size if you know that the percentage is increasing also.Well you might never know when the percentage will increase or not, the fluctuation of the winrate is not constant, that depends on your system, so you might get fewer losses in a row , so few permanent losses too, because your trading system will avoid some.

And by the way, why are we treating the market like a probability distribution curve, i think thats way too harsh.The individual's pick of trade doesnt necessarly have to follow a normal distribution curve (ie fundamental analysis ,economic analysis, its more predictable).It shall only assume such if we pick random data, the first lesson of statistics is that for good statistic model you need random and well diversified data, but an individual's trade doesnt necessarly have to be based on a mechanic mathematical model.If we assume that, that would mean that the market is fully predictable, which i guess many economists refuted.

So an individual's pick of the trades might very well influence the outcome of the probability distribution, and also the outcome of the martingale system.So it might be the case that since the winrates will fluctuate there will be a reason to increase the bet size.For example you could end a martingale sequence quicker than at level 7, and cut your losses if you analyzed that the market is too hostile for your strategy!

Or prolong the sequence if you think that the market is trending and therefore your probabilities are now increased, or if you find a good chart pattern, for example a harmonic one which has a natural minimum of 75% like the butterfly one.That might give an extra boost to the martingale dont you think?

It doesnt have to be a fully algorithmic martingale, you could intervene in any moment, and i believe human intervention in this case will greatly distort the mathematical model of the martingale which you calculated.So basically by intervening in the sequence you could theoretically increase the probability of the next trades outcome, so the bet increase it justified in this case.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #364
  • Nov 29, 2013 4:33pm Nov 29, 2013 4:33pm
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} The increase of probability is a required yet not sufficient condition. The optimal bet size of a system can be calculated from a choosen utility function, based on personal risk aversion. The most known example is the log return which leads to the Kelly bet size. If you don't know the characteristics of your system, i.e. its winrate and R:R and their associated confidence intervals, such a function still exist. You simply dont know it. If you look at the Kelly curve you notice that it drops more sharply after the optimal point (too big...

Hi PipMeUp,

Well, I'm not going to pretend to have understood everything you've wrote, as my statistics knowledge comes down to the basics. But from what I've understood, bottom line I agree with you.

Quoting PipMeUp
Just for my curiosity, what kind of system is your team using? The only strategy that I found to seem providing this increase of proba after a loss is the counter trend line breakout in the direction of the higher TF trend. And I'm not even sure it really does.
Basically, the strategy determines a strong trend for direction, and consolidation area S/R zones for entries. It works mostly as a scalper, but it can go sometimes for bigger targets depending on volatility.
"To hold, you must first open your hand. Let go." - Lao Tzu
  • #365
  • Nov 30, 2013 5:41am Nov 30, 2013 5:41am
Quoting vox dei
{quote} Hi PipMeUp, Well, I'm not going to pretend to have understood everything you've wrote, as my statistics knowledge comes down to the basics.
I knew I should have added a picture. This is an idealized Kelly curve.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: idealizedKelly.png Size: 12 KB

Important note: the top of the curve for a real life system is much closer to zero. Often it is even smaller than the 1% rule of thumb MM!

The Kelly bet size is at the maxima of the curve. If you increase the bet size the drop is sharper than if you decrease it by the same amount. This is why it is better to always under-bet Kelly. If your current bet is at the first vertical blue line, the double of the bet will be the other side. Anywhere you start between 0 and Kelly, after doubling just a few times you will necessarily get yourself the other side.

To martingale "smartly", you shall make sure to stop BEFORE Kelly. So your maximal Nth level of marty shall be Kelly itself. The level before is therefore the half of Kelly, the one before 1/4 Kelly and so on. Now since Kelly is optimal, you always under-bet except at the last level where your bet is optimal.
My point is therefore: why the hell don't you stay at Kelly from the very beginning (aka always optimal)? This will always outrun Marty.


Quote
Basically, the strategy determines a strong trend for direction, and consolidation area S/R zones for entries. It works mostly as a scalper, but it can go sometimes for bigger targets depending on volatility.
Thanks.
No greed. No fear. Just maths.
  • #366
  • Edited 12:45pm Nov 30, 2013 12:31pm | Edited 12:45pm
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} I knew I should have added a picture. This is an idealized Kelly curve.
I've learned a lot from your posts in this thread. Many thanks for sharing.

For me personally, Kelly is too aggressive, as my priority is to preserve capital, as opposed to striking the optimal balance between return and risk. As wikipedia points out "........Kelly assumes the only important thing is long-term wealth."

Some interesting comments here about Kelly from the doyen of staking systems, Ed Thorp.
  • #367
  • Nov 30, 2013 1:00pm Nov 30, 2013 1:00pm
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} I knew I should have added a picture. This is an idealized Kelly curve. {image} Important note: the top of the curve for a real life system is much closer to zero. Often it is even smaller than the 1% rule of thumb MM! The Kelly bet size is at the maxima of the curve. If you increase the bet size the drop is sharper than if you decrease it by the same amount. This is why it is better to always under-bet Kelly. If your current bet is at the first vertical blue line, the double of the bet will be the other side. Anywhere you start between...

PipMeUp, I have to agree with hanover. I have done a fair bit of position sizing simulation, including Kelly, but your posts added another dimension to it. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain in such detail. Great reads for a numbers guy like myself.
  • #368
  • Nov 30, 2013 4:13pm Nov 30, 2013 4:13pm
Quoting PipMeUp
{quote} I knew I should have added a picture. This is an idealized Kelly curve. {image} Important note: the top of the curve for a real life system is much closer to zero. Often it is even smaller than the 1% rule of thumb MM! The Kelly bet size is at the maxima of the curve. If you increase the bet size the drop is sharper than if you decrease it by the same amount. This is why it is better to always under-bet Kelly. If your current bet is at the first vertical blue line, the double of the bet will be the other side. Anywhere you start between...
Thanks for the detailed explanation. A picture is truly worth 1000 words Like Hanover and AimHigher, I too find Kelly criterion too aggressive. Most of my trades risk way less than 1%.
"To hold, you must first open your hand. Let go." - Lao Tzu
  • #369
  • Dec 1, 2013 8:21am Dec 1, 2013 8:21am
Every Casino and every Broker highly welcome all Martingale customers. Because they are very profitable for the house, losses are HUGE
Forex is a losers game.
  • #370
  • Dec 5, 2013 7:30pm Dec 5, 2013 7:30pm
Didn't read all the thread so far but flicked through.

My opinion briefly:

Martingale DOES works, I know people who made substantial sums of money using it. I personally don't use it [don't really feel like - see no need in that]

However, this statement isn't denying the fact that martingale user's account will eventually and inevitably blow up one day BUT if you incorporate this fact in your plan and withdraw some money on a weekly [daily, monthly... depends on the strategy] basis - this will work for you.

This method [as any other] requires deep understanding, the only difference is that low risk strategy will give you some time to do that, martingale, undoubtedly, won't - it'is merciless in this matter.
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
  • #371
  • Dec 6, 2013 5:46am Dec 6, 2013 5:46am
Quoting Mikkk01
Didn't read all the thread so far but flicked through. My opinion briefly: Martingale DOES works, I know people who made substantial sums of money using it. I personally don't use it [don't really feel like - see no need in that] However, this statement isn't denying the fact that martingale user's account will eventually and inevitably blow up one day BUT if you incorporate this fact in your plan and withdraw some money on a weekly [daily, monthly... depends on the strategy] basis - this will work for you. This method [as any other] requires deep...

I can relate to some points, especially over the merciless comment at the end, I have had personal experience using the martingale system and i can recommend it on a short-term basis as a support to an established trading system. HOWEVER i dont recommend it as the primary trading method, as someone pointed out earlier on (i think post #3) you could blow up your account on an 8th lose.

yes you can gain huge amounts in a short period, but being a fickle system in a fickle industry you can lost your money just as fast.
  • #372
  • Dec 6, 2013 6:42am Dec 6, 2013 6:42am
Quoting FXfairy
but being a fickle system in a fickle industry you can lost your money just as fast.
So it's for people who aren't even remotely serious about making money and it's just for idiots to gamble with.

Hai gaiz I hav gr8 new martringul sistem!
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #373
  • Edited 11:16am Dec 6, 2013 6:43am | Edited 11:16am
Quoting FXfairy
{quote} i can recommend it on a short-term basis as a support to an established trading system. HOWEVER i dont recommend it as the primary trading method
Wouldn't recommend it to anybody at all as I consider this strategy to be inferior [although working] and less profitable [you CAN'T use compounding in the true sense of the word] to standard [let it be even 5-10% risk per trade] rigid risk exposure MM.
Quoting FXfairy
{quote} as someone pointed out earlier on (i think post #3) you could blow up your account on an 8th lose.
There's no could here - you WILL
Quoting Mikkk01
eventually and inevitably
'on 8th lose' thing DOESN'T make ANY sense or even applies to this as your risk per trade isn't established.
Quoting FXfairy
{quote} yes you can gain huge amounts in a short period
That is most unlikely. There is, undoubtedly, such a possibility [which, admittedly, isn't present in low risk exposure strategy at all] but it's low. Choosing between 99,99 and 0.01 I would chose the former - YES, it's that low. Which is why I pointed out the necessity of withdrawing some money if you're planning something more than a roulette round.
Quoting FXfairy
being a fickle system in a fickle industry you can lost your money just as fast.
Martingale is not a 'fickle' strategy. It is reliable as long as you know how to use it to your advantage.
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
  • #374
  • Edited 9:58am Dec 6, 2013 6:48am | Edited 9:58am
Quoting nubcake
{quote} So it's for people who aren't even remotely serious about making money and it's just for idiots to gamble with. Hai gaiz I hav gr8 new martringul sistem!
I'm sorry, you're wrong - explained above.
If there's anything I miss that proves my affirmations above to be wrong - please, elaborate.

EDIT: funny enough, though, what you wrote applies to almost all the martingale users, so, practically - yup!
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
  • #375
  • Dec 6, 2013 10:29am Dec 6, 2013 10:29am
I also learnt very much from you guys too.Thanks for the info, but i think there would be 1 way to beat any system with martingale.

To survive the 10th martingale, sort of to pass on, you need the currency (starting bet capital) ^ 10 in which if you start with 1$ you need 512$ to survive a 10 in a row loss.Which has a percent of 0.09765625%, but common in roulette, many people report 10 red or black in a row in roulette so its common if you are into roulette.

But 20 losses in a row have very low chance (0.000095367431640625 % which i think is more safe than the ^10 level) so if you can survive 20 losses in a row and the 21th will be the winner you can sort of win.But you need 524,288 $ to survive that, and who the heck would risk 500k $ on a martingale system

Not to mention that the best casinos in the world have a minimum bet size of 25$ with a house edge of 1.5%.So you need to power the 25$ initial bet to the 20th power which is 25^20 =9094947017729282379150390625 $ , i dont think anyone has that much cash

So the casinos make sure nobody can rob them, so martingale in roulette is very very bad idea.Of course there is online roulette, where you can bet 1$ too, but again, who would bet 524 000 $ in an online game which is hardly even regulated, not to mention the sum is too great.

In forex you could start with like 0.1$ in a nano account, but again 0.1$ on the 20th power is 104857.6 $, a bit better than with 25$ starting bet but its still 100.000$ dollars.Not to mention the volatility and the slippage of the market.Even if you win the 20th trade, maybe because of the slippage you close too late and you only hit 90.000$ which would not cover the previous losses.So again its very very risky, and not much people can risk 100.000$ in 1 trade so for us retail traders is not a good idea after all
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #376
  • Dec 6, 2013 11:01am Dec 6, 2013 11:01am
Quoting Proximus
Not to mention that the best casinos in the world have a minimum bet size of 25$
Well, in Wynn last summer it was 100$ and, if memory serves, in Bellagio also - not that I've been practicing martingale there , anyway...

Quoting Proximus
So the casinos make sure nobody can rob them, so martingale in roulette is very very bad idea.Of course there is online roulette, where you can bet 1$ too, but again, who would bet 524 000 $ in an online game which is hardly even regulated, not to mention the sum is too great.
I used to know one man who had an online casino... Well, not that he's a rogue but you'd definitely never win much there, especially using martingale [sorry to my friend for disclosure]
Quoting Proximus
0.09765625% ... 0.000095367431640625 % ... 25^20 =9094947017729282379150390625$ 104857.6 $... 90.000$ ... 100.000$
Oh, that's a crazy math...
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
  • #377
  • Edited 12:18pm Dec 6, 2013 11:56am | Edited 12:18pm
Quoting Mikkk01
{quote} Oh, that's a crazy math...
Well it's true, if you somehow can survive the 20th doubling of the bet size with martingale, you have a clear path to immense money.

The probability of losing with the 20th doubling is 0.000095367431640625 %, which i believe falls between the +-4th sigma and the +-5th sigma, so it has a chance happening once every 43 to 403 years according to the 68-95-99.7 rule

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: asdasdasda.png Size: 22 KB


So i believe unless you are the unluckiest guy on Earth you can survive martingale if you have enough cash to survive the 20th doubling of the bet size.

But you need alot of cash to survive it, so that is why the martingale is plausible but not very practical.Unless you are willing to risk 100.000 $ on a trade when it comes (if you start with only 0.10$ bet size), you cannot use it.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #378
  • Dec 6, 2013 1:19pm Dec 6, 2013 1:19pm
Quoting Proximus
{quote} Well it's true, if you somehow can survive the 20th doubling of the bet size with martingale, you have a clear path to immense money. The probability of losing with the 20th doubling is 0.000095367431640625 %, which i believe falls between the +-4th sigma and the +-5th sigma, so it has a chance happening once every 43 to 403 years according to the 68-95-99.7 rule {image} So i believe unless you are the unluckiest guy on Earth you can survive martingale if you have enough cash to survive the 20th doubling of the bet size. But you need...
I know very well probability-related stuff - I was not arguing with your math - I think it just doesn't really apply in any case.

Strategy you propose [even assuming I have $1 000 000 capital] I wouldn't take anyway as it just isn't reasonable to choose martingale cause it'll be damn low profitable [%]. Hope, you're not trying to say that you can use martingale, never lose and get substantial return [%]...

However, what I expounded is a valid market strategy [which I still wouldn't recommend to use unless you're so crazy that can't think of anything other than martingale]. It will give some return, you'll withdraw some regularly, you'll blow up a couple of times but, still, will be in overall profit in the long run if you do it the right way.
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
  • #379
  • Dec 6, 2013 1:48pm Dec 6, 2013 1:48pm
Quoting Mikkk01
{quote} I know very well probability-related stuff - I was not arguing with your math - I think it just doesn't really apply in any case. Strategy you propose [even assuming I have $1 000 000 capital] I wouldn't take anyway as it just isn't reasonable to choose martingale cause it'll be damn low profitable [%]. Hope, you're not trying to say that you can use martingale, never lose and get substantial return [%]... However, what I expounded is a valid market strategy [which I still wouldn't recommend to use unless you're so crazy that can't think...

Well if you have already 1m$ then you don't need to trade anymore, just buy some bonds and retire
If you have like 100k $ and start with that method from 0.1$ to 100.000 at the ^20th level of the doubling, you can reach the 1m faster than blowing the entire thing up.
Unless you plan to do it for 400 years you would not blow up your account, since the probability of that is very low.
I agree with the fact that with martingale you risk more than you lose, someone already pointed out that, but if you evade to lose the compounding then you never lose, and since the doubling to the ^20 power has such a low chance of losing, theoretically you would not lose.

If you would lose, you would never recover than 100.000 dollar because you'd have to start with 1$ assuming that you only had 100k, but if you dont lose you can reach your 1m target faster than losing it, so in hat case it's worth the risk, but again at some point you might have to risk the entire 100.000$ in a trade , so it might not be the best method for low risk takers

Quoting Mikkk01
However, what I expounded is a valid market strategy [which I still wouldn't recommend to use unless you're so crazy that can't think of anything other than martingale]. It will give some return, you'll withdraw some regularly, you'll blow up a couple of times but, still, will be in overall profit in the long run if you do it the right way.
Withrawing money doesnt make the difference, the broker won't hedge or cover your losses you if you withraw or not statistically is the same.If you withdraw half of your cash for example,

Using the example before, you reach 500.000$ with 100.000 $ start and your goal is 1m, you reach 500k and then withdraw 250.000.
Ok you now secured 250.000, but you only have 250.000 to trade so your path to 1m is now much longer than with 500.000$, so now you just increased your probability of failure.

If youd left 500.000 in your account you might have a good chance of hitting your 1m goal and then withdraw your total 1m $ and live happy after.
But now you withrawn 250.000, you have a greater change of losing all your cash remaining in your trade account, and walk away with only 250.000, which is only a bit more than double of your original account, which was really not much worth the risk.

You risked your entire 100.000$ just to double it while you had a greater chance to hit 1m$ which is x10 times better.If you'd already have the guts to risk 100.000$ i think its much wiser to go for the bigger prize.

If you dont want to risk 100.000 $ then dont risk it on martingale at all.
"There's a sucker born every minute" - P.T. Barnum
  • #380
  • Edited 3:00pm Dec 6, 2013 2:31pm | Edited 3:00pm
Quoting Proximus
{quote} Well if you have already 1m$ then you don't need to trade anymore, just buy some bonds and retire If you have like 100k $ and start with that method from 0.1$ to 100.000 at the ^20th level of the doubling, you can reach the 1m faster than blowing the entire thing up. Unless you plan to do it for 400 years you would not blow up your account, since the probability of that is very low. I agree with the fact that with martingale you risk more than you lose, someone already pointed out that, but if you evade to lose the compounding then you...
I'm sorry, but you've started to write crap

$100 000 isn't such a huge sum. If you're so sure and don't have it - go get some money in the bank and 'here we go'!

I've already explained my point of view and have nothing to add to it.

I'm not gonna elaborate on proving why you're wrong - not really interested in that.

What nubcake wrote perfectly applies to you if you stick to your point of view.

EDIT: only thing I can add is that by withdrawing money you DON'T increase the probability of a failure. Won't explain why - was already done before me - not on the example of withdrawing, anyway, if can't find google a little.
The single most important factor is having control of your own life.
0 traders viewing now