I was trying to do a roulett technique, without the right amount of money, and I just lost 120$.I knew I did not have enough money to do the strat. But did it any way.

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

I’m a dope.

all 95 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So I just did some experimenting in the name of science and boredom, and I retract my statement about only being able to win or lose the amount of the initial bet.

That would be true if you doubled winning bets as well, putting your gains at risk. If you do it the way shown in the video, it does work slowly but surely.

But of course you don’t need to pay attention to what colors are hitting at all. Just bet on black every time, or choose at random. Makes no difference.

Big gotcha would be either running out of money or hitting the table limit on a losing streak. I’m only running $1 bets for research purposes.

Edit: just got greedy and lost it all lol. $100 initial bets will wipe out your reserve real quick after a few bad rolls.

But if I had kept at it long enough with $1 and $5 bets, I could’ve eventually built up enough bank to do $100 rolls.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

It’s a BIG GOTCHA. If you loose.

It’s a high risk strategy. The more money you have, the more you can bet to make it work.

Table limit is 2500 on the 5$ tables. That’s like bet 15. I start when three consecutive colors come up. So three reds, then I start betting in on black. I’m going to go with like 8 bets. So I’d be making it to like 11 reds at worst.

It still a game of chance. I can loose, and the odds do favor the house. But if you go with enough bank roll, it’s possible to have a really really good streak. If you hit like 10 reds in a row, you’re getting fucked.

But the statistical chances of the house rolling 13 reds in a row are crazy bad.

No one seems to understand that the strategy is over a certain number of bets. It’s not one bet, it’s comming in prepared to bet 10 consecutive doubling bets.

Do you see what I mean?

I’m going to the casino on Friday with my girlfriend, and I’m going to just sit there and watch bets, and see how many actually ever make it to 6 consecutive bets or 7 or 8.

When I went the other night, the highest for the whole day was 5 consecutive.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're right bro. I give you the reddit silver.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol. Thank you.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Everybody is bagging on you because of this red herring around color streaks. It’s the statistical equivalent of pseudoscience.

It literally does not matter what color you bet on or when.

That part is bogus, but the asymmetrical betting strategy 100% works. It basically allows you to bank your previous luck.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Okay. So I’m not doing it right. But the double down betting works.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The only thing you did wrong was not have enough funds to cover the loss rounds.

Let me be clear, though. In order to incrementally inch ahead of the game, you have to stick to your minimum bet when you’re winning. Don’t double up.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Right. Win and re start.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Right. I’m also play testing a stop-loss strategy right now. I’ll let you know how that works out. Basically cut bait before you get in too deep. My thinking is that it’ll take longer to accumulate, but should be safer.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you on the east coast?

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Humm. I’ll go do recon Friday. If you’re near DC maybe we can hit the MGM.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (68 children)

What was the strategy?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

https://youtu.be/aqEkRuIRVNs

Wait till red or black rolls thrice in a row then bet the other color.

Edit: can you watch the video, and then respond. I’d like to show you a few more links, and charts about it, and get your honest opinion.

I rarely ask anyone to watch a video.

If you are not interest then I can throw a few links your way first.

[–]Musky 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

Interesting. I don't think that's a winning strategy. If the roulette wheel comes up red three times in a row, the odds it will be red on the fourth spin is still 50-50. Or as wikipedia puts it:

The fundamental reason why all martingale-type betting systems fail is that no amount of information about the results of past bets can be used to predict the results of a future bet with accuracy better than chance.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Yes, you are correct.

The odds each time are 50/50.

But the odds of rolling 12 reds in a row is (18/38)12 = 0.01276.

So if you bet on one spin, it’s 50-50. But if you bet on the next 12 spins, your never, ever bet that they will all be red, or all be black. Statistically speaking, that’s almost impossible.

It’s two separate statistical questions. What are the odds of this happening once, and what are the odds of this happening several times in a row.

Yes. The house can roll red all day, every day. It could just be thousands upon thousands of red rolls.

But statistically speaking that won’t happen.

The method I was talking about using, is betting on the whole lot, not just one hand.

[–]Dragonerne 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

This is not how statistics work.
Red, red, red, red is just as likely as red, red, red, black.

12x red is just as likely as any "random" bets of 12 colors you might make.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

I’m not trying to be rude, but that’s not true. You don’t understand what you are saying. Or you don’t h der stand the stats question.

If you are flipping a coin once, the odds are 50/50.

If you are flipping a coin 12 times, your odds are very very very small they will be red the whole time. They are not the same odds as 6 red, and 6 black.

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Red, red, red, red, red, red
is just as likely as
Red, black, red, black, black, red

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I know this makes sense in your head. I’m trying to politely tell you that you are wrong. I am trying to politely guide you to the correct solution. I am not trying to be rude or smart.

You could say gambling is stupid. The method I’m discussing about gambling is stupid. The house still has the edge. It’s relies on chance. Etc.

All of that would be correct.

These are two different statistical equations.

One equation is what are the odds for red, for a a single coin flip. That’s 50/50.

Now what are the odds for red on 10 coin flips. Remember, it’s not what are the odds for red per coin flip, in 10 coin flips. The question is what are the odds you will flip red, on 10 coin flips.

The odds tend towards 50/50 on thoes ten coin flips.

We’re not talking about the odds per flip. We’re talking about the odds for one color on ten flips.

Now turn it into 100 flip. Or 1000 flips.

You do not have the same odds, on 1000 flips, for them all to be red. You have the same odds on each flip that it will come up red. But if you had to pick, prior to flipping, you would be roughly retarded, to say they will all be red.

The odds of that happening are much smaller than winning the lotto.

It’s that same thing with flipping a coin 10 times. It’s unlikely it will be red every time.

[–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I will make it simple for you
Red, red
Red, black
Black, red
Black, black

These 4 are all equally likely to happen. It doesn't matter if you pick red, red or black, red. It will be just as likely as any other.

Conditional statistics can be difficult to understand but these are independent coin flips, not conditional. Every single output is equally likely, you cannot improve your chances by not voting red.

It is just as stupid to vote red every time as it is to vote red or black randomly. This might seem surprising to you but it is factual.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

You really don’t get it.

[–]newguy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But for each time, the odds are still 50/50.

You'd have to bet 12 times in a row for your system to work, and you'd win 6 of those on average.

Also the odds aren't 50/50 because there are the 0 and 00 on the roulette wheel which are colorless. If you want 50/50 you should bet the pass/nopass on craps

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I will check.

Can you check this? https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/martingale/

For no pass craps. I don’t know craps.

[–]newguy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Craps can be complex, but the pass/no pass betting couldn't be easier

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hey.

I don’t know craps. Would you mind telling me what pass/nopass craps is?

[–]newguy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"The Don't Pass bet is the opposite one of the Pass bet, which basically means that the player loses if the numbers 7 or 11 come out after the dice is rolled. "

It's the only true 50/50 odds in all of vegas

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get what you're saying but you just can't tell. It's unlikely there would be 12 reds in a row to begin with, why not 13, or 11. There's just no way of knowing.

If betting strategies worked there'd be a lot of rich gamblers. Although I will say Doyle Brunson's Super System book worked pretty well for me in home games, but it's a comprehensive strategy guide. It's dated now though, I'm not sure how relevant it is to modern poker and it worked for me against pretty poor players to begin with who weren't utilizing any strategy at all.

I mention live poker because I don't know about those machine games, the win rates are programmed in afaik, and all games favor the house anyways. Poker isn't against the house, the house always wins a little with the rake.

[–]ID10T 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Read about the gamblers fallacy. Odds do nothing to enforce behavior of single rounds of play. A roulette wheel could land on black ten times in a row and the odds are still exactly the same on the eleventh spin. Odds are less than 50/50 in roulette so over many rounds of play you should always lose.

If you want you win at gambling you have to play games of strategy like blackjack and poker.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I understand that.

The odds the house rolls one color, over 10 plays are extremely slim.

Do you not get that?

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Not trying to be a jerk, but I’m serious you do not understand gambler’s fallacy.

It doesn’t matter if the wheel spins red twice in a row or 100 times in a row. The odds of it landing on red on the spin you are currently playing are exactly the same no matter what happened in the past.

And because the odds are less than 50%, you can be sure you will lose money the more often you play.

The only way to be a successful gambler is to play games involving strategy. If you’re going to play roulette, you might get lucky sometimes, but over time you are guaranteed to lose money, so only play for fun with money you are willing to lose.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It really hurts me that so many people don’t understand the martingale strategy.

It’s pains me that no one here understands that there is a difference, between 12 rolls and 1.

I understand that the previous rolls do not affect my future rolls.

What lots of people here, collectively don’t understand, is that it’s statistically not going to happen to roll heads 12 times in a row.

I understand fully, that the rolls do not depend on each other, simply statistically speaking, rolling 12 in a row will never happen.

This really painful to me.

If you base your strategy on one roll, you get your one roll strategy.

I’m basing my strategy on 12 rolls.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why I’ve highlighted the fact that betting on a color in roulette is less than 50% odds. If it was 50% you could have fun playing 1000 spins knowing that you’ll come close to breaking even more or less. Because the odds favor the house, the more you play, the more you will lose.

And the Martingale strategy doesn’t seem to work in real life scenarios (or everybody would do it obviously).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. And this comes in the martingale strategy, and they have better odds because of the 0 and 00 and other number.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you’re not understanding the strat, simply ask a statician what the odds of flipping 12 heads in a row.

[–]newguy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

This is exactly what you are talking about right

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Sort of.

I’m talking about a betting strategy.

I’m not talking about placing bets based on your prior bet.

Unfortunately, no one understands me.

[–]newguy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're not being misunderstood, I think you just haven't figured out the full implications of how your betting system works.

If we play "flip the coin" and you bet $1 on each flip.... after 10 flips, you don't know anything about the 11th flip. It's always 50/50, even if the last 10 were heads.

You can't bet on all 11 flips at once, you only can bet on each flip, which is always 50/50. That's why it doesn't work.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That’s not how I’m betting.

You’re the one that doesn’t understand.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I watched the video. Assuming you win $15 when you bet $15, and you have infinite money, the strategy of doubling down on each loss will statistically ensure that you won’t lose money. But it doesn’t matter if you keep betting on one color, or pick a new one each time.

Breaking even is winning in gambling.

I’d call this a winning strategy in that it makes you feel like you’re gaming the system, which makes it enjoyable, and you’ll get free drinks.

If I ever find myself in a casino with a couple grand and some time to kill, I might try this. Usually I stick to nickel slots or video poker.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank god someone gets it.

When I said I lost, it’s because I diddnt bring enough money.

I was “winning”. I was gambling with 120$ when you need a couple grand to have good odds of winning at like a 15$ table.

I’m going to go do recon this weekend. Sit there for hours, and pretend like I have 1 grand, for 5$ tables. And see what happens.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah try it both ways, playing the streaks vs random colors. You’ll see that the colors are meaningless. It’s the betting strategy that matters.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The streaks meaning, what I was saying. That’s what it was called.

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The streaks meaning changing your strategy based on how many times in a row a particular color has come up. I’m saying that part is meaningless.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

https://pomf2.lain.la/f/bux7st7r.png

So from what I understand, is like, I can go with up to ten bets.

But what happens if they get past 10?

  1. 5$

  2. 10$

  3. 20$

  4. 40$

  5. 80$

  6. 160$

  7. 320$

  8. 640$

  9. 1280$

  10. 2560$

I hedge my bets, and start at three rolls. And I only need up to # 7.

The issue with the strat. Is that it’s only 5$ increments. The low gain is not worth the 2000$ investment. But I can get a hold of 2k

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Man, I love gambling and I've known a lot of gamblers. Very few come out ahead during their gambling careers. I feel like you're trying to turn this into a viable revenue stream and it's just been tried so many times without success.

[–]Drewski 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I know a guy who plays Baccarat a couple times a month. He brings several grand as a bankroll, plays for an hour or less, and walks away with $300 - $500 winnings just about every time. Worst case he breaks even. Just anecdotal, but if you have the willpower to walk away when you're up it can be done.

[–]Musky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The live card games are definitely where it's most possible, although I'm not very familiar with baccarat.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I usually win a couple hundred bucks when I play blackjack. The trick is to only bet what you bring to the table, and walk away as soon as you are ahead, or you’re busted. You’ll never win much with this strategy, but you’ll never lose much either.

I typically get $200 in chips and as soon as I’m up $200 or more I’m out. If I lose my original $200 I’m out too. I walked away with an extra 2-300 last few times I played but I know that doesn’t mean I won’t lose everything the next few times I play. The mentality is more like “I’m willing to spend $200 to have a bit of fun.” And not actually care too much if I win or lose.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well. I’m no genius.

And that’s the issue.

Like “I’m the one who has stumbled upon this one gambling success?”.

I’m not so naive as to believe that. Out of all the people there, I’m the only one that’s the smartest?

I doubt it.

[–]Musky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You can always make a small fortune gambling if you start with a large fortune.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Right. Like the stock market.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I learned a couple of decades ago during the dawn of internet game based gambling to never try this against a machine, it will always fuck you.

It can however work well on live roulette on low odds bets, so long as you set acceptable limits and never go deeper than what you consider an acceptable loss. It takes patience at times and has its risk, I've watched live tables go black 7 times in a row.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s how I lost. I had 5 doubles: 5, 10, 20, 40, 80. And I waited for 3 blacks, and started betting on red. It went red 8 times.

On the machines, they have the results posted from the whole prior 24 hour period. The highest they had that day was 5.

And I saw some lady say that when she was a roulette dealer, she saw 23 reds in a row, that was her max.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's insane, 23 in a row. After losing to an online roulette game that went black 6 times, I started to tell myself that I'd be better off to switch bet after 3 if I don't break even. There's a few ways you can try and recover, but the risk goes up, if you have a demon machine or app intent on ensuring you lose then you'll lose regardless.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The strategy doesn't actually work. It requires you to have infinite money, and the irony is that when having infinite money you wont gain anything. And that's with a 50/50 chance of winning.

Someone did a refutation of it but I don't have a source. I read it 10 years ago

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I posted elsewhere that it works insofar as it ensures you won’t lose money, given an infinite timeline and infinite funds. In gambling, that’s winning.

But the color selection doesn’t matter. You could switch colors every bet and see the same outcome.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You are right

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I actually proved out that it does work with asymmetrical betting. Always double down, never double up.

It mostly falls apart because of table limits, which is why I suspect table limits exist.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you mean by double down, not double up? Can you explain your method?

[–]TitsAndWhiskey 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Every time you lose, double the existing bet and play again. Repeat until you win. It may take several rounds and a LOT of cash, but once you finally win you’ll be up by your original bet.

Once you win, play again at the original bet. Never double your bet on a winning hand.

This technique washes your losses and lets you keep your winnings.

It’s the core of the Martingale strategy, all the color run mumbo-jumbo is just gamblers being superstitious.

I’ve found much greater success playing the same column bet over and over, actually. But in practice that’s probably not such a good idea since it will run up your bet faster and is far more likely to run into the table limit.

Edit: let me give you an example.

On an American roulette wheel, there are 2 green spaces which are not winners for either red or black. Those are the house edge. Your odds of winning on a red or black bet is something like 47.5%.

So for every 100 plays, you’ll make $47-48.

But a column bet has a 1/3 chance of winning, but pays 2-1. The house edge is smaller for each, too, being that it’s split 3 ways, not 2.

So for 100 rolls on a $1 bet, you should make somewhere between $66-67, maybe $68. Not sure, I haven’t run the math $64.

Unfortunately you’ll have to double down on losses much more frequently, which is riskier.

[–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

you do know the is that green 0 and 00

that throws the red/black odds off in favor of the house

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes. I am aware of that. The best odds would be no greens Roulett.

[–]twolanterns 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

supposedly in europe they have had only one green 0 and not the 00 also

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There’s tables at my local casino with one zero. It’s double the minimum bet.

[–]twolanterns 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

yes you can bet on it

but for the 1 to 36 bets they only pay 36 and 1/19 chance they dont come up (with 0 00 - 1/28 if there is only 0)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t understand.

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Do you know why you're sitting here working on this impossible fantasy martingale strategy?

Because you don't have a creative intelligence that can allow you to create your own strategy.

Albert please do tell us about an original strategy that you designed out of your own little mind?

I am all ears.

By the way I've been fiddle farting around with martingale for almost 20 years now and if you knew how absolutely infantile your approach to martingale is oh my God.

Happy gambling

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

All you did was a bunch of add hominem attacks. You sound like a cunt, not an experienced gambler with 20 years of experience.

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All of that may be true but I've been martingale programming and trading for 20 years.

I've been programming for 40 years and I've been programming C for 30 years and I have been programming metatrader since it was released to the general public in 2005 I think it was..

And you don't like how I came at you with my ad hominem attack well guess what I've been working with martingale for 20 years and you didn't have the common sense to watch your dirty f****** mouth so guess what you get from me you get nothing I'm laughing at you you came in here and said the most amateur hour b******* about martingale doubling down and you don't know your rectum from a hole in the ground homeboy.

Edward the fed

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is this socks?

[–]transbob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If I was socks that wouldn't be any of your damn business now would it now why don't you stick your nose back in your ass and shut the f******.

I have been working with martingale type trading as a programmer as a very passionate program for 20 years and you were so stupid to come in and insult me.

Amateur traders like to resort to using anger and bursts of anger to deal with their problems but I challenge you to use your anger to deal with them with the roulette wheel and let me know how that works out will you please

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s socks.