Every other week someone starts another thread about a system to beat the house and inevitably its by using some variation of the Martingale system. It won't beat the house, we all know that and I like to poke holes in it just as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean the Martingale system doesn't have some merit. The basic idea is you'll frequently have small wins and occasionally lose your ass. But whether you spend your lifetime wagering a gazillion bucks using martingale or any other method your EV is going to be the same in theory. But wouldn't you rather have a bunch of small winning trips and an occasional big loss versus a bunch of trips with a mix of wins and losses? Once you lose do you really care about that during your next trip? When I'm at the casino I just want to win, I'm not thinking about my previous losses and how to make up for them. That's history. I'm not thinking about my lifetime expected loss either. I just want to win on that trip and enjoy beating the house for that moment. So yes, martingale isn't a way to beat the house over the long term. But then again no system will do that. So in practical terms what's wrong with allowing yourself to win small a bunch of times and losing big once in a rare while. Lifetime loss will be the same but at least this way you have more winning trips than losing trip and that's more fun in my opinion. I'm not advocating Martingale and personally I wouldn't use it. But in general since you have the same lifetime expected loss either way, wouldn't you rather have it broken up into more winning trips and fewer losing trips? Thoughts?