Someone please De-Bunk this system before I take out a second mortgage

[newyorkbear]

I would rather see you prove him (and me ) wrong in live casino play... they laughed at the Wright Bros and they laughed at Marconi and many others,,, but the true pioneers have one thing in common - they've gut the guts to put their ideas into play!! Good luck and keep us posted. zg:devil:

Damn,ZG.
The VIP rooms are already too crowded with all those Tejas hold em pukes.Why encourage even more guys to move out here and horn in on OUR action?That bimbette he ends up with could have been your future ex-wife,not his.

 

[Cass]

Martingale beats flat betting on a short run

The thing about the martingale is that you will win most of the time, but when you lose your loses will be huge. I have researched this a lot on computer games and simulators. Taking a $10 bet with a max cap at $1280. You will usually win for a while but eventually you will lose it all. If you took this betting scheme to the casino and planned on walking away when you are up $200 more than what you came with. (roughly 45 hands played) you will win about 90% of the time. So 9/10 times you will win $200, but one out of ten times you will lose $2550. Overall a losing predicament. Compare this to flat betting: if you walk into a casino with That same $2550 and plan on flat betting $10/hand. Your exit strategy is to be up 20 ($200)units at some point. The odds of being up $200 at any given point playing $10 are slim. In fact You are much more likely to be playing for hours and hours on end until you slowly lose all your money. I know over a million hands or whatever you are going to lose more with martingale but in the real world this seems like a lot better bet to the casual gambler who spends a hour or two at a time in a casino. I don't know if i have made this clear, but martingale is a lot better in the short run. I will try to give another example. Martingale player walks into casino with 5,120 (enough to cover 9 loses) His plan is to exit the casion when he is up 100 units ($1000) or when he loses his entire bankroll. He has about a 75-80% chance of walking out with $1000 of the casino's money. And it should take roughly 200 hands to complete this task.
Flat better walks in with that same $5,120, his plan is to bet $10 a hand until he is either up $1000 or down $5,120. His odds of being up one hundred units are very slim. HE is much more likely to bust his bank. Granted it would take a long long time. The flat better is going to have a much harder time walking out up any money. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS POINT ARGUED. I would like to hear from any critics on this idea. I am not a moron i realize that flat betting in the long run beats martingale.

 

[KenSmith]

Talking about the probability of winning a set amount of money without considering risk can produce all sorts of confusing results. The highest probability way of leaving the casino with $200 profit is to bet $200 on the first hand, and martingale from there.

There may be some inconsistency if we compare that with your $10 Martingale player if we stick with the $5120 bankroll, because that leads to an awkward partial bet after 4 losses:
(200, 400, 800, 1600, 2120)

My point though it that maximizing your chance of reaching a specific goal is accomplished by betting the whole amount on the first try. Anything short of that will decrease your chance of reaching that goal, assuming you are playing a negative expectation game. Forcing our Martingale player to win 20 straight $10 Martingale series is less likely than our one-shot-and-its-done $200 Martingale.

The reason this isn't a free pass for the Martingale believers is that noone really behaves this way in the real world. Risking $5120 to win $200 this one time isn't a good plan, unless you REALLY need $5320 right now.

 

[KenSmith]

One more thing... One way of bringing the flat-bettor's results closer to the Martingale-bettor's is to let the flat-bettor have the same average bet as the Martingale guy. That dramatically increases the chance of our flat-bettor reaching the $200 goal.

It probably still won't be as high a chance, because the variance is still higher for the Martingale bettor, even when we match up the average bet size.

 

[aussiecounter]

Dont call me a moron punk. Look at the system and look at your own math, according to your nimbers this is a profitable system based strictly on numbers... Again I ask if anyone wishes to say it doesnt work prove it with math, back up your points..... The reason you wont, is because the numbers dont lie, and they are in my favor here...

I'm not a punk, biatch.

You look at your f'd up system yourself and realise that you have screwed up!

Well actually, youd have to lose 8 in a row-5,5,10,20,40,80,160,320...So redo the math and figure that. Or just assume that with 7 it would look like this-10,10,20,40,80,160,320....90 hands time $10 =$900-$635=$265 profit.

Now, I will show you in detail why.

Going directly from your nimbers above, which is an un-edited quote of yours:

Bet 1 = $5. WIN: you win $5 and start again.
LOSE: You lose, so you are down $5.

Bet 2 = $5. WIN: you win $5, breaking even on the $5 you lost first bet. LOSE: You lose $5 plus $5 down already = $10 down.

Bet 3 = $10. WIN: you win $10, breaking even on the $10 you were down after Bet 2.
LOSE: you lose $10 plus $10 down already = $20 down

Bet 4 = $20. WIN: you win $20, breaking even on the $20 you were down after Bet 3.
LOSE: you lose $20 plus $20 down already = $40 down in total.

Now, I'm unsure if this is the system that you are arguing for, or if you mean a proper Martingale, which is just 5,10,20,40,80...... not 5,5,10,20,40,80 progression. With your system you will make much fewer winning 'rounds', as only when you win on the first hand of a round will you make your $5. All the other rounds will only draw even.

I have already proved why a Martingale system doesnt work, Post 18 in this thread if you want to check again. I believe that is fairly accurate.

 

[aussiecounter]

Now, if you insist, I will now do the same for the Bullseye System.

So you can expect to win 47.5% of hands, or lose 52.5%.

Change that to 7 instead of ten, and use the exact .525 instead of .53.
0.525^7=0.010992972052001953125
So once every (1/0.01099) tries, or once every 90.96 tries.

So if a new 'round' starts after each win, as a loss would be still part of the last streak, you will lose 7 in a row once for every 90 wins.

90x$5 win= $450 right?
now your one loss goes like this:
$5($5 lost), $10($15 lost), $20($35), $40($75), $80($155), $160($315), $320($635).

So you can expect to win $450 from your many little wins, but when the big losing streak does happen, you'll lose $635, so you'll be down $185.

Change the 7 (7 losses) to 8 (8 losses) to get us to the $320 stop.

0.525^8=0.005771310327301025390625
So you'll get one big loss every (1/0.00577) tries, or 173.27 tries.

Now, it gets a little bit tricky here.
Using the odds for winning each hand, we'd win the first hand in a 'round' 47.5% of the time. The rest of the 'rounds' would only play out as no loss+no gain rounds, as the moment you lose the first hand it becomes impossible to win anthing using the system you describe.
Now, you'll win 47.5% of the 173 'rounds' that theoretically will be played before the big losing streak hits. 47.5% of 173 = 82.175.
So you'll win 82 'rounds', you'll get a winning hand to draw even for the 'round' about 90 times, and then you'll hit the loser.

WINS: 82x$5win= $410
EVENS: 90x$0= $0
LOSS: 1x(5+5+10+20+40+80+160+320)=$640

Now, $640 loss minus $410 winnings equals $230 loss. Plain and simple. This system won't work, just like the proper Martingale.

Now, I believe I have explained this mathematically, so stop harping on about it being unbeatable unless......

......I've now debunked it twice, so how 'bout this; why don't YOU prove to US that it WILL work, because I and most of the others on here already know that it won't, and you will not be able to prove that it will.

And I believe a lot of the members would agree with this:

:flame: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!:flame:

 

[newyorkbear]

I've always wondered why people obsess with a negative progression instead of trying a reverse one.
Bet $5. win,double your bet. let it ride until you lose or hit the table limit. When you reach the table limit. Start over. Sure,you'll have dozens of series where you lose,but all you've lost is your original $5 bet.
Goes like this bet$5,10,20,40,80,160,320,500.
Pocket the $1,000 and start over.

While I know both systems suck and don't work,I just don't understand why everyone gravitates to the negative side,being willing to risk $500 to win $5,instead of being willing to risk multipe small loses in the hopes of hitting that one winning steak. After all,I've just described the typical lotto player,no?

Out of curiousity,could someone with better math skills than I possess,give the risk of ruin of someone doing just as I described. Would the formula simply be the reverse of aussies,so that you would win 7 in a row once for every 90 series of losses? I'm fairly sure that can't be right.

 

[aussiecounter]

newyorkbear, its pretty well the same, except you'd use 0.475 (47.5%, your chance of winning) in the equation instead of 0.525 (loss %).

so to find how often you'd get 7 wins in a row:

0.475^7=0.00545576.........

So 7 wins in a row once every (1/0.00545576) rounds or once about every 183.29.

 

[newyorkbear]

AHA!
Mathmatetical proof that that system works.
For every approx 185 series,you will lose 184 series at a total cost of $920 and win $1,000 once. A net profit of $80.Thats on a $5 bet.On a $25 bet you'd win $400.A $100 series will give you a net profit of $1600.
$1600 a day X 200 days will bring in a cool $320,000 a year.
Damn,and its a bank Holiday here in the States.Guess I can wait til tomorrow to break open the IRA..
Hope none of you non-Americans beat me to it.

 

[LeonShuffle]

NYBear, when you win 7 in a row, doubling up, starting at 5, that's $635, not $1,000. You were right about the other part though; you'd lose $920 for every win of $635.

If you didn't appreciate MLK before, you should now.

 

[newyorkbear]

You are confusing losing,and winning. With the losses,they accumilate,winnings don't as they are on the line,not banked.

Negative Mart-1st bet lose $5,second bet lose ten(total loss$15)3rd bet-lose 20(tl-35) 4th bet lose 40(tl75) ect,ect
Positive prog- all winnings are at risk,
$5,10,20,40,80,160,320,then table limit of 500.

Do you really think this system won't work?Can't imagine why not.
Seriously though,my whole point was that it seems strange that folks always come up with the double after you lose path to fortune,rather than doubling after wins. They are willing to risk much to win a little,but not willing to risk much to win more.Wonder what Freud and Jung would say about that?

 

[LeonShuffle]

How am I confusing winning with losing? If you win 7 in a row, starting at $5, you'd win 5+10+20+40+80+160+320 for a total winning of $635. And according to the Aussie (and you), you'd accomplish this once for every loss of $920. Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[newyorkbear]

Whyare you adding up the winnings. win three hands and al you have is $20. Not $20 plus 15 from the first 2 hands.four hand gives you $40,not 40+35.
When you lose,you need to replace your bet.
When you win,all you are doing is letting in ride.
Martingaling after losing- your third bet is $20,but you've already lost $15(5+10)
Martingaling after winning is simply pressing your bet.
$5,then 10,then 20,then 40,then 80,160,320,500.As you are not taking money off the table,your bet is the entire amount,unlike when you lose you have your bet plus the amount already lost.No?
Letting it ride,you would have turned $5 into $1,000
after only 8 straight wins.If it happened on your very first sequence,you'd be up $995. But the chances of it happening on your first sequence would be 1 in several hundred.If it happened anytime in 200 sequences you'd either come out ahead or break even on the 200th sequence.
Might be an interesting way to spend a weekend in Vegas,if you had $1,000 you could afford to lose.
The odds are better than Keno.

 

[LeonShuffle]

You're wrong. You said it yourself earlier: For every 185 series, you'll lose 184 series at a total cost of $920. But when you DO hit that 7 hand winning streak, you'll have won $5 on the first hand (5), $10 on the second hand (15), $20 on the third hand (35), 40 on the fourth hand (75), $80 on the fifth hand (155), $160 on the sixth hand (315) and $320 on the SEVENTH hand for a total win of $635!!!!!

Imagine you bet $5 and win. You've just won $5. You can leave it in the circle with the original $5, or take them both out and put them back in, it doesn't matter, you're still betting $10 after having just won $5.

Please, someone help me out with this.

P.S. Why on earth after making 3 consecutive bets of $5, $10, and $15, and WINNING them all, would you have only $20????!!!!!

 

[greyghost]

My first post to this list. Just joined today. Thought I would share my experience with progressive betting. I am 61 years old and have been playing BJ for 40 years off and on. Mostly off. I have played at casinos in Vegas, Reno, Carson City, and Tahoe. Won't play online (insufficient oversight). My betting stratagy is to approximately double on lose and flat bet on wins. On a 5-500 table I would bet 5-10-25-50-125-250-500 if losing and 5 when winning.
Late last year I was in Carson City for a few days so decided to play some BJ.
Found a single deck table with 5-500 limits, dealer hits on soft 17, double on any first two cards or after split, split any pair. I go in with a $3000 grub stake. First evening after two hours I am $50 ahead. No bets over $125 required. Next evening after 3 hrs I'm $2500 down . Thats the most I've ever been down. Usually I win $200-$300 and call it a session. I figure at $5 a hand its going to take forever to win that back so i go to $25 per hand and play two hands at a time. By 2AM I've got my $3000 grub stake back plus $300 for my trouble.
I have had several college courses on probability and statistics and I've never let that stop me from gambling. There's another factor to be considered that they call "luck". Even you guys who count cards need a little luck on your side to win.
I'll keep an open mind as I read your messages on this list and I hope to learn something new.
:cool2:

 

[zengrifter]

Even you guys who count cards need a little luck on your side to win.

Thats a misnomer - counters do not "need luck" to win. Better hit the probabilty books again, old-timer. Honestly, do you even know correct basic strategy? No really? zg

 

[newyorkbear]

leon,
I made a mistake in my last post,you have $40 on the table,not $20.
Suppose I only have one chip when I sit down. I win,let it ride,win and let it ride,how much do I have?$40,no?
If I let it ride again,I have 80. If I walk away,I leave with $80,$75 profit.Not 5+10+20+40+80=$155
Everything I've won stays on the table. I started with only one chip,have no chips except what I'm betting and can double my bet only by leaving my winnings in the circle.A loss wipes me out,negating all wins during the sequence.

 

[zengrifter]

Do we need to rename this page the PROGRESSIONS, BULLSH*T, AND NONSENSE PAGE? zg

 

[LeonShuffle]

I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler.

Start with $5: win you're up 5 You now have 10
let it ride (bet 10) and win again. You win 10, you're up 15 You now have 20
let it ride (bet 20) and win again. You win 20, you're up 35 You now have 40
let it ride (bet 40) and win again. You win 40, you're up 75 You now have 80
let it ride (bet 80) " ". You win 80, you're up 155 You now have 160


As a matter of fact, forget all this "let it ride" stuff. Bet 5 W, 10 W, 20 W, 40 W, 80 W. You've just won $155. Simple math.

This will be my last post on this subject. If someone would like to take over, be my guest.

P.S. Great, thanks for your help Grifter. (He said sarcastically).

 

[newyorkbear]

Hopefully,nobody is taking anything in this thread very seriously.I'm certainly not about to try this in real life,or even waste my time runnimng a simulation of it.
My whole point was just to wonder why everyone chooses to focus on recovering their losses,rather thanpursue possible winnings.

In a Martingale,if you lose your final bet,you lose not only that bet,but also all the money lost on bets prior to it.So a loss at the $320 mark ends up costing you
a total of $635 in losses.
Pressing your bets and losing at the $320 mark means that you lost a total of $5,and won zero,dispite having won money thruout the sequence.its an all or nothing sequence where a loss is a loss,be it at level 2 or level 7.Though I imagine the comps are better if you keep reaching levels 6 and 7 before losing.
If that is your point,Leon,I agree. Maybe we are saying the same thing in different methods.