Sorry bud... I think martingale's are ugly.
(No offense intended... perhaps in the right hands they might work. Trouble is it seems that 'the right hands' are few and far between...)
I think martingale is Expensive, you need to be rich so only can be richer. So why you think martingale not working ? Any bad experience martingale EA that blow up your account b4 ? Let's share your precious thinking.
No, I've never personally gotten toasted by a martingale, but I've seen plenty of examples where other people have.
I don't know how 'precious' my thinking is, but from what I've read about martingales and probability analysis, they seem to be mathematically guaranteed to fail unless you have infinite finances. For example, using a simple coin toss with 50-50 odds, it's surprising how probable a string of bad bets actually is that would be sufficient to wipe-out the account of anyone with less then VERY deep pockets.
Quoting from Wikipedia:
'As an example, consider a bettor with an available fortune, or credit, of 243 (approximately 9 trillion) units, roughly the size of the current US national debt in dollars. With this very large fortune, the player can afford to lose on the first 42 tosses, but a loss on the 43rd cannot be covered. The probability of losing on the first 42 tosses is q^42, which will be a very small number unless tails are nearly certain on each toss. In the fair case where q = 1 / 2, we could expect to wait something on the order of 242 tosses before seeing 42 consecutive tails; tossing coins at the rate of one toss per second, this would require approximately 279,000 years.
This version of the game is likely to be unattractive to both players. The player with the fortune can expect to see a head and gain one unit on average every two tosses, or two seconds, corresponding to an annual income of about 31.6 million units until disaster (42 tails) occurs. This is only a 0.0036 percent return on the fortune at risk. The other player can look forward to steady losses of 31.6 million units per year until hitting an incredibly large jackpot, probably in something like 279,000 years, a period far longer than any currency has yet existed. If q > 1 / 2, this version of the game is also unfavorable to the first player in the sense that it would have negative expected winnings.
The impossibility of winning over the long run, given a limit of the size of bets or a limit in the size of one's bankroll or line of credit, is proven by the optional stopping theorem.'