Martingale Vs Card Counting

[21gunsalute]

good detective work , sherlock.

and good luck with the nerd tactics...look how far it's gotten you.

Most people waste their mental energy trying for a perfect count , which is why they fail in the long run.

I'm doing very well with "nerd tactics", thank you. I'm making more money right now than I am in my career position. I'm not about to give it up and start using your moron tactics.

How does one "waste mental energy trying for a perfect count"? What you're actually saying is that you're too lazy to put forth any effort into simple thought processes and mathematics, and you want everyone else to be mentally lazy just like you.

People fail in the long run because they ignore the math, the logic and the strategy and choose to fly by the seat of their pants instead of using their brains. I know you're too lazy to do it the logical and proven way, but why would you want everyone else to fail just because you have? Does it give your ego a boost to try to bring everyone else down to your level?

 

[aslan]

If you have money to spare, then by all means go with the loosey goosey approach-- you'll have more fun. But if money means something to you, you're better off playing it straight according to scientifically proven methods. It's very unfair to call the optimal way of doing something a nerd tactic. It is not exactly macho to ignore the facts, to act stupidly, with deliberation. The closer you can get to the computer derived and proven methods, the more chance you have of being in the money. If that is being a nerd, than call me a nerd. But after all, I thought that was the purpose of the counting exercise, to get the money.

I guess every bank robber who meticulously plans his heist is also in the nerd category. Why not just barge into the front door of the bank, guns blazing, and grab the money in broad daylight? lol That would certainly not be nerdy.

From the card counters I personally have met, there is nothing at all nerdy about them. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Wise. Those are good adjectives to describe them. Adventuresome. Bold. Courageous. Those are some other terms that fit the ones I know. As they say, your mileage may vary-- and there is room also for the nerdy types, but not in any derogatory sense. We all bring something to the table. And we are all the stronger for the contributions of others.

 

[LovinItAll]

Uh, just for the record, #6 ia not a mistake.

I respectfully disagree. That the card gods would bestow a losing streak on me is surely a mistake. It's not like I'm a sociopath, and I don't kick my dogs!

L.I.A.

P.S. I'll cop to all the others on the list, too.

 

[aslan]

I respectfully disagree. That the card gods would bestow a losing streak on me is surely a mistake. It's not like I'm a sociopath, and I don't kick my dogs!

L.I.A.

P.S. I'll cop to all the others on the list, too.

I agree. The card gods do not know with whom they are messing! View attachment 7790

 

[azbjdealer]

This is a very interesting thread. I often use both methods simultaneously. Whenever the count gets to +15 or better (not the "true" count), I'll up my bet considerably.

Now, as we all very well know, a high count does not guarantee a win. However, I find that losing 3 times in a row on a high count of +15 or more is extrememly, extremely rare (in fact, I can only remember it happening to me once in about 3 months, lost 4 hands in a row on a count of +16 or more). So, IMHO, it absolutely makes sense to use a Martingale progression on a high count. Would I use it on a count lower than +15 or a negative count? No way. I have had strings of as many as 10-15 losing hands in a row on a low count. That's why it's better to stick to the table minimum, no progression, in situations like that.

Imagine if you started with just a $5 bet and used Martingale on a 10 hand losing streak? You could potentially lose $5115 (you would most likely reach the table max after bet 8 (the next bet would be $1280). Progressive betting has been shown to bust bankrolls time and time again, and I personally think that it should be respected and used with extreme caution. I've seen bankrolls of $10K plus get eaten up in a matter of 30 minutes of play like that.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd venture to say the odds of losing 4 or even 5 hands straight with a count of +15 or more are pretty slim (as long as you are playing correctly using BS and good judgement).

 

[21gunsalute]

This is a very interesting thread. I often use both methods simultaneously. Whenever the count gets to +15 or better (not the "true" count), I'll up my bet considerably.

Now, as we all very well know, a high count does not guarantee a win. However, I find that losing 3 times in a row on a high count of +15 or more is extrememly, extremely rare (in fact, I can only remember it happening to me once in about 3 months, lost 4 hands in a row on a count of +16 or more). So, IMHO, it absolutely makes sense to use a Martingale progression on a high count. Would I use it on a count lower than +15 or a negative count? No way. I have had strings of as many as 10-15 losing hands in a row on a low count. That's why it's better to stick to the table minimum, no progression, in situations like that.

Imagine if you started with just a $5 bet and used Martingale on a 10 hand losing streak? You could potentially lose $5115 (you would most likely reach the table max after bet 8 (the next bet would be $1280). Progressive betting has been shown to bust bankrolls time and time again, and I personally think that it should be respected and used with extreme caution. I've seen bankrolls of $10K plus get eaten up in a matter of 30 minutes of play like that.

I'm no mathematician, but I'd venture to say the odds of losing 4 or even 5 hands straight with a count of +15 or more are pretty slim (as long as you are playing correctly using BS and good judgement).

Uh, it happens with about the same frequency that it does at lower counts (%wise). Of course you're seldom going to get a count that high, so you won't see it happen all that often in relation to all shoes played.

Overbetting even in such high counts is not usually advisable. Another problem with this concept is that for a lot of us we may have already reached table max well before the TC reached +15. So it's not all that practical or advisable.

I remember one time having a very high TC toward the end of the shoe. I got 20's the last 3 hands...and the dealer had backdoor blackjacks the last 3 hands. That was hard to swallow, but I'm glad I wasn't martingaling.

 

[aslan]

Uh, it happens with about the same frequency that it does at lower counts (%wise). Of course you're seldom going to get a count that high, so you won't see it happen all that often in relation to all shoes played.

Overbetting even in such high counts is not usually advisable. Another problem with this concept is that for a lot of us we may have already reached table max well before the TC reached +15. So it's not all that practical or advisable.

I remember one time having a very high TC toward the end of the shoe. I got 20's the last 3 hands...and the dealer had backdoor blackjacks the last 3 hands. That was hard to swallow, but I'm glad I wasn't martingaling.

You're absolutely right. The odds of winning hands increases only slighty. The odds of winning splits, double downs and getting naturals increases significantly.

 

[mikeinjersey]

However, I find that losing 3 times in a row on a high count of +15 or more is extrememly, extremely rare

I agree more with azbj .. it is pretty rare.

Even at +10 , losing 5 in a row is quite rare.

 

[tthree]

High count affect on win lose and push

The odds of winning doesn't change much at high counts. The odds of pushing increases a bit. The odds of losing decreases a bit. It moves the ratio of wins to total of losses plus wins a few points.

 

[MangoJ]

What's a backdoor blackjack ?

 

[21gunsalute]

I agree more with azbj .. it is pretty rare.

Even at +10 , losing 5 in a row is quite rare.

Well that settles it then. A profound expert like you could never be wrong about anything.

 

[21gunsalute]

What's a backdoor blackjack ?

10 value card showing, ace is in the hole. No chance for insurance.

 

[azbjdealer]

I agree more with azbj .. it is pretty rare.

Even at +10 , losing 5 in a row is quite rare.

It's almost impossible. The odds of it happening are actually something like 32,000 to 1.

I have had it happen only two, maybe three times and I've played thousands and thousands of hands of Blackjack.

And it's not that rare to get a count that high (unless you are using the "true" count).

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Works for me. I almost never lose, and when I do, it's never my whole stake for the night.

I'm not bragging, just stting fact. I'm an excellent BJ player. Anybody in the area that wants to go with me one night is more than welcome. I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is.

The problemn so many in this forum have I think is they try and overthink it. Remember what it is. It's drawing to or closest to 21. Not rocket science folks. So don't make it that.

 

[21gunsalute]

It's almost impossible. The odds of it happening are actually something like 32,000 to 1.

I have had it happen only two, maybe three times and I've played thousands and thousands of hands of Blackjack.

And it's not that rare to get a count that high (unless you are using the "true" count).

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Works for me. I almost never lose, and when I do, it's never my whole stake for the night.

I'm not bragging, just stting fact. I'm an excellent BJ player. Anybody in the area that wants to go with me one night is more than welcome. I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is.

The problemn so many in this forum have I think is they try and overthink it. Remember what it is. It's drawing to or closest to 21. Not rocket science folks. So don't make it that.

Looks like mikeinjersey has at least 2 IDs here.

 

[caramel6]

It's almost impossible. The odds of it happening are actually something like 32,000 to 1.

I have had it happen only two, maybe three times and I've played thousands and thousands of hands of Blackjack.

And it's not that rare to get a count that high (unless you are using the "true" count).

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Works for me. I almost never lose, and when I do, it's never my whole stake for the night.

I'm not bragging, just stting fact. I'm an excellent BJ player. Anybody in the area that wants to go with me one night is more than welcome. I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is.

The problemn so many in this forum have I think is they try and overthink it. Remember what it is. It's drawing to or closest to 21. Not rocket science folks. So don't make it that.

how many decks in a game ou play and what is a pen?

 

[caramel6]

It's almost impossible. The odds of it happening are actually something like 32,000 to 1.

I have had it happen only two, maybe three times and I've played thousands and thousands of hands of Blackjack.

And it's not that rare to get a count that high (unless you are using the "true" count).

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater
Works for me. I almost never lose, and when I do, it's never my whole stake for the night.

I'm not bragging, just stting fact. I'm an excellent BJ player. Anybody in the area that wants to go with me one night is more than welcome. I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is.

The problemn so many in this forum have I think is they try and overthink it. Remember what it is. It's drawing to or closest to 21. Not rocket science folks. So don't make it that.

how many decks you play what is a pen?

 

[tthree]

Here are the odds of losing 5 in a row at high TC with HILO

It's almost impossible. The odds of it happening are actually something like 32,000 to 1.

I have had it happen only two, maybe three times and I've played thousands and thousands of hands of Blackjack.

And it's not that rare to get a count that high (unless you are using the "true" count).

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Works for me. I almost never lose, and when I do, it's never my whole stake for the night.

I'm not bragging, just stting fact. I'm an excellent BJ player. Anybody in the area that wants to go with me one night is more than welcome. I'll gladly put my money where my mouth is.

The problemn so many in this forum have I think is they try and overthink it. Remember what it is. It's drawing to or closest to 21. Not rocket science folks. So don't make it that.

At TC +10 the odds of winning the hand is 45%, the odds of losing is 45%.
Negating pushes that is 50% chance of losing the hand.

At TC +18 the odds of winning is 45.8%, the odds of losing is 44.3%.
Negating pushes that is 49.17% chance of losing the hand.

At 50% (TC +10) the odds of losing 5 in a row is:
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/32.
Thats 1 every 32 times.

At 49.17% (TC +18) the odds of losing 5 in a row is:
.4917 * .4917 * .4917 * .4917 * .4917 = .02874 or 2.874%
Thats about 1 in every 35 times.

He was only off by a factor of 1000.

* This is for HIOPT II, HILO is about half the TC value for the same odds. The poor PE of HILO would increase the odds of losing 5 in a row a little.

 

[caramel6]

what about tc3,4,5,

Just out of the curiosity, what are odds to lose 5 in a row on counts ,3,4,5,

 

[MangoJ]

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Oh boy ...

 

[21gunsalute]

I usually don't use the true count, instead focusing on trends and knowing what designation of card has come out means knowing what's left in the deck.

Once you know this, you can alter BS. For instance, if the count is low and the dealer has a 6 up card and I draw a 13, I'll double instead of stand, knowing full well that my chances of pulling a 6, 7,8 or lower are much greater.

Good thinking! Those 3 cards are now removed and are now stored in your short term memory banks. If it's 10, 3 vs 6 that means you only have 23 other cards of the respective ranks to account for and have only 309 cards in total to account for instead of trying to account for all 312 cards. Man why didn't I think of that? You should write books. Maybe you could collaborate with the resident Genius here.