A progressive betting progression, such as the Martingale has supervenient advantages. Because of the double downs, we would be able to add on more money to a progressive bet.
Unless you lose that bet, then the next bet is beyond what the martingale double would have been.Originally Posted by blackjackwarrior
The only true "advantage" to a martingale is the theory that, with no capped bet, one could never lose. Eventually you will win and the difference between wins and losses at nearly an infinite amount of hands, will be the original bet. So, say you play a 5 dollar hand with a martingale, you're only going to make 5 dollars by the time the "progression" pays out, then you'll repeat again. Unfortunately, every table that I've ever seen has a cap on it, and its a tight enough cap to limit you to 6-8 progressions of a margingale, which just isn't enough for the risk.
Even the "mini" progression bet of 1-3-2-6u system just doesn't work. Its basically streak betting. At the end of the day, any type of progressive bet is based solely on "luck" or short term positive variance to back its "legit" outcome.
At the end of the day, its just silly, and you won't make money in the long run.
"A progressive betting progression, such as the Martingale has supervenient advantages." I think the term "supervenient" actually hits the nail on the head as far as the respondents to your post are concerned, blackjackwarrior. Progressive betting systems have no ability to overcome the supervenient disadvantage of casino games. They are still working within, and bound by, a rule set or system where the house has the overall advantage. And that advantage that includes calculation of double down outcomes (which, when playing basic strategy, are advantageous on average and involve bigger bets - however that advantage does not make up for the disadvantage from other hands). The size of betting, whether flat, random, or progressive makes no difference when it comes to blackjack being a losing game (unless you are using advantage play to understand shifts in odds, like counting).
The only advantage to a positive betting progression is how it shapes the distribution of your results, if that is what you're trying to accomplish. It will limit your downside session/trip risk and give you mostly small losing sessions with a chance for a big score if a long winning streak comes your way. For a non-counter this seems to be a fairly reasonable way to play and if you don't suddenly jack up your bets when you hit the big streak or play too much you may well find yourself ahead of the game for a long time if the streak comes early in your playing lifetime. Posi-progressions are a reasonable money management strategy for non-counting squares but don't change the overall house advantage one iota.
The opposite thing is accomplished by a negative progression. You win most of the time (which is what makes them so seductive), but when you lose you get absolutely destroyed. This does not sound like a fun OR responsible way to play.
Either way, the House will win what it's supposed to win because you cannot change the basic math that is Edge x Action = EV.
Think of defined progression bets within positive true count buckets while both winning and losing. Add some opposition betting into the mix. You need a solid roll to pull this off. Averages 4-5 units per hour.
This is not to be confused with Martingale or Progressive betting systems.
Oh come on... the only time people don't win with Martingale is when they don't follow the system - usually because they can't place a big enough bet, either because they're undercapitalized (common) or the house won't take action at that magnitude (also common).
Being under-bankrolled is a problem, no matter what method you use, martingale just has extremely high bankroll requirements.
You only need what... about 16.3 million units to ride through a 24 bet losing streak?
May the cards fall in your favor.
The interesting thing about a Martingale, is that proponents say that you cannot lose with an infinite bankroll. Of course, you cannot win either since you cannot increase an infinite bankroll.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Martingale is a perfectly fine system, so long as you can double your bet after every loss. As soon as you can't double your bet, the system breaks down, and you've lost a lot of money.
I'm not a Martingale proponent for any conditions I've seen. Table maximum and bankroll always seem to limit the success.
May the cards fall in your favor.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks