The Martingale and Disregarding the "Long Term"

[Sonny]

The "strategy" would be to not double, split, take insurance or add any other money to the table on your hand.

That’s a terrible strategy! By not following proper basic strategy you will be playing at a HUGE disadvantage. Even a +3 TC will probably not make up for it. I would have to run the numbers, but I would guess that your overall disadvantage might be around 10% (instead of the usual 0.5%). That a huge hole do have to dig yourself out of. Frankly, you may never see a count that gives you an advantage if you decide to play this way.

If you lose the hand. bet 5 again to get even. If lose again in +3 count or greater, Martingale the SOB until count goes below +3.

That just makes things worse. Your variance is already huge from making bad playing decisions. Using a betting progression will increase you variance even more. Even with a large bankroll you would probably go broke before you see any profit.

Why not just play the right way?

-Sonny-

 

[Rspeirsmlb]

I guess you could....but hypothetical situation here : by losing a split, double/double hand......youve already lost 4 units.....next hand you bet 4 units again, get a double hand and lose, youve lost 12 units....next hand you bet 24 units (martingale) and happen to just lose again.......instead of losing 3units, you have lost 36......Remember, only playing +3 shoes, meaning deck is in favor of 10's an Aces. Not to mention, lets say you've lost 5 hands in a row.......next hand you get a blackjack. You won more money than your anticipated $5. Unlike roulette, where blackjacks don't exsist by martingaling the colors (not to mention playing colors at roulette you have about a 3% disadvantage). By NO MEANS am I saying this will work, I am just raising some thoughts and want to here or see what the proven theoretical odds are by playing this way.....Please nobody think I use this or am going to......it's just a question for thoughts.

 

[dacium]

It doesnt matter what system you say.

The optimum bet is by the kelly criterion only. It is mathematically proven 100% optimal bet. No other system is better. If you bet opimtal per kelly based on the count you are playing perfectly, NOTHING is better.

 

[bj bob]

It doesnt matter what system you say.

The optimum bet is by the kelly criterion only. It is mathematically proven 100% optimal bet. No other system is better. If you bet opimtal per kelly based on the count you are playing perfectly, NOTHING is better.

Amen to that! BTW do you guys know what day this Saturday is? Why it's Kelly Criterion Day. It's the day when all AP 's play on green felted tables, drink green beer, bet with green chips and leave the casino with piles of green, while leaving PB's green with anger.

 

[Brutus]

Sounds like a good time to me

 

[Cardcounter]

The odds of hitting two reds in a row vs the odds of hitting 50 in a row!

The odds of hitting 2 red spins in a row are 18/38=.47368^2=.22438% chance of occuring the odds of red hitting 50 times in a row are
18\38=.47368^50=.0000000000000000594902% or
1 in 1,680,949,490,000,000 however if the last 49 spins happen to be red the probality that the 50th spin will be red is 18\38=.47368% that is what is meant by the past has no barring on future events!

 

[mdlbj]

Clearly I am missing something here.

Everyone and their brother-in-law says that the Martingale System sucks because it doesn't work in the long run. The guys at wizardofodds.com say that betting-system-scam artists claim that the Martingale does work because no one ever plays a million hands like the computer simulators do that prove otherwise.

So how is that claim (that the Martingale does work in the short term) untrue? If I bring a large $ amount to the casino in order to win a small $ amount, where's the risk? Consider the following:

Bet: Red/Black at Roulette
Amount $ bet each time: x
Maximum number of times I expect to lose consecutively: four
$ amount brought to the casino: (x)(15) because (x+2x+4x+8x) = 15x

I understand that it is possible that the uncaring ball could land on the non-favored color ten times in a row, but I just don't see that happening. If you actually feared losing ten times in a row, why would you EVER gamble in ANY game? So the question is, does the Martingale work in the short term?

Bonus Question for those who care: With a game like roulette where each bet is wholly independent of previous bets, does that logic imply that hitting red twice in a row is as likely as hitting it 50 times in a row? Isn't that the source of the fear of the Martingale system?

There is no fear about martingale, it is bogus period. A red or black bet is not 50/50 there is also 0 and 00.

 

[positiveEV]

Casinos have been winning for ages, they now spend billions on surveillance and computer analyzes of every way to beat their game, why do some average people think they just found a magical system that will destroy all that? And even if they did, don't they think the Casino would bar them if their system was a winning one? Don't they think millions of people with much more advanced math skills and powerful computers ever tried to make a system like theirs but none of them achieved their goal, even with billions of simulations and extremely advanced calculus? Why do they still think they found "the way"?

Human race will never learn :bomb:

 

[Sonny]

Casinos have been winning for ages, they now spend billions on surveillance and computer analyzes of every way to beat their game, why do some average people think they just found a magical system that will destroy all that?..Why do they still think they found "the way"?

Because they want to believe it. Humans often see what they want to see. When they stumble upon a magic system that will make them rich they often want to see only the positive side. There is no amount of logic that will convince a ploppy that their superstitions are bogus. They cannot see the truth until they want to see it. Unfortunately, the dreams of getting rich are much more enticing than the bitter truth so many gamblers will never learn.

-Sonny-

 

[Mimosine]

Not possible! Because there is only one player in the world who gets dealt cards that bad... and I don't play progressions.

Sheer Genius! LOL

 

[aslan]

Truncated martingale

I know a guy who swears by what I call a "truncated martingale." When he loses he only doubles up twice, then returns to his base bet (Bet 10-lose-bet 20-lose-bet 40-lose-bet 10-lose-bet 20 lose, etc.). Instinctively, I think it's only a way to accelerate either winning or losing, depending on how the cards run. BTW, he always plays basic strategy, so he's not too far out there. He believes his routine overcomes the small house edge. He claims in 20 outings he has never lost. I think he may be exaggerating the number of consecutive wins, but I do believe he hasn't yet lost, presumably due to perfect basic strategy and good money management. What would you tell this guy? (Honest...It's not me! Ha! ha! I'm always trying to talk him out of it.)

 

[supercoolmancool]

It doesn't overcome the very tiny .5% house edge. He is playing at the same disadvantage as if he doubled his bet 10 times.

 

[halcyon1234]

I know a guy who swears by what I call a "truncated martingale."

Funny, I actually thought about this recently. One of the problems with the Martingale is that eventually, you hit either the table max, your bankroll max. By "truncating" you prevent hitting the table max.

BUT you still have your bankroll max. Instead of having one large bankroll, he now has several small bankrolls. If he loses his truncated-max bet, that's still a destroyed bankroll. Then all he has left in that bankroll is the winnings from the winning bets.

Really, it's all the same, except that there's a clearly defined cap on when Martingale's "Big Loss" occurs.

And even then, he's not immune to the true Big Loss-- that is, losing EVERYTHING (in his case, all his bankrolls). He's still not immune to it. Say that he has a 1 unit bet, will 'Gale 4 times, then reset. So 1, 2, 4, 8. After he's lost his 4th step, that's 15 units gone, and he has to start back at 1. What is to stop ANOTHER 4 losses from occuring? 1, 2, 4, 8-- now he has 30 units gone. This can keep going on and on. Sure, unit-for-unit, he won't lose as much as a true Martingale, but he hasn't shielded himself from a complete devistating loss.

AND he still hasn't protected himself against the house edge. It doesn't matter how he lays out $5000, that $5000 is still vulnerable to the nibble of the HA. In fact, if you were to only consider the SHORT TERM (bleh), he's in worse shape than the True Martin. The TM is laying out bigger bets. If they both have the same starting bankroll and the same goal, the TM would reach it faster, since he's able to put out larger bets after the 4th loss. Fewer, larger bets mean less exposure to the house edge (and thus, reduces its impact. One spin of $10,000 vs. 10,000 spins of $1....)

In the end, if he's happy with his "working" system, nothing on this green Earth will keep his Galeing off the green felt. =)

 

[ihate17]

Aslan, other answer in other thread

I spoke to you about the possibility of a long losing streak in another thread.

What your friend has done by using his system, is that he has reduced his variance to the point where on a negative swing he will never be facing table max. It helps the comfort level but it does nothing for him math wise over the long run. He still can not overcome the house edge.
He will have fewer small winning sessions than the pure martingale player.
He will have fewer huge losing sessions than the pure martingale player.
At the end of his lifetime of play, he should lose just as much as the pure martingale player or if he flat bet.

In thinking about the mind set of a system player, I really question these systems or the people who use them. To me they are purely defensive. You bet and raise your bet and then raise your bet, just to get up one single little unit. You are always behind till you win a hand for each progression and that is why I say defensive. Now no system will win, so why use one where you might risk all your money, at some point, to gain a single minor unit? If you are not counting, then in my opinion, you are playing for just fun (I count and play for fun at the same time but that is a personality disorder), and this seems to me to be absolutely no fun at all.
Instead, if I was to not care that I would be a lifetime loser but I played to get the juices going, and not to defend my silly little single unit, (you notice how I make that one unit gain seem smaller each time I mention it), I play more positive progressions. Add a chip or so on each win, try for the big score on a winning streak, and be looking for the big winning day. The roller coaster ride will still end on the same down side but I think it would be more fun getting there. I would have loads of smaller losing sessions but a few times I would have a big winning session. Never enough to make up for the loses but to me the entertainment value of this type of play would be much more fun.

I do not endorse playing this way, but if I were a non AP this would be more appealing than either flat betting or a negative progression.

ihate17

 

[EasyRhino]

A friend of mine started parlaying his bets at the BJ table a while back, got one hand up to about $480 from a very small bet before it ended. Had a blast.

Then again, if just playing recreationally, I'm not really looking for the roller coaster ride, I just want to kill time. So the variance from flat betting is more than enough.

 

[Mimosine]

Then again, if just playing recreationally, I'm not really looking for the roller coaster ride, I just want to kill time. So the variance from flat betting is more than enough.

before attempting to count i had the same midset. and one day, ridiculously i bought $60 of chips at a $10 min table, and within 20 minutes had $180 playing really weak BS. it was a blast and I left with around $125 and i killed some time while the people I was with played the nickle sluts. when i lose count and go to flat betting I still enjoy it and am amazed whenever i end up a few units. just that excitment makes me want to play - but when counting and putting out bigger bet's its amplified by about the same multiplier as my increase in units

 

[halcyon1234]

i killed some time while the people I was with played the nickle sluts.

I'd do the same thing. No way am I touching a nickle slut!

 

[noodleZ]

I was quite bored and decided to program a simulation for Martingale betting systems on a 00 roulette wheel. I've been messing around with it just for the hell of it.

After tinkering with it, it seems that the Martingale system of doubling your bet to cover your losses is fairly well hopeless. A better method seems to be to multiply your bet by 1.5 after every loss.

Here are some results to illustrate this. As you would guess, a larger bankroll with a smaller goal to reach as far as winnings would be optimum.

$100,000 bankroll
A win is defined as winning $1
Initial bet is $1
After a loss, bet is multiplied by 1.5, ie, $1, $2.25, $3.375, ...
Table max is $1024
If the bettor reaches the table max, they start betting again at $1
If the bettor does not have the bankroll to bet 1.5 * last losing bet, the bettor bets the remainder of their bankroll.

The bets are always placed on black, well, because it's lucky as you may or may not know. Also, the player carries with them a rabbit's foot and some gypsy teeth.

After 2 million games, a game being defined in terms of a win (gaining $1) and a loss as being defined as losing all of your money (the wheel is spun until either result happens), there are.....

2 million wins, 0 losses!

I've checked my coding and this seems to be right. So, if you've got a $100,000 and you never want to pay for your lunch again and you live near a casino, this just might work.


If we apply the same rules, but multiply our bet by 2 after each loss...we get our asses handed to us.

1998771 wins of $1
and
1229 losses of $100,000

So, we could expect the following outcome for multiplying by our lost bets by 2:
Winning $1,998,771
and losing $122,900,000

Sounds pretty stupid to me.

 

[Sonny]

After tinkering with it, it seems that the Martingale system of doubling your bet to cover your losses is fairly well hopeless. A better method seems to be to multiply your bet by 1.5 after every loss.

Yeah, it's better because the poor guy will go broke faster. Why waste all that time in a casino? Just dump your money and get back to your vacation. :grin:

The bets are always placed on black, well, because it's lucky as you may or may not know. Also, the player carries with them a rabbit's foot and some gypsy teeth.

I though gypsy teeth are for protecting against AIDS. I'll never trust Borat again! Oh oh, I'd better go talk to my sister about this...

-Sonny-

 

[jack.jackson]

A friend of mine started parlaying his bets at the BJ table a while back, got one hand up to about $480 from a very small bet before it ended. Had a blast.

Then again, if just playing recreationally, I'm not really looking for the roller coaster ride, I just want to kill time. So the variance from flat betting is more than enough.

One time, many moons ago. I kept a win/loss record of about 500 hands.
I experimented with different betting shemes trying to see if one would result in a positive expectation. After hours of mindnumming tests one however, did prevail. Bet 1 unit until you win,then bet 3,if you win again bet 5,and win again bet 7, then start all over. If at any time you lose,start all over until you win,going back to 3unit[etc.] Think i've been in the sun to long? Trust me, i know it wont work over the long run,if at all. Nevertheless i found fun and exciting for the spirit. Any betting scheme you use just adds to the casino advantage[lawrence revere]r.i.p] Card counting is the only true rainbow of adventure. Anchored in gold