Variants of Martingale

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Is there a specific term for people who triple or quadruple their losses? Sounds to me just like a more concentrated version of the losers Martingale scheme.

Never-the-less sometimes when I'm playing a particularly good round and beating the house damn good I just have to triple my last couple of losses late in the shoe. Win or lose i quit. It was just the house's former money anyway.

Again: I know that this is a false logic and road to ruin if taken as a regular matter of playing.

However let's look at what a minimum bid $10.00 to max of $1000.00 transfers out to tripled:

1. $10.00
2. $30.00
3. $90.00
4. $270.00
5. $810.00

End of story as the next bet reaches the house limit.

Quadrupled:

1. $10.00
2. $40.00
3. $160.00
4. $460.00

End of the road as the next bet exceeds the house limit.

OK now I expect a whole bunch of misunderstanding here as the above words will always tend to invoke a knee jerk reaction of "Why are you advocating another lame version of Martingale". In fact I'd bet money (pun intended) that someone will reply with that thought regardless of how many disclaimers i write here.

It's just one of those touchy subjects. We all know Martingale is wrong wrong wrong.

I just have this odd habit of tripling at the end of a shoe with a high TC. Only a couple triples mind you. Or when my winnings are so high that i don't mind sustaining a relatively small loss in comparison to the over-all net gain of the night.

More a form of entertainment to make me look foolish or more like a gambler to the pit crew.

Anyway is tripling or quadrupling considered just another form of Martingale?

 

[aslan]

I am constantly around gamblers in the local poolroom and your kind of thinking is prevalent. A true gambler is always going for the "big one." This is especially true if they are betting recent winnings ("the house's money"). They'd rather break even trying to parlay their winnings than leave with a modest gain. Counters, from my experience here, are not gamblers--they're businessmen. They are the house side of gambling. What would you rather do--play in a casino or own the casino? Counters have the advantage--they would rather own the casino--in fact, they do own the casino--the house is their player. Your method sounds like fun--if you don't mind sometimes losing it all back in a few fell swoops. If you want a big gain I suggest working toward a larger bankroll and just betting it up bigger. But if you are addicted to gambling, this will not satisfy you--not enough adrenalin rush I suspect. I love gamblers--but they're sometimes rich and sometimes broke, and that's not the life for me. Of course, if you're only betting winnings, I guess you're at least not in any risk of ruin, and there's something to be said for that--and the fact that you're having fun in the process. BTW, you're not betting the house's money (at least you semi-recognized this when you called it the "house's former money"). It's entirely YOUR money that you're betting. Haha! No one ever calls the money they earn in their jobs "the company's former money!" Do I sound sanctimonious? I'm the guy who played slots last week on my BJ winnings, then refused to leave the casino dead even, and lost even more. (Now I'm the guy who's sworn off slots!) :laugh:

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Is there a specific term for people who triple or quadruple their losses? Sounds to me just like a more concentrated version of the losers Martingale scheme.

Never-the-less sometimes when I'm playing a particularly good round and beating the house damn good I just have to triple my last couple of losses late in the shoe. Win or lose i quit. It was just the house's former money anyway.

Again: I know that this is a false logic and road to ruin if taken as a regular matter of playing.

However let's look at what a minimum bid $10.00 to max of $1000.00 transfers out to tripled:

1. $10.00
2. $30.00
3. $90.00
4. $270.00
5. $810.00

End of story as the next bet reaches the house limit.

Quadrupled:

1. $10.00
2. $40.00
3. $160.00
4. $460.00

End of the road as the next bet exceeds the house limit.

OK now I expect a whole bunch of misunderstanding here as the above words will always tend to invoke a knee jerk reaction of "Why are you advocating another lame version of Martingale". In fact I'd bet money (pun intended) that someone will reply with that thought regardless of how many disclaimers i write here.

It's just one of those touchy subjects. We all know Martingale is wrong wrong wrong.

I just have this odd habit of tripling at the end of a shoe with a high TC. Only a couple triples mind you. Or when my winnings are so high that i don't mind sustaining a relatively small loss in comparison to the over-all net gain of the night.

More a form of entertainment to make me look foolish or more like a gambler to the pit crew.

Anyway is tripling or quadrupling considered just another form of Martingale?

you claim you count? ya.. right.. go read threads in the voodoo section.. "i know that stabbing a knife in your neck can kill you, but what if its dull?"

 

[Sonny]

Is there a specific term for people who triple or quadruple their losses?

Yes, but my mother told me never to use that word. :grin:

Anyway is tripling or quadrupling considered just another form of Martingale?

Yeah, it's just a more aggressive Martingale. You'll win less often and you'll lose big more often than a more conservative Martingale.

-Sonny-

 

[eps6724]

Is there a specific term for people who triple or quadruple their losses?

Yeah, it's called 'Hey, buddy! I got a system that is guaranteed!' And the stupid buddy tried it...now the stupid buddy posts at a web-site as eps6724 and is in the process of learning how to really beat the game!

 

[EasyRhino]

A martingale attempts to win one unit per "cycle".

This uber-martingale could win 1,2,3,4 etc units per cycle, but with a much, much shorter time before any sort of reasonable bankroll or table limits are exhausted.

I'd rather just sit at a table and start parlaying wins 100% until I busted out.

... but really I'd rather bet within my bankroll and increase my chances of making some dough.

 

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

OK now I expect a whole bunch of misunderstanding here as the above words will always tend to invoke a knee jerk reaction of "Why are you advocating another lame version of Martingale". In fact I'd bet money (pun intended) that someone will reply with that thought regardless of how many disclaimers i write here.

It's just one of those touchy subjects. We all know Martingale is wrong wrong wrong.

Note my prediction?

Again: I said nothing about endorsing Martingale at all.

Always READ a post before commenting

 

[Brock Windsor]

Just to point out..

I just have this odd habit of tripling at the end of a shoe with a high TC. Only a couple triples mind you. Or when my winnings are so high that i don't mind sustaining a relatively small loss in comparison to the over-all net gain of the night.

You're taking some heat for this one but you are actually putting more money on the table with a +EV. (you did say a high TC). While your bankroll could really rollercoaster if you only bet 1/2 Kelly as your max bet normally but will triple up at the end of a shoe in a really high count (say a high enough TC to warrant tripling your max bet and only be betting full kelly) you will make more money in the long run....if you make it to the long run. A friend of mine plays a game where he always has a 3% edge over the house. He'll start with one unit and always parlay his winnings by one unit until a loss, then goes back to one unit. I'll play the same table and always flat bet. It keeps him entertained and at the end of the night if we've both won (very common), he has usually won more. If we've both lost (less common) he will have lost more but it is less pronounced then his winnings. It is never a terrible play to put more money on the table in a positive expectation, though it is often the less correct play.
BW

 

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

betting systems not based on the count are retarded.. with that said.. the true count actually is "worth more" at the end of a shoe than at the beginning.. the analysis done on this is exaggerated from what i have been told, but it is still there, thus if you bet lets say $100 at a +4 count at an early point in the shoe, you could bet lets say $110 at a +4 count late in the shoe, and it would be close to the same thing, thus, "putting more money out at a positive count is always good" isnt all there is to this, meaning you are not putting out as much "extra" money as you think you are.. if you say you are tripling your bet at the end of a shoe on a positive count, you may only be multiplying it by like 2.7 as far as what you should be betting goes.. the article i read on this was startling, and it scared me and probably a lot of other people.. it basically said that a running count of +4 with 2 decks left is NOT the same as a running count of +8 with 4 decks left, in fact the +4@2 would be worth more

 

[Sonny]

.. the true count actually is "worth more" at the end of a shoe than at the beginning…thus if you bet lets say $100 at a +4 count at an early point in the shoe, you could bet lets say $110 at a +4 count late in the shoe, and it would be close to the same thing

But I can guarantee you that the floating advantage will not change by 10% in an average shoe game (or even a good shoe game). There might be a point where you would theoretically want to bet $100.12 instead of $100, but the casino would not let you do that and the gain would be miniscule.

the article i read on this was startling, and it scared me and probably a lot of other people.. it basically said that a running count of +4 with 2 decks left is NOT the same as a running count of +8 with 4 decks left, in fact the +4@2 would be worth more

But a simulator will average these numbers together to give you your advantage at all instances of that TC. Maybe the advantage with 4 decks left is .46 and the advantage with 2 decks left is .463, but your bet is based on the average advantage. It really doesn’t matter if your advantage fluctuates a few tenths of a percent if you are playing for the long run.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But I can guarantee you that the floating advantage will not change by 10% in an average shoe game (or even a good shoe game). There might be a point where you would theoretically want to bet $100.12 instead of $100, but the casino would not let you do that and the gain would be miniscule.



But a simulator will average these numbers together to give you your advantage at all instances of that TC. Maybe the advantage with 4 decks left is .46 and the advantage with 2 decks left is .463, but your bet is based on the average advantage. It really doesn’t matter if your advantage fluctuates a few tenths of a percent if you are playing for the long run.

-Sonny-

Actually it builds up a little faster than that. Just imagine a SD game with "good Strip rules" which is what you have when you find such a game dealt down to one deck- that's +0.237% off the top, plus if you are counting your play variations will increase it even more.

But this kind of talk does not belong in a Martingale thread!!! :laugh:

 

[Sonny]

Just imagine a SD game with "good Strip rules" which is what you have when you find such a game dealt down to one deck- that's +0.237% off the top, plus if you are counting your play variations will increase it even more.

But a 52-card segment of a 312-card shoe is not the same as a SD game. You have no idea what kind of subset you’re going to get. The compositions will vary greatly. Just because you have 1 deck left doesn’t mean you’re playing a SD game.

But this kind of talk does not belong in a Martingale thread!!! :laugh:

Agreed. The last thing we need is another “I only play the last half of the shoe because it’s better than the first half” thread.

-Sonny-

 

[Automatic Monkey]

But a 52-card segment of a 312-card shoe is not the same as a SD game. You have no idea what kind of subset you’re going to get. The compositions will vary greatly. Just because you have 1 deck left doesn’t mean you’re playing a SD game.
-Sonny-

That's true, I forgot to mention I was assuming a neutral shoe at that point.