Doubling bet after a losing hand..

[archer1131]

For example -
On a table with a $10 min and $500 max...
You double your bet after every hand you lose. $10 to $20 to $40 all the way up to $320. When you win a hand you go back to betting $10. You'll win money so long as you do not lose 6 consecutive hands. I've tried this numerous times on blackjack simulators and have come out way on top every time. It seems like it works very well. I was wondering if anyone knew the odds on winning on this way and if it is legal?

 

[archer1131]

Yes I realize the fact that there is a table maximum which is why I mentioned the $500 max in the example. Based on that if the minimum is as low as $15 you can lose up to 5 consecutive times and still be able to win your money back on the 6th bet. I guess the question is using standard betting strategy, what is the probability of losing 6 consecutive hands?

 

[EasyRhino]

I guess the question is using standard betting strategy, what is the probability of losing 6 consecutive hands?

Pretend it's a coin flip (you'll never find a game this good in the casino).

The odds of 6 losses in a row are .5 to the 6th power. That's 1.5-1.6%.

Not high, but the odds of getting suited blackjacks aren't too high either, and I've gotten multiple in one day.

More importantly, the overarching house advantage does not change, only your pattern of wins and losses. I think Wizard of Odds has a great writeup on the Martingale.

 

[ihate17]

Your chances of being a lifetime winner with Martingale

Is exactly 0, unless you have two little itty bitty things.
1. A casino with no table limits
2. An unlimited bankroll.

6 hands in a row is, sorry but is a joke. In a period of less than 24 hours of blackjack, statistically you should have one losing streak of at least 10 hands. This past weekend, in 16 hours of play I had 4 different streaks of at least 10 straight loses and the biggest was about 15 hands.
What the system will give you is a ton of small wins which must be eventually followed by just one losing streak that wipes it all out.
Your 7th loss $640
8th loss $1280
9th loss $2560
10th loss $5,120
11th loss $10,240

My biggest losing streak took place over three different tables, with dinner in between, but was 23 hands, plus I have had 2 other streaks of over 20 that I remember. Interestingly, in two of the three instances I finished the day a winner and not losing the national budget. Of course if you played Martingale and just kept going, I would take a guess that you could never lose 23 in a row while using the system, no one I know has that much to lose.

The system has been around forever. People actually used to sell it and some may still do so, but just about every gambler comes up with the idea.

Final point: While casinos try to stop cardcounters and other types of advantage players from playing, they do in fact comp progression players very well. (That is only the casinos with table limits)

ihate17

 

[bluewhale]

i've heard, from a very good casino source, that casinos will, at a player's request, remove a maximum on a table. is this true?
also are maximums put in place for the sole reason of martingaling??? i thought table limits were there to seperate the highrollers from the lowrollers.

 

[ScottH]

i've heard, from a very good casino source, that casinos will, at a player's request, remove a maximum on a table. is this true?
also are maximums put in place for the sole reason of martingaling??? i thought table limits were there to seperate the highrollers from the lowrollers.

Table limits are not set to prevent martingale players. You could always continue your martingale at a higher limit table anyway.

 

[Cass]

i've heard, from a very good casino source, that casinos will, at a player's request, remove a maximum on a table. is this true?
also are maximums put in place for the sole reason of martingaling??? i thought table limits were there to seperate the highrollers from the lowrollers.

I dont think they would completely remove a table limit. What if i want to bet $1billion on one hand with a win i could put almost any casino into bankruptcy, or on the other hand make there investors very happy :laugh:

 

[EasyRhino]

I dont think they would completely remove a table limit. What if i want to bet $1billion on one hand with a win i could put almost any casino into bankruptcy, or on the other hand make there investors very happy :laugh:

The casino would only worry about a positive progression player in the sense. A negative progression player would have just lost NEARLY one billion to the casino by that point, so they could cover the bet easily.

 

[ScottH]

I dont think they would completely remove a table limit. What if i want to bet $1billion on one hand with a win i could put almost any casino into bankruptcy, or on the other hand make there investors very happy :laugh:

The casinos dont want a high ROR either, even with their big advantages. I'm sure if you wanted to bet 1 million on one hand there would be casinos that would accomodate you.

 

[ihate17]

Warren Buffet

He beat a casino for to many millions because the person in charge upped the limits to a level to high for their tollerance. Result, new management.

Casinos believe it or not, are not really into risk at a high level, there is always limit.

ihate17

 

[azbetsgonewild]

You run the risk of losing, A LOT!!

Another problem is, when you do win, say your losses started at $5, well you may have just spent $2500 trying to get back that $5.

now, if there were no limit, why not TRIPLE the bet on every loss, at least then when you do finally get a win, you are not right back where you started, but where you started + a profit.

Bottom line, table limits are what keep you from winning, it doesn't take long to get to a very high bet, and streaks can easily go 10+ hands.

I once was at a casino that was $5 min to $2000 max, that was probably the best game to do it at. But even with a $2k limit starting with $5, you could stilll go beyond the table limit, but I suppose techinically the table limit would be $6K since you can play up to 3 hands.

 

[ColorMeUp]

I once was at a casino that was $5 min to $2000 max, that was probably the best game to do it at. But even with a $2k limit starting with $5, you could stilll go beyond the table limit, but I suppose techinically the table limit would be $6K since you can play up to 3 hands.

But you can't really spread to 3 hands using the Martingale system - what happens if you win 2 and lose 1 ?

 

[ScottH]

But you can't really spread to 3 hands using the Martingale system - what happens if you win 2 and lose 1 ?

Then you would see how much you are down still and bet that amount, either on one hand or spread out over 3. If I was going to martingale, I would not spread to more than 1 hand. A martingale player is playing for high variance, the more hands you play, the lower the variance. Usually a martingale player is just banking on that one win to win it all back, but by spreading to 3, you have to win 3 hands, which is much more unlikely.

 

[bluewhale]

so nobody has answered my question... why do they have limits... ie, why isn't every table in the casino $5 min, $5000 max or whatever, why does each table have a min and max (ie 5 min 200 max, 100 min 5000 max, etc)

 

[ThunderWalk]

so nobody has answered my question... why do they have limits... ie, why isn't every table in the casino $5 min, $5000 max or whatever, why does each table have a min and max (ie 5 min 200 max, 100 min 5000 max, etc)

According to Wikipedia...

Table limit describes the minimum and maximum bet that a gambler can make at a gaming table. It is a form of yield management in that the limits can be changed to optimize the profit from a gaming table. Gaming tables have a limited resource to sell, the seats used by the players.

Table limits can also be used to manage, in a limited manner, who plays at tables. A casino that wants to project a more exclusive image can set the limits higher so that the casual tourist walking through would not be as likely to sit down and play.

Normally the limits are set to optimize the return from the seats. Since all table games give the house an advantage, the larger the bets, the larger the house's profit. So the house needs to manage the minimum bets to keep the seats full. This usually results in a low limit early in the day when there are fewer players with the limits increasing as more players become available.

Players who are seated when the limit is changed are usually grandfathered in at the old limit. In some casinos they retain the old limit until they leave, in others the lower limit will last for a limited period of time.

A table or a game without a limit is commonly referred to as no-limit. These tables generally allow the player to bet as much as they wish. This is a common form of Texas hold 'em in tournament play where the size of the bets are limited by the size of the 'buy in'.

 

[ColorMeUp]

Then you would see how much you are down still and bet that amount, either on one hand or spread out over 3. If I was going to martingale, I would not spread to more than 1 hand. A martingale player is playing for high variance, the more hands you play, the lower the variance. Usually a martingale player is just banking on that one win to win it all back, but by spreading to 3, you have to win 3 hands, which is much more unlikely.

Which is what I'm saying, it'd get crazy trying to do that. You spread to 3, lose 2. Then you figure out how much you need to bet on 3 spots again. Say you win 2. Then you figure it out again. The probability of winning all 3 hands is fairly slim, so this cycle is going to keep going for awhile, and pretty soon you'll be up against the table max even spreading hands (or you'll be out of money).

 

[ScottH]

and pretty soon you'll be up against the table max even spreading hands (or you'll be out of money).

That's the martingale in a nutshell!

 

[ihate17]

I answered why they limits in general for the casino

so nobody has answered my question... why do they have limits... ie, why isn't every table in the casino $5 min, $5000 max or whatever, why does each table have a min and max (ie 5 min 200 max, 100 min 5000 max, etc)

Now you want to know why table A has a $5 min and $500 max while table B has a $100 min and $5000 max.
The casino wants to limit its exposure to the big player. Say you are counting and losing a little with $5 bets and now the count goes super high and you signal in your partner to come to the table, he can now only bet $500 to take advantage of this count. So if you want to try this at a low $5 initial investment, the casino has a limit for what they will accept as your high bet. Also some casinos will limit the high bet of someone entering mid shoe but you the $5 bettor could go to $500.
On table B, you are risking more ($100) at the minimum but your max is higher but instead of 100X the minimum bet it is only 50X, and in the big numbers of the casino world (perhaps 50 or more tables going at once) that difference is very significant.

The casino as an entity has a limit on everything (megabucks is paid by a pool of casinos). As in my Warren Buffet example, the management will be out on the street should a super whale have a lucky day if they agree to raise the limits beyond a predetermined comfort level. Sure percentages say they will win in the long run but they are well aware of the fact that in the short run they could lose and they limit that with limits.

Let's face it, if a person with Bill Gates money wanted to play a lucky streak could seriously financially damage the casino. Places used to taking big bets would take his bets but they would always place a limit there for their own protection.

ihate17

 

[ihate17]

My 23 straight if I were a martingale player trying to win a whole $5

1 $5
2 10
3 20
4 40
5 80
6 160
7 320
8 640
9 1280
10 2560
11 5120
12 10,240
13 20,480
14 40,960
15 81,920
16 163,840
17 327,680
18 655,360
19 1,310.720
20 2,621,440
21 5,242,880
22 10,484,760
23 20,969,520

And finally after losing nearly 21 million on the hand before, and over 40 million in total I win on my 24th bet of just $41,939,040, whipe out that $41,939,035 loss and leave the casino up a whole $5 knowing that martingale works because I have a small country's national treasury and play in a casino with no table limits.

As a P.S., in the real world my 23 straight cost me less than $2,500

Now here is where my feelings change directions and I want to encourage everyone out there (except friends, family and people I like) to play progressions. Progression players in the same way as just poor blackjack players, while adding to casino profits also help keep blackjack a game where I can still find playable games. So often, I think that perhaps I should encourage strangers to play as poorly as possible so the small skim I take from the casino will not be noticed.

ihate17

 

[davidmcclung]

Rhythms by N-P Company ($234 is the cost)

New system that claims to win at blackjack based on betting the minimum until a series of decisions indicates a "springback" series is coming and to increase your bet for a period of time. The advertising pamplet sounds too good to be true but it did get my attention. Anyone know anything?