Doubling bet after a losing hand..

[Dave2112]

As with all systems, schemes, and methods, when Martingaling, you create a spread, or an outside limit on how much you're willing to lose at one sitting, based on the amount you walked in the door with.

It doesn't create vast wealth, or fast wealth, but it can be used successfully for short periods. If you don't believe that, buy six or eight decks of cards, some chips at the local toy store, and practice alone with one other person, or with three or four friends at home. If you stay with it, you'll win X amount every hand you play until you leave the table, or until the cards go against you.

Bet $10. If you lose, bet $20 the next hand. Keep doubling until you win, and then go back to your original $10 bet. On occasion, your loss will exceed your pocket money, so you need a cut-off point, just as you would with any other device. You may want to stop after a 1 - 4 spread, or when your bet reaches $80, or 1 - 5 at $160. You may also not wish to double-down, or split pairs, at that point until you get back on track. After making back 1 to 1-1/2 times your seed money, you may want to move on. You won't make a living betting this way, but it pays for a nice meal or the gas for the trip.

The fanatical opposition to Martingaling is ridiculous.

If you run a computer simulation long enough you will see that the Martingale system only gives +EV with infinite limits. If you place any limits at all on your bankroll, or table limits, or "stop losses" the EV snaps back to exactly what it is with flat betting (but with enormous variance). Any deviations from basic strategy based on your loss streak will hurt your (already negative) EV regardless of the limits.

The important thing is that betting progressions by themselves have no effect whatsoever on the odds of the game or your expected win/loss rate.
There isn't even the slightest benefit to a martingale system unless you have infinite bankroll and table limits.

 

[QFIT]

There isn't even the slightest benefit to a martingale system unless you have infinite bankroll and table limits.

Which is to say there is no benefit at all, since increasing an infinite bankroll is meaningless.

 

[Mr. T]

Which is to say there is no benefit at all, since increasing an infinite bankroll is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Dave2112
There isn't even the slightest benefit to a martingale system unless you have infinite bankroll and table limits.

Just trying to stir things up before going to bed here.

How about this. You take your girl friend to the casino and try to impress her. You give her $100 for her to bet $5 or $10 a hand. When she lose the $100 then you come in and use "martingale" and bet $200, $400, $800 etc until you win. Then you give her the $100 net win and tell her it is her lucky money.

This is one good use of "martingale' right. She would be over the moon over you and you will have a very nice time in your hotel room. What is wrong with this.

 

[aslan]

Just trying to stir things up before going to bed here.

How about this. You take your girl friend to the casino and try to impress her. You give her $100 for her to bet $5 or $10 a hand. When she lose the $100 then you come in and use "martingale" and bet $200, $400, $800 etc until you win. Then you give her the $100 net win and tell her it is her lucky money.

This is one good use of "martingale' right. She would be over the moon over you and you will have a very nice time in your hotel room. What is wrong with this.

You may lose $200, $400, $800, $1,600, $3,200, $6,400, $12,800, $25,600,,,oops! busted! Then you ask her for money to pay for dinner and to check out of the hotel and gas money to get home, and she sulks about like you are the stupidest man on earth and she mutters, "Why did I ever get hooked up with such an obvious loser:cry::whip: in the first place." :grin: :whip::whip:

PS--Mr. T, you don't want to hock those gold chains around your neck and wrists, do you? Wise up! Become an advantage player and impress her with how smart you are!
View attachment 7002

 

[hbguy]

If your goal is to have fun and you find that using a progression system is more fun then by all means continue. As you said, you can do whatever you please with your own money. Just don't proclaim that a player can get a long term advantage when he is not playing or betting intelligently. That is very bad advice.



If you want evidence (and better still, cold hard proof) then read the sticky threads. They will answer all of your questions and clear up all of your misunderstandings. They were put at the top of the forum with the hope that people would read them before posting anything incorrect or misleading.

-Sonny-

Thanks for your respectful reply. I've read quite a few threads (spent about 3 hours at least) reading many topics here.

First, I would never try to sell people on what I do. Second, its gambling, and I always interject that.

I think the problem with this thread is two fold. First, many counters dont like someone doing something different. When it is something that doesn't make sense (mathematically, I understand why people say so) it makes them reply as they have been.

With blackjack, you have ups and downs, and the way I play, it makes me keep more of my money (I wont convince you guys I come out ahead...though I'd love to show you guys some time at a table).

I do NOT want to debate FOR this issue, except to say two more things...first, if you do (example) $10, 25, 50 or $10, 20, $30 or something to that effect (only double 3 times) you do limit your losses and mathematically, you will win back most of your losses. this is a mathematical fact (if you win more than 1/3 of your hands).
Second, if you hit a blackjack while doubling up, that adds to your (what I consider) reservoir of winnings,.

I've been doing this for many years...not strictly, but in general.

The one thing missing from this thread was someone who actually did this. I do. Does it work all the time? Of course not, especially when I'm not keeping it.

Do I like it? NO. Reading the replies here and elsewhere on the internet only confirms that there's a better way to play and I want to be better.

Now the attitude seems to be that many don't believe this is possible and I know from experience it is. There was a chart in one those links that almost showed what my experience is like...but simply put, that "reservoir" of winnings (anything above what I cash in at) usually stays in the positive, especially in the long run.

Maybe its the blackjacks on the double-ups, maybe I'm just very lucky...but trust me when I tell you that I have no reason to lie and I've played many hours each trip to Nevada (or California Indian casinos).

I want to be better, and I wanted to join this specific forum the first time I found it. I hope I'm not sounding confrontational. i just wanted to share my experiences...no more.

cheers-

 

[hbguy]

If you run a computer simulation long enough you will see that the Martingale system only gives +EV with infinite limits. If you place any limits at all on your bankroll, or table limits, or "stop losses" the EV snaps back to exactly what it is with flat betting (but with enormous variance). Any deviations from basic strategy based on your loss streak will hurt your (already negative) EV regardless of the limits.

The important thing is that betting progressions by themselves have no effect whatsoever on the odds of the game or your expected win/loss rate.
There isn't even the slightest benefit to a martingale system unless you have infinite bankroll and table limits.

Could you clear this up for me? If I win 40% of my hands (above 1/3) and I double up a max 2 times (start with original bet after 3rd loss), won't that put me in the positive?

also, what does the term +EV mean?

 

[aslan]

Thanks for your respectful reply. I've read quite a few threads (spent about 3 hours at least) reading many topics here.

First, I would never try to sell people on what I do. Second, its gambling, and I always interject that.

I think the problem with this thread is two fold. First, many counters dont like someone doing something different. When it is something that doesn't make sense (mathematically, I understand why people say so) it makes them reply as they have been.

With blackjack, you have ups and downs, and the way I play, it makes me keep more of my money (I wont convince you guys I come out ahead...though I'd love to show you guys some time at a table).

I do NOT want to debate FOR this issue, except to say two more things...first, if you do (example) $10, 25, 50 or $10, 20, $30 or something to that effect (only double 3 times) you do limit your losses and mathematically, you will win back most of your losses. this is a mathematical fact (if you win more than 1/3 of your hands).
Second, if you hit a blackjack while doubling up, that adds to your (what I consider) reservoir of winnings,.

I've been doing this for many years...not strictly, but in general.

The one thing missing from this thread was someone who actually did this. I do. Does it work all the time? Of course not, especially when I'm not keeping it.

Do I like it? NO. Reading the replies here and elsewhere on the internet only confirms that there's a better way to play and I want to be better.

Now the attitude seems to be that many don't believe this is possible and I know from experience it is. There was a chart in one those links that almost showed what my experience is like...but simply put, that "reservoir" of winnings (anything above what I cash in at) usually stays in the positive, especially in the long run.

Maybe its the blackjacks on the double-ups, maybe I'm just very lucky...but trust me when I tell you that I have no reason to lie and I've played many hours each trip to Nevada (or California Indian casinos).

I want to be better, and I wanted to join this specific forum the first time I found it. I hope I'm not sounding confrontational. i just wanted to share my experiences...no more.

cheers-

Stop losses do not change the house edge. Eventually, because progressions do not alter the house edge in any way, you will experience more 1, 2, 3 and outs than you do progressions that win. Mathematically, this is provable, and also by running simulations. Because your experience is different, does not alter the fact that it is a long term loser.

It's similar to the fact that I can be ahead flipping coins and attribute it to the fact that I call heads three times, then tails three times. It may work out that coincidentally I am ahead over the years. It still does not alter the fact that I have absolutely no edge. Take a hundred people doing this and some will come out ahead and some will come out behind.

Since you are playing a near even game (blackjack), it is possible for you to beat the house edge for a very long time, but over the long term, the house will have its way, of this I am sure. You should attribute your gains to luck, not the progression you use. To lock in your good fortune, you should stop relying on this progression. I am now $3,000 ahead of roulette. I know with a certainty that if I continue to test my luck, I will come up loser. It may take a long time, but if I live long enough, I know I cannot win. If you rely on luck, you are a gambler; if you rely on a demonstrable edge, you are an advantage player. Try your system using a billion simulations and you will see (not that it will take a billion to demonstrate the principle).

 

[Sonny]

also, what does the term +EV mean?

It means that you have an advantage. If the EV (expected value) is negative then the house has the edge. You want to avoid making -EV bets because they will cost you money.

If I win 40% of my hands (above 1/3) and I double up a max 2 times (start with original bet after 3rd loss), won't that put me in the positive?

No. If you are 60% likely to lose the next hand, why would you raise your bet? Why would you bet at all if you expect to lose most of the time? That's a good example of a -EV bet. You bet more, you lose more.

The specific answer to your question is on page 4 of this thread:

Flat bet: You win 1 unit 49.5% of the time and loose 1 unit 50.5% of the time, you loose 1 unit per 100 hands on average.

Martingale until 2: You win 1 unit 74.5% of the time and you loose 3 units 25.5%, you loose 2 units per 100 hands on average.

Martingale until 4: You win 1 unit 87.12% of the time and loose 7 units 12.88% of the time, you loose an average of 3 units per 100 hands.

Martingale until 8: You win 1 unit 93.5% of the time and loose 15 units 6.5% of the time, you loose an average of 4 units per 100 hands.

As you can see, doubling up allows you to win more often but you are losing more money overall.



-Sonny-

 

[aslan]

No. If you are 60% likely to lose the next hand, why would you raise your bet?

Which brings up a recent discussion with B Jack Trash. On average the player wins about 43% of the hands, and the house wins about 48%. I assume this changes from very negative counts on the one hand to very positive counts on the other. In a plus count, just how much more than the average 43% is the player likely to win? And even with an increase in his % of wins, isn't the dealer still more likely to win each hand in a positive count, although the dealer will come up short in the long run due to doubles, splits and blackjacks? Without doing a grain of mathematical analysis, I'm guessing the player might win 44%, the dealer might drop to 46%, and the pushes might rise to 10%, but that is a stab in the dark. Do you happen to know the answer?

 

[SleightOfHand]

Which brings up a recent discussion with B Jack Trash. On average the player wins about 43% of the hands, and the house wins about 48%. I assume this changes from very negative counts on the one hand to very positive counts on the other. In a plus count, just how much more than the average 43% is the player likely to win? And even with an increase in his % of wins, isn't the dealer still more likely to win each hand in a positive count, although the dealer will come up short in the long run due to doubles, splits and blackjacks? Without doing a grain of mathematical analysis, I'm guessing the player might win 44%, the dealer might drop to 46%, and the pushes might rise to 10%, but that is a stab in the dark. Do you happen to know the answer?

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

Note: The numbers are skewed in favor of more pushes and fewer losses at TC >= +3 since a won insurance bet is counted as a push, even thought he initial hand lost.

 

[aslan]

http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount5.htm

Note: The numbers are skewed in favor of more pushes and fewer losses at TC >= +3 since a won insurance bet is counted as a push, even thought he initial hand lost.

I think the greater chance of dealer and player getting two tens accounts for most the increase in pushes as the count increases. I had forgotten this chart. The increase in won hands and decrease in lost hands is not really that significant, meaning that the increased number of blackjacks, and successful double downs and splits must account for most all of the increased player advantage. Just like we've always said.

 

[hbguy]

After much thought and research I've come to a conclusion. I've been looking into my statistically...I've been extremely lucky. This system I've been using isn't any 'edge' at all.

I always thought that my break from discipline is what caused my 'down times' but I realize now that it isn't. Rather, doubling and splitting at times are a part of the game (long term, not hand by hand).

I have a few books bought and a few downloaded...I'll try reading on being a better player but I don't know...my faith in myself isn't as strong as it has been (for years).

 

[tenzip]

After much thought and research I've come to a conclusion....I've been extremely lucky. This system I've been using isn't any 'edge' at all.

...I'll try reading on being a better player but I don't know...my faith in myself isn't as strong as it has been (for years).

I've been voodoo betting (and winning, overall) for my entire (short) career. I knew what I was doing, namely slowing the hemorrhage of funds into the dealer's rack. I feel foolish for not trying counting earlier, even though I've been, as you said, extremely lucky.

Instead of a lack of faith, you should feel renewed faith in yourself for breaking through the "but it works, so it must be right" barrier.

 

[aslan]

I've been voodoo betting (and winning, overall) for my entire (short) career. I knew what I was doing, namely slowing the hemorrhage of funds into the dealer's rack. I feel foolish for not trying counting earlier, even though I've been, as you said, extremely lucky.

Instead of a lack of faith, you should feel renewed faith in yourself for breaking through the "but it works, so it must be right" barrier.

Right, and now you're ready for the eyeopener that counting is still gambling, with the long run sometimes looming further out than one might imagine. Also, you're ready for the roller coaster ride of high highs and low lows that somehow average out over time leaving you a modest gain...if you were able to keep the faith through thick and thin, and the bankroll was able to sustain some very deep but temporary gouges. I think a key tip-off in detecting card counters should be the guy who calmly sits there while thousands go down the proverbial drain, then quietly gets up and says, "Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's been a pleasure, but I need to get some sleep. Good luck to you all." What!? This guy must either be a card counter or JD Rockefeller's nephew out for a little cheap fun.

 

[tenzip]

Right, and now you're ready for the eyeopener that counting is still gambling, with the long run sometimes looming further out than one might imagine.

You're right, and wrong. I never expected to make money playing blackjack. I expected (to pay for) entertainment. I understood the term "-EV" without knowing it existed.

I will only play for recreation, even with counting, I'm not expecting to make money. If I do, well, that's gravy. It's a luxury, near the top of the list of such in my life. If something happens "in real life" that wipes out even part of my disposable income, then the first things to go will be those at the top of the list. The challenge of counting, and all that goes with it, is what I'm "counting" on to make it entertaining. It won't be entertaining if I'm wondering about personal finance.

Nice avatar, btw.

 

[aslan]

You're right, and wrong. I never expected to make money playing blackjack. I expected (to pay for) entertainment. I understood the term "-EV" without knowing it existed.

I will only play for recreation, even with counting, I'm not expecting to make money. If I do, well, that's gravy. It's a luxury, near the top of the list of such in my life. If something happens "in real life" that wipes out even part of my disposable income, then the first things to go will be those at the top of the list. The challenge of counting, and all that goes with it, is what I'm "counting" on to make it entertaining. It won't be entertaining if I'm wondering about personal finance.

Nice avatar, btw.

If you are just looking for entertainment, I'd advise you not to spread as recommended, but instead cut your spread to half or less. That will give you close to a break-even game, and you won't risk losing thousands, which I think you would agree is more than one should pay for entertainment. Of course, if you hang in there with the full spread, you will end up in the winning column eventually, but I'm not sure you will consider the wide swings in variance that you will necessarily experience as entertainment. But I could be wrong. I know I do not enjoy the swings whatsoever, but it's the only route to the winner's circle I know of with my limited BJ skills.

 

[tenzip]

If you are just looking for entertainment, I'd advise you not to spread as recommended, but instead cut your spread to half or less. That will give you close to a break-even game, and you won't risk losing thousands, which I think you would agree is more than one should pay for entertainment. Of course, if you hang in there with the full spread, you will end up in the winning column eventually, but I'm not sure you will consider the wide swings in variance that you will necessarily experience as entertainment. But I could be wrong. I know I do not enjoy the swings whatsoever, but it's the only route to the winner's circle I know of with my limited BJ skills.

While I have no doubt the unavoidable swings in the negative direction will be less than pleasant, such is life. If you're going to do something, do it, don't timidly creep up on it, hoping nothing bad ever happens. This is the way I intend to play, and damn the torpedoes! :eyepatch: When it's time to go, I'll go.

 

[aslan]

While I have no doubt the unavoidable swings in the negative direction will be less than pleasant, such is life. If you're going to do something, do it, don't timidly creep up on it, hoping nothing bad ever happens. This is the way I intend to play, and damn the torpedoes! :eyepatch: When it's time to go, I'll go.

Be bankrolled to the hilt. E.g., $25,000 if you intend to play $25 min bet. Let us know your feelings along the way when you actually do ride the rapids. It's easy to be cool standing on the riverbank, but laudable that you want to do it the right way. Good luck to you. :toast:

 

[hbguy]

I've edged ahead and left the table but I've also dipped many times as is expected. To be honest, I haven't even been playing "basic strategy" or whatever its called...back in teh day I rarely hit on 12< and counted on dealer bust too often.

This is a mathematical delima and it could be that splits, doubles and blackjacks put us (players) over the edge in hte 3x double-back strategy (or even a modified version where I bet 10, 15, 25) but I've also been bit hard by doubling/splitting.

I want to learn counting, and I have resisted this for MANY years. Maybe I'll combine them, maybe I wont, but either way it's all about the challenge, isn't it? :joker:

What matters more to me than how someone plays is how their attitude is on the table. I dont care if they double down on 18's as long as they're not getting pissy because I'm playing my hand as I wish.

 

[Cardcounter]

The important thing is not the percentage of hands won it is the money wagered to the money won. If you wager a $100 on the start of the deck you are expected to win $99.50 or lose .50 cents in the typical game with a house edge of .5% assuming perfect basic stragedy. Against most players there expected win is $98 due to mistakes. If you have a count of a plus for and wager a $100 your expected win is $101.50 to $102.00 Some hands you will lose a $100 some hands you will win a $150. Since you can't know the outcome before you make the bet you make the bet based on expected value. The goal being to make bigger bets when you have an expected value of more than your wager and smaller bets when you have an expected value less than your wager.