Martingale Vs Card Counting

[21gunsalute]

If you count cards and use the limited MG, and are into a positive expectation, how would you not make more money than if you did not use the modified MG. If you were to say that, then you would be disparaging card counting theory in its entirety! There is NO WAY you will lose $ using a mod MG, and the cards are going with you. Unless you get very unlucky.

And there you have it. Anyone can get unlucky at any time. I've been unlucky for 2 months now, losing my entire bankroll. Silly me. Had I used a Martingale I could have lost it all in just a few minutes instead of a few months. Using a modified Martingale I may have been able to stretch it out to a few hours.

Your monikor is a misnomer. It shows where your mindset is at. It's not better to be lucky than good, it's better to be both good and lucky. Being stupid and betting stupidly will not bring you luck, it will destroy you.

 

[aslan]

And there you have it. Anyone can get unlucky at any time. I've been unlucky for 2 months now, losing my entire bankroll. Silly me. Had I used a Martingale I could have lost it all in just a few minutes instead of a few months. Using a modified Martingale I may have been able to stretch it out to a few hours.

Your monikor is a misnomer. It shows where your mindset is at. It's not better to be lucky than good, it's better to be both good and lucky. Being stupid and betting stupidly will not bring you luck, it will destroy you.

The name suggests that it's better to be lucky and win, than to be good and yet lose. That is a dilemma, if you think about it. If I thought that no matter how good I got I would lose, I don't think I would try to be good. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with being lucky, even if it's not something one can take personal pride in. Don't lose sight of the objective. It's not to be good or to be lucky, it's to win. As the man said, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!

 

[gamblingghost]

And there you have it. Anyone can get unlucky at any time. I've been unlucky for 2 months now, losing my entire bankroll. Silly me. Had I used a Martingale I could have lost it all in just a few minutes instead of a few months. Using a modified Martingale I may have been able to stretch it out to a few hours.

Your monikor is a misnomer. It shows where your mindset is at. It's not better to be lucky than good, it's better to be both good and lucky. Being stupid and betting stupidly will not bring you luck, it will destroy you.

If I may ask. About how many max bet units was your br?

 

[21gunsalute]

If I may ask. About how many max bet units was your br?

It varied but was in the 80-100 range.

 

[gamblingghost]

It varied but was in the 80-100 range.

Oh, ok, so 100 max bets with an E of 1.67% has a 1 in 16 chance of ruin. But did you win 100 max bets a few times before this event?

 

[21gunsalute]

Oh, ok, so 100 max bets with an E of 1.67% has a 1 in 16 chance of ruin. But did you win 100 max bets a few times before this event?

I'd doubled my bankroll before I lost it all.

 

[gamblingghost]

I'd doubled my bankroll before I lost it all.

So, if you got another 100 max bets and started in again, then that would be
like you have/had a 200 max bet roll which at 1.67% E has a 1 in 250 chance of ruin. But with only 100 max bets , again it is a 1 in 16 chance! But, two 1 in 16 chances in a row equals one, 1 in 250 , I assume.

At any rate, I certainly wish you good cards and variance next time out.

 

[stoicsang]

Can we show mathematically that some sort of Martingale fares better than their AP art they boast of? When it comes to Martingale they often use the the worst possible effect of losing series of hands to strike out the theory. But , in fact they also have the same chance of losing everything. They call it fluctuation. When they can lose sometimes and win many times, it is the same as Martingale.

And you know this BS B.S , it assumes you ALWAYS have 0.5% edge (in most cases), BUT it is NOT. As the big cards are dealt out - it changes. Not sure why would anyone want to follow BS and call themselves a BS player.

Why not we run a sim.

And one more, They can get barred and half shoed. We cannot get barred nor half shoed.

I wouldn't call it mathmatical proof so lets just call it an 14 month lucky streak. For every ten sessions I will win approximately 9. My losing session I lose about 600 to 900 dollars. I quit when I made 300 dollars but I often go a little over due to double down/splits. I quit when my losing bet nears 1000 even though the table limit is higher. If doubling my bet puts me over 1000, i don't bet and accept my losing session. I backcount before play (yes, I know how to count cards) and i use perfect BS. I'm not claiming this is a winning system but I am up at least for now. My betting unit is 25 dollars. I'm still working on my voodoo system. I'm not sure if I should double down or split when BS states that I should. For now I am. I decided to use this method because I was tired of the heat. I never play long enough to get mentally exhausted. I'm always welcomed at the tables and nicely compt. I will stop using this system once my losses adds up more than my wins during any 10 sessions. Which I know it's only a matter of time but for now, I'm enjoying the ride.

 

[Dyepaintball12]

Can we show mathematically that some sort of Martingale fares better than their AP art they boast of? When it comes to Martingale they often use the the worst possible effect of losing series of hands to strike out the theory. But , in fact they also have the same chance of losing everything. They call it fluctuation. When they can lose sometimes and win many times, it is the same as Martingale.

And you know this BS B.S , it assumes you ALWAYS have 0.5% edge (in most cases), BUT it is NOT. As the big cards are dealt out - it changes. Not sure why would anyone want to follow BS and call themselves a BS player.

Why not we run a sim.

And one more, They can get barred and half shoed. We cannot get barred nor half shoed.

You are the worst.

 

[aslan]

You are the worst.

You're wasting your breath. Anyone who cannot figure out the flaws in his claims and allegations is beyond hopeless.

 

[MangoJ]

The only Martingale proven to be not breaking your neck is: Initial bet = ZERO (double after each loss :laugh

 

[aslan]

The only Martingale proven to be not breaking your neck is: Initial bet = ZERO (double after each loss :laugh

Only? I prefer a positive martingale. Initial bet ZERO (Double after each win) Although one seems to be just as profitable as the other. :joker:

 

[gamblingghost]

Only? I prefer a positive martingale. Initial bet ZERO (Double after each win) Although one seems to be just as profitable as the other. :joker:

Do they both bet the same 'average' bet in the long run? Because of 'style' is one more inclined to bet more while losing? Up while losing ... seems worse.?

 

[MangoJ]

Only? I prefer a positive martingale. Initial bet ZERO (Double after each win) Although one seems to be just as profitable as the other. :joker:

Ah, right And for advanced gamblers: Quit when ahead.

 

[aslan]

Do they both bet the same 'average' bet in the long run? Because of 'style' is one more inclined to bet more while losing? Up while losing ... seems worse.?

I can say confidently that up while losing is no problem under my methodology. I have tested it repeatedly and it works the same. :joker:

 

[gamblingghost]

I can say confidently that up while losing is no problem under my methodology. I have tested it repeatedly and it works the same. :joker:

What if you bet a little more than zero?

 

[MangoJ]

What if you bet a little more than zero?

Then you are overbetting your bankroll. Everyone knows that overbetting leads to bankruptcy almost surely.

 

[lothariorowe]

Can you calculate the approximate odds of that occurance? zg

with about 50/50 odds of a win per hand, wouldn't 15 losses in a row occur once per 491,520 hands, or a probability of 1/32,768?

 

[21gunsalute]

with about 50/50 odds of a win per hand, wouldn't 15 losses in a row occur once per 491,520 hands, or a probability of 1/32,768?

Please see post #5 in this thread. Once in ~500,000 hands? I think not.

 

[lothariorowe]

Please see post #5 in this thread. Once in ~500,000 hands? I think not.

If you lose 53% of hands, then the simple math for the odds of losing 15 in a row is (53/100)^15 which = about 1/13672 which means it averages happening once per 205,094 hands if you play perfect strategy.

So if you've lost 15 consecutive hands on multiple occasions, it sounds like you either play more hands than anyone in the world, or you are just very unlucky.