brandnewtobj: Martingale System

[Sun Runner]

> It really has nothing to do with limits. The fact is
> you have .5% against you on every bet you make. The
> amount that a Martingale player on average will lose
> is .5% of the amount bet. Period.

Norm is right. No betting system will overcome a negative EV. Geeez, when did that axiom change?

'Brandnewtobj' needs to hear it loud and clear.

>> Norm, if you play a martingale starting at $5 and quit each and every time that you are up $5, you will land up a winner.

And who does that? Is it possible, I suppose. Probable? Pretty doubtfull. $5 bets that lose 10 in a row hit a table max of $5K. Ever lost ten in a row? I have. Now you are down $5K and are needing to win it all back $5 at a time. And yea, 'Brandnewtobj', you can get a bigger table max, but you won't be betting $5 chips anymore either. How big is your bankroll dude?

BTW, what is the average table max at a $5 table in Vegas?

Maybe it's just me, but were I a $5 bettor, and I'm beginning to have to double down on hands 6, 7, 8, 9, YIKES! I'm sweating bullets and hating life and for what .. to win $5!!

>> You might have to bet 100 million.

As far as I'm concerned, that is an INFINITE bankroll, and yea, it could be lost in a Martingale.

'Brandnewtobj' step back, learn to count, learn some other stuff, and don't play a progression. If it were doable, the idiots would be wealthy and LV would be bust.

Merry Christmas!!

[brandnewtobj]

> Norm is right. No betting system will overcome a
> negative EV. Geeez, when did that axiom change?

> 'Brandnewtobj' needs to hear it loud and clear.

> And who does that? Is it possible, I suppose.
> Probable? Pretty doubtfull. $5 bets that lose 10 in a
> row hit a table max of $5K. Ever lost ten in a row? I
> have. Now you are down $5K and are needing to win it
> all back $5 at a time. And yea, 'Brandnewtobj', you
> can get a bigger table max, but you won't be betting
> $5 chips anymore either. How big is your bankroll
> dude?

> BTW, what is the average table max at a $5 table in
> Vegas?

> Maybe it's just me, but were I a $5 bettor, and I'm
> beginning to have to double down on hands 6, 7, 8, 9,
> YIKES! I'm sweating bullets and hating life and for
> what .. to win $5!!

> As far as I'm concerned, that is an INFINITE bankroll,
> and yea, it could be lost in a Martingale.

> 'Brandnewtobj' step back, learn to count, learn some
> other stuff, and don't play a progression. If it were
> doable, the idiots would be wealthy and LV would be
> bust.

> Merry Christmas!!

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Martingale System is not a good strategy. That long losing streaks are possible and will occur eventually, inevitably. Wiping out even the deepest of pockets.

[Parker]

> It is becoming increasingly clear that the Martingale
> System is not a good strategy. That long losing
> streaks are possible and will occur eventually,
> inevitably. Wiping out even the deepest of pockets.

Now you've got it. There is nothing new here - progressions have been around almost as long as gambling, and have been thoroughly debunked. After all, if it were possible to beat the casinos with a simple betting progression (or a complex one, for that matter), they would have all gone out of business long ago. Instead, casinos welcome progression bettors with open arms.

[ES]

Suppose that the expected value for each dollar bet is n, where n is a negative number. Suppose that the player's bets are b1, b2, b3, . . . bi, . . . . etc., where each bi is determined by the results of prior bets, e.g. win, lose, total amount won or lost in all prior bets or even a predetermined sequence, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, . . . Each bi is a positive number. The total expected value is b1n + b2n + b3n + . . . + bin + . . . Each term in this sum is the product of a positive number and a negative number, which is a negative number, and thus the sum is a negative number.

[Norm Wattenberger]

So all you have to do is bet a negative amount.

> Suppose that the expected value for each dollar bet is
> n, where n is a negative number. Suppose that the
> player's bets are b1, b2, b3, . . . bi, . . . . etc.,
> where each bi is determined by the results of prior
> bets, e.g. win, lose, total amount won or lost in all
> prior bets or even a predetermined sequence, e.g. 1,
> 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, . . . Each bi is a positive number.
> The total expected value is b1n + b2n + b3n + . . . +
> bin + . . . Each term in this sum is the product of a
> positive number and a negative number, which is a
> negative number, and thus the sum is a negative
> number.

[jimmtech]

What about applying a positive progression playing only in plus counts?

This seems similar to applying a bet ramp to match the TC, but what is the difference between this and increasing the next bet using a percentage of money won of the previous bet (ONLY IN A PLUS COUNT) ?

Would this be called overbetting ?

It seems experts have varying opinions of a bankroll to max. bet ratio depending on the amount of risk one deems acceptible...

[Parker]

> What about applying a positive progression playing
> only in plus counts?

> This seems similar to applying a bet ramp to match the
> TC, but what is the difference between this and
> increasing the next bet using a percentage of money
> won of the previous bet (ONLY IN A PLUS COUNT) ?

> Would this be called overbetting ?

> It seems experts have varying opinions of a bankroll
> to max. bet ratio depending on the amount of risk one
> deems acceptible...

Our bet ramp is designed to be optimal, that is, maximizing EV while keeping risk to an acceptable level. Any deviation from this is, well, sub-optimal.

With the progression, a string of wins means we may quickly be overbetting our bankroll, increasing risk, while a loss during a positive count means we decrease our bet when we have an edge - not a good thing.

That being said, some counters use something similar to this as a form of cover. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, casinos love progressionists.

However, it is important to understand that this is being done entirely for cover purposes, and some EV is sacrificed in the process.

[MGP]

> However, it is important to understand that this is
> being done entirely for cover purposes, and some EV is
> sacrificed in the process.

EV wouldn't be sacrificed - that's the whole point of why it couldn't be gained. The variance and ROR would increase significantly though...

[ES]

> So all you have to do is bet a negative amount.

Being the house is the equivalent of betting a negative amount. Casino licenses in Atlantic City are limited to 500-room hotels.

[Artguy]

In 1964 I drove over to Vegas with this hot new system I had tweaked up. I had been told by a friend who had been told by a pit-boss that ten black or reds never came up in a row at the "wheel". I devised my progression system with a max bet at the nine-loss level.

So, I finally sit down in the Stardust, playing my chip/chips on the black. I immediately lost ten black bets in a row; lost all my money and drove back to LA within 30 minutes of having arrived.

I didn't gamble again for 40 years...then I found "21" math, counting, ST and other legal brain teasers which have put a smile back on my face...

[brandnewtobj]

> If someone could possibly have an infinite bankroll,
> what would be the point of playing at all?

I've been doing some reading about counting. It seems that in order to be successful at it, one needs a substantial bankroll too.

[Parker]

> I've been doing some reading about counting. It seems
> that in order to be successful at it, one needs a
> substantial bankroll too.

Indeed one does. However, there is a world of difference between "substantial" and "infinite."

Discussions about progressions always degenerate into this sort of hypothetical silliness. It is time to move on.