@crshrsh not sure how of if you could test this... (take preseason team picked to win the fewest games) ... fade them each game on the ml to win 1x and if you lose ONLY bet to win back to zero... and start over... seems unlikely to test... {{HOW ABOUT TEST USING SERIES WIN LOSS .. only using 3 game series..}} 
@PUSSYGALORE333
i will test it tonight. When i have time. it should be easy to write up. i am not sure i understand the first one cleanly enough to write it up. could you give me a little more. be has specifc has you can. pick team to lose the games. fade them. if they win fade them again back to zero. once they are at zero it starts over again. did i get that right. what is the series play. that needs more context. fade a team until they lose. back to even bets? when i write the code it needs to be specific.
@PUSSYGALORE333
Fade System Back to zero.
It "won" — but look at what it cost to win
Fade the White Sox: 99 games, net +$1,471. But to grind that out, a White Sox 5-game win streak forced the deficit to
$3,114, and the recovery bet to climb it back required a single $4,827 wager. Total turnover: $30,002 cycled to net
$1.5k.
Fade the Rockies: 104 games, net +$1,858. Peak deficit $1,448, biggest single bet $2,533, turnover ~$20k.
Combined: +$3,329.
Why this is the classic Martingale mirage
The profit is real for this exact season — but it's dangerous, and the numbers show exactly why:
- The profit comes only from flat wins. By design, every recovery streak nets exactly $0 (that's what "break even"
means). So all $3,329 came from the 52 flat-state wins; the escalations just papered over the losing streaks. You're
taking on enormous risk to protect small steady gains.
- You had to risk $4,827 to win back $3,114. On a $100 system. That's the whole point of no-cap Martingale — the stake
grows faster than the thing you're recovering. If the White Sox had won a 6th straight, the next bet is ~$8,000; a
7th, ~$14,000. It's unbounded. One streak two games longer than what actually happened and you're either betting your
entire bankroll or slamming into book limits (BetOnline won't take a $14k moneyline from you).
- Both seasons ended mid-recovery. Each finished carrying an open $100 deficit — trivial here. But that's the tail: if
the season had ended while you were $3,000 deep in an unrecovered streak, that +$1,471 becomes -$1,600. The final P&L
is hostage to when the season stops.
The honest verdict
It printed +$3,329 this season purely because neither team's longest win streak exceeded 5, and the season didn't end
at a bad moment. The system converts a small, steady flat-fade edge into a positive expectation with a catastrophic
left tail — it wins most seasons by a little and blows up occasionally by a lot. This is why Martingales are famous:
the equity curve looks great right up until the bet you can't cover.
Want me to:
1. Show the actual escalation sequence of that White Sox 5-game streak (the $100 ? … ? $4,827 ladder), so you can see
the blow-up in motion?
2. Re-run with a cap or stop-loss to see how much of the +$3,329 survives once you make it survivable?
3. Compare to just flat-fading both teams every game (no Martingale) — the boring version, to see the real underlying
edge?
@crshrsh
There they are — the two blow-up sequences in full.
White Sox: Apr 27 – May 3 (they won 5 straight, then lost)
- 1. 4/27 vs Angels +105 ? bet $100 (flat) ? Sox win, fade loses ? down $100
- 2. 4/28 vs Angels -125 ? bet $125 ? Sox win ? down $225
- 3. 4/29 vs Angels -110 ? bet $247 ? Sox win ? down $472
- 4. 5/01 vs Padres -145 ? bet $685 ? Sox win ? down $1,158
- 5. 5/02 vs Padres -169 ? bet $1,956 ? Sox win ? down $3,114
- 6. 5/03 vs Padres -155 ? bet $4,827 ? fade WINS ? back to $0
Rockies: Apr 5 – Apr 9 (won 4 straight, then lost)
- 1. 4/05 vs Phillies -146 ? bet $100 (flat) ? Rox win ? down $100
- 2. 4/06 vs Astros -140 ? bet $140 ? Rox win ? down $240
- 3. 4/07 vs Astros -160 ? bet $384 ? Rox win ? down $624
- 4. 4/08 vs Astros -132 ? bet $824 ? Rox win ? down $1,448
- 5. 4/09 vs Padres -175 ? bet $2,533 ? fade WINS ? back to $0
What these ladders tell you
- The jump is vicious: White Sox went $100 ? $125 ? $247 ? $685 ? $1,956 ? $4,827 in six games — a 48× escalation off
a $100 base. And the entire six-bet episode netted exactly $0. You risked up to $4,827 and cycled ~$7,940 in wagers
just to end where you started.
- You were one game from disaster. That $4,827 bet on 5/3 had to win. If the Padres had lost (Sox win #6), the deficit
jumps to ~$7,940 and the next recovery bet is ~$12,000+, then ~$30k, unbounded. A team that wins ~40% of the time
absolutely runs off 6-7 in a row a couple times a season — you just didn't hit one this year.
- Laying favorites makes it worse. Every recovery bet here was on a favorite (-125 to -175), so each step you risk
more than you're trying to win back, which is why the ladder steepens so fast. Fading a bad team = betting favorites =
the steepest possible Martingale.
Both streaks resolved in your favor this season, which is the only reason the system shows +$3,329. That $4,827 bet is
the whole story: this isn't a moneymaker, it's a coin that pays pennies until it eats your bankroll.
Want the capped/stop-loss version next, or the flat-fade comparison to see the real underlying edge without the
Martingale?
Series cap system:
This is the reveal. Capping the escalation at the series flips the result — and exposes what the uncapped version was
hiding.
Series-reset results
Fade White Sox: 99 games across 33 series (mostly 3-game). 18 of those 33 series never recovered within the series,
and those losses stand — costing $4,214. Biggest single bet: just $417. Net P&L: -$2,009.
Fade Rockies: 104 games, 34 series. 10 unrecovered (cost $2,281). Biggest bet $554. Net P&L: +$24 (essentially
breakeven).
Combined: -$1,985.
What just happened — and why it matters
Same teams, same fade, same recovery method — the only change is resetting at each series instead of chasing all
season. That change turned +$3,329 into -$1,985.
That gap is the entire story of Martingale. The uncapped version's "profit" came entirely from being allowed to
escalate without limit — that $4,827 bet clawing back a 5-game hole. The moment you make the system survivable (cap it
at a series, so you can never be forced into a five-figure bet), the underlying reality shows through: fading bad
teams at favorite prices is a losing bet. The bad teams win often enough inside a series that a bounded recovery can't
claw it all back — 18 of the White Sox's 33 series ended in the red and stayed there.
So the honest conclusion:
- The +$3,329 was never real edge — it was borrowed from catastrophic tail risk. Remove the unbounded escalation and
you're left with the true expectation: negative (-$1,985).
- The good news is the capped version is actually bettable — the biggest wager was $417, not $4,827. But it's bettable
and it loses money.
- There's no free lunch here: you can have the appearance of profit with a bankroll-ending tail (uncapped), or a
survivable system that reveals there's no edge (capped). You can't have both.
Texas and St. Louis are both close plays from what I remember 1 always wins and other loses so which one has the better chance of winning I haven’t looked into games yet but do what you will with the info and if anyone has any insight to the game please share as always bol everyone
Football is here 
well preseason but it’s here
following up got a split Texas winner and St. Louis loser when there is 2 in same day majority of the time its been a split so if there is different time starts you can always see who wins or loses first yesterday they started at the same time
so one thing to remember when there has been 2 plays on same day it’s been a split only thing that has been solid overall
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
