• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Is Marty Really that bad?

jdog

jdog

Yearling
Hello everyone, I will try to make this short and sweet.
We all know the dangers of Marty and many of us, myself included have been on the wrong end of this system. However, is it really that bad? Take the Football Draw Market, the draw pretty much happens 30% of the time, by laying the draw I should theoretically only lose 3 in a row for every 10 games. Sure a team could draw 9 games in a row and at the end of the season it could still balance out to the 30% and I assume those are the times that wipe out a bankroll. So I looked at this years EPL, Man United had a total of 11 draws for the season, had I placed a lay bet on every game my biggest losing streak would be 2 losses in a row. So in that situation my first bet would be a stake of 1pt with a liability of 3pts which lost, my next bet would be a stake of 4pts with a liability of 12pts which also lost, my next bet is a stake of 16pts with a liability of 48pts which would be a win. Essentially, would this be a case of the Marty actually working as Man U getting 4-5 or more Draws in a row is highly improbbable, sure that day could come but you also watching any news so if the top 3 players are all out injured then you would stop with that game and not continue. It all sounds so simple, and yet if it was, why are we not all millionaires?
 
jdog said:
Take the Football Draw Market, the draw pretty much happens 30% of the time, by laying the draw I should theoretically only lose 3 in a row for every 10 games.
Click to expand...

With a strike rate of 30%, it is estimated that over the course of 1000 bets.
You will find a losing run of 20 in there at some point.
If you double your bank each time to recover the 1pt ...
You will likely be betting tens of thousands of points to win your one point back at the end of the sequence.
You have vastly underestimated the chances of the losing run.

lr.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is a beautiful chart there, thank you very much for that!!!! And thank you for your reply, although wouldn't my strike rate be 70% as I would only lose 30% of the time. That means by laying a draw I should win 70% of the time? As another example, I believe horse racing favorites also only win 30% of the time, if I took 1 event and placed a lay bet on all 8 races for the favorite I know I should at the very least win half of those bets (should be more but just making it 50%), which means I should not get a losing streak longer than 4 in a event, even if the odds are much higher this should be manageable. I read somewhere once that out of all horse racing it happened only once where every race in a event was won by the favorite, so that means it VIRTUALLY NEVER HAPPENS. So hypothetically speaking I could almost guarantee at least winning 1 of the 8 races and as long as my bankroll is big enough to cover a 7 loss streak.
 
I am not contradicting anyone by the way, I am just curious. As far as I can make out the only down side to the Marty system is not being able to keep up a losing streak of 10 or more, around the 6 loss mark it already starts sky rocketing and using the lay odds it adds up even more. But if there was some way to guarantee a losing streak could never go past 7 and the 8th will always win then that should mean the Marty system will always work?
 
The thing is also when losing runs all cluster together so can stretch to a 100 pts or more harsh enough to clean a bank and your mind with it as well.
 
With regards to the chart you posted pete, if I placed a bet on every Man U game for the EPL season and then again the next 2 seasons, do I count the bets as 3 cycles of 38 bets each or 1 long cycle of 114 bets? At a 70% strike rate each season should be no more than 2 losses if its 1 cycle, but even if we bet on 1 cycle of 5000 Man U games over 20 years the possibility of them getting a draw 8 times in a row seems out of the ordinary realms of possibility (not saying impossible).
 
Your other issue is that the odds won't be evens to lay and will reflect the game not being a draw.


I can run it through my football dB if you want. Is the draw per team or league

Do you star from a draw...
 
runnerjp said:
Your other issue is that the odds won't be evens to lay and will reflect the game not being a draw.


I can run it through my football dB if you want. Is the draw per team or league

Do you star from a draw...
Click to expand...
This would be great if you could! Well I have no idea if its per team or league, I looked at Germany and Spain but they seemed to have more total draws for the season than EPL. I would assume teams though, I like Man U which was why I looked at them, Man City only had 6 total draws so I would say maybe the top 5 teams in EPL. Start from a draw yes, laying the draw on every game for the season.
 
The point about the longest losing run (as per chart) being 6 in any run of 1000 bets (increasing from 6 as the number of bets increases - losing run of 8 at 5000) is that it IS likely that one day you'll lose 6 times on the 8 race card. A 70% win rate means you will AVERAGE 7 wins from 10 over time, it does not mean that you will 'at least win half the bets' and it certainly does NOT mean your longest losing run will be 4 ... that's the point of the longest losing run calculation, it tells you how long a losing run you are looking at.

Here's a real life example, I've been posting racing selections from my latest efforts for 4 months or so, which amounts to 350 bets over that period. My win rate has been 34.1% over those bets. That's a little better than 1 in 3. a quick check shows my longest losing run so far has been 9 - which is a darn sight worse than 1 in 3. Yes, it's better than the forecast longest losing run, but I'll put that down to skill, a touch of luck, and being handsome. My staking is level stakes, as ArkRoyal ArkRoyal has already said, if you cannot make a profit at level stakes then staking plans can only, at best, make losing a drawn out process.... and I'd add 'a frighteningly expensive one' at that.

Final plea - for crying out loud, don't go blatting away your bank balance until you fully understand this, there is nothing amateur about the odds setters for the betting firms, there is no way on Earth they leave easy peasy ways to take their money wide open....

Good luck,
Dave
 
Thank you very much Dave, so with the chart if I bet all 8 races on a card over 100 days then I would work out the loss streak as looking at all my bets as a ongoing series of bets? Does it not matter that each event is like its own little thing where there are only 8 races and the possible outcomes of them? For example it should be possible that all favorites should win all the races in an event and to be honest I'm surprised the win ratio isn't higher. I know there will definitely be days where there are 6 losses in a row and over the long run it will average out, but could the day really come when you lose all 8 bets laying favorites? Yes, I suppose it could. If that anomaly did happen and wiped out the bankroll, would it not be worth it if you already made 100x your starting bankroll?
Hopefully I don't seem like a douche trying to push a point here, just trying to look at it from a few angles.
If I do ever try and implement this (or any system for that matter), it will be with 0.01c bets or as close to it as possible. I know I'm a newbie here but I wont just go into something blind. Although I am very grateful for the fact that people are kind enough to share their wisdom with me. :clap::romance-grouphug:
 
As others have pointed out, it isn't a matter of what might/might not happen if you are lucky/unlucky, it's a matter of statistics - if you bet long enough on 70% shots you'll see a longish losing run, and lay bets can be expensive enough at even stakes without having to keep increasing the stake to return the 'required' amount. You might well go for a good while, hundreds of bets, before hitting a significant losing run, but then again you might have 3 days on the trot where you only got one of your results rather than the 6 or so that the average would suggest. So yes, you might earn a packet doing this before a losing run kicks you in the squishy bits, then again you might not.

I would strongly suggest that you look into statistical tools like 'longest losing run', the internet is chock full of people happy to explain the maths behind this and other stats. If, when you are convinced that you actually understand where these tools come from and how they work, you believe that a simple idea like backing draws across a set group of teams will make a profit, then good luck to you with it. Personally I suspect that the odds compilers are quire good at their jobs and well able to ensure that making a profit will prove harder than you think.

Bookmakers LOVE staking plans.

Dave

PS - if you make the stake small enough, it's not worth doing.... an issue with Martingale systems being that when you win you actually only make your one point profit despite having, quite frequently, to stake much more. Low profit, High risk.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, I started with Matched Betting about 7 years ago and have learned a lot since then about trading and different strategies, etc. Just with that small Google search and trawling these forums I've learned more this weekend than in those 7 years combined. I also found lots of tools and spreadsheets here which makes life so much easier, right now I feel like a pig in sh!t. :dreads:



I went over so many stats that my head is swimming, something that stood out though was mentioned on a site about the Longest Expected Losing Streak (LELS). If I were to start using a tipster with a 30% hit-rate and I would be only going for 500 bets over a period, the tipster having already done 500 games previously means I should work out the LELS of 1000 bets. So according to the chart the LELS would be 20 instead of 18 (I know now it doesn't mean Maximum Lose streak). Now if I were to apply this to the draw market, laying only Man U in the EPL, would I be working it out to the LELS of 38 games for that season, or would it be that because I’m going to do this method for the next 40 years I would multiply 38 games by 40 years to get 1,520 bets and work out the LELS to 1,520? 38 games = 2(?) LELS, 1,520 games = 7 LELS, at a 70% strike rate.

Now I’m perhaps overthinking this, but when working out LELS should the previous games not also be taken into account? For example, Man U since their very first game back in the day up until today they have played a total number of 20,000 games, so then doesn't that mean over all this time the LELS should compensate for that?



As a thought experiment I looked over Man U's past results from the start of the 2009 season (I would of been old enough to gamble) till date. So its 2009 and I’m about to my start my get rich quick scheme, firstly though I need to assume some things.

1. Man U is the greatest team to ever grace the earth so getting a draw 5 times in a row is the worst case scenario with 6 being inconceivable.

2. The highest lay odds for a draw will be no greater than 5.00.

So based on youth's infinite wisdom I would need a bankroll of $15,625.00 to guarantee $1. After making a withdrawal from the bank of Mum & Dad I start placing bets on every game, and after 12 years here's my results. During that time frame the longest losing streak of draws was 4 (this was across a week of UEFA, Cup & EPL games. Only a streak of 3 if its just the EPL), during the '09/'10 season they played 99 games, multiplied by 12 years minus 150 games (to adjust for covid and fewer friendlies over the years) equals 1,038 games over 12 years as an estimate. Lets also say that the draw remained at 30% I would of won 726 games for a profit of, well $726. As Dave mentioned about the ROI this would be dismal compared to what I stood to lose. Although 12 years later I can say that the initial bankroll was never at risk because my youthful wisdom happened to be correct. The ‘21/’22 season has every possibility to be the year of 6 draws in a row and break me, though if I actually did this over 12 years then logic would tell me to keep going for another 12 years.



I fully realize that doing this pretty absurd, a 15k bankroll is enough to start a small business, even just leaving it in the bank for 12 years would be a better ROI. So the problems I see with old Marty is that sure everyone will take a 1 point a day of income but no sane person will risk 15,000 points to get it, and any season could produce the 6 LELS and break us. So the goal would be to minimize the initial bankroll and maximize the LELS.
Would placing the bets in a different way skew these results in any way? For example, we encounter our first loss, instead of placing the full amount on the next bet like we should, we split the amount over the next 6 games, if the next bet loses than that gets split over the next 6 so then even in a 6 LELS rut we should still be way under the 5 digit stakes we need to recuperate any losses. Splitting like this would more often than not have winners as the draw is only 30% and the winning streaks tend to be longer so most splits would be something like L-W-W-W-L-W (Not all, I finally understand the LELS). Certainly the probability of going broke is there, however slight it is we could always lose it all. But as sports betters we see the odds in everything, we always risk, we just want to risk less than we get. So I would say that there is more chance of the Marty working over the next 12 years based on the previous 12 years of data compared to Man U winning there next game, even though this is'nt the case.



I am curious to see if anyone has thought of splitting the stakes or maybe tried their own variation of the Marty system. Is there any we could even simulate this type of split Marty system to see if it holds water?
 
Hi jdog jdog, I have to say that I admire your tenacity here - and I am also a ManU supporter for my sins.
Having said that, as someone who has tried many different ways to profit from gambling before I found something that actually works, I can honestly say that the short time when I did actually try a stake recovery system was the most scary and expensive time ever.
Please just take a step back and look at different threads here - there are many posters here that have proven ways of making long term profits without risking vast sums of money in order to recoup losses.
 
Sometimes the lesson does not hit home unless the money you lose is your own.

We have all paid good money to learn what not to do ... Martingale, or variations of, are usually one of the earliest and costliest lessons that you can have.

jdog jdog , do a search for "Martingale loss recovery system" I'm sure that there has been plenty written about it ... Both good and bad.

Your system or method is an interesting one. Why not test it out on the forum by starting a thread and tracking your progress. If it works, you may be teaching us old dogs a few new tricks, if not, it will at the very least stand as a future warning to others that are walking the same path of enlightenment that you appear to be on.

I must say, a high streak of four in the past 12 years does surprise me a little, I would have guessed closer to the 6 or 7 number, and certainly it seems like 18-20 draws in a row is a little unlikely, but as always, with past performance not making future results any kind of certainty, I for one would follow your thread with interest.
 
dave58 said:
Hi jdog jdog, I have to say that I admire your tenacity here - and I am also a ManU supporter for my sins.
Having said that, as someone who has tried many different ways to profit from gambling before I found something that actually works, I can honestly say that the short time when I did actually try a stake recovery system was the most scary and expensive time ever.
Please just take a step back and look at different threads here - there are many posters here that have proven ways of making long term profits without risking vast sums of money in order to recoup losses.
Click to expand...
Well sometimes all it takes is a fresh pair of eyes to see something where there was nothing. I have already gone through the majority of posts, not a brag, just really like reading and acquiring knowledge. I never even knew there was free tools to simulate bets so I've been able to play around with a lot of the ideas I've had over the years. I posted another thread asking a few more questions but I am hoping I can get your opinion so ill copy it below. No pressure lol.

Would you share a Winning Strategy?
I will be starting a new strategy and I was thinking of posting my results as I go along.
Although if the strategy works out then should I even share it? How else do we all learn new strategies if nobody shares them? How would it effect me though, would my edge be lost among the crowd? What if it turns out to be really successful and thousands start using it, would it then disappear ?

What would you do if you found that secret edge ?
 
Actually a lot of us post ideas and then develop them further, showing progress (or lack thereof) along the way. That way we can avoid having good ideas that somebody else already had - only to find the idea wasn't that great after all - while just occasionally something is found to work and of course already shared along the way.

On here the more regular posters try hard to help each other along, whether that be helping avoid blind alleys or finding ideas that either work, or at least help a bit. It must be said, however, that consistently winning is very difficult, bookmakers are not a charity after all, so I'd suggest the correct way to look at it is that taking part on here can speed up your own development.

If your idea turned out to be profitable then ask yourself how difficult it would be to just start doing the same thing with a different group of teams, league, or whatever. I think if you did persuade a lot of people to pursue a martingale based staking plan the bookies would probably be happy to sponsor you.
Dave
 
jdog said:
firstly though I need to assume some things.



2. The highest lay odds for a draw will be no greater than 5.00.
Click to expand...
Making assumptions could cost you money.
Uniteds Prem results for 2008/2009 shown below with the odds for the draw on the right.
In 12 of their 38 games the draw odds were over 5.0, so presumably there would not be a bet on those games?

1622446389816.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top