4-step Martingale on neutral/negative counts as Cover?

**trotch** · 02-03-2018, 09:47 PM

I think this might be a decent method for disguising a 1-16 spread without drawing too much attention or giving up too much EV, but I wonder what more experienced players think about the idea.

For example, playing a 10 dollar minimum shoe game, during neutral or negative counts (not substantially negative, I'd leave a table at -2 TC), I'd run a 4-step martingale, so on losing hands I'd double my bet from 10-20-40-80. If I lost the 80 hand I'd drop back down to 10 for the next hand. Assuming a house edge of around .5% at TC 0, how much EV would I be giving up doing this?

When the count goes positive, it'd be easy to say something like "I'm gonna let it ride!" or some-such. Then, when putting 160 dollar bets on the table at +5 TC, it won't look out of place to a pit critter who'd have you pegged as just another progression bettor.

So the benefit would be 1) hopefully, pit will see you sit down and start playing a progression betting system, which should immediately deflect heat. 2) At high counts no one will balk at 16x base unit bets.

The drawback of course is giving up EV by occasionally putting out inappropriately large bets in non-advantage situations.

What do you think? Could this be a winning strategy? (Assuming perfect counting + basic strategy + index plays)

**Freightman** · 02-03-2018, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by trotch

I think this might be a decent method for disguising a 1-16 spread without drawing too much attention or giving up too much EV, but I wonder what more experienced players think about the idea.

For example, playing a 10 dollar minimum shoe game, during neutral or negative counts (not substantially negative, I'd leave a table at -2 TC), I'd run a 4-step martingale, so on losing hands I'd double my bet from 10-20-40-80. If I lost the 80 hand I'd drop back down to 10 for the next hand. Assuming a house edge of around .5% at TC 0, how much EV would I be giving up doing this?

When the count goes positive, it'd be easy to say something like "I'm gonna let it ride!" or some-such. Then, when putting 160 dollar bets on the table at +5 TC, it won't look out of place to a pit critter who'd have you pegged as just another progression bettor.

So the benefit would be 1) hopefully, pit will see you sit down and start playing a progression betting system, which should immediately deflect heat. 2) At high counts no one will balk at 16x base unit bets.

The drawback of course is giving up EV by occasionally putting out inappropriately large bets in non-advantage situations.

What do you think? Could this be a winning strategy? (Assuming perfect counting + basic strategy + index plays)

Refine what you gave. Consider a dual ramp system. Strong bankroll required.

**trotch** · 02-03-2018, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Refine what you gave. Consider a dual ramp system. Strong bankroll required.

I don't know what dual ramp means, could you explain or point me in the direction of an article that lays it out? Thank you.

**Stealth** · 02-03-2018, 10:10 PM

Suggest positive 4 step martingale in negative counts rather than negative...

collect first win then chip up for each other win until win 4 and then start over
Obviously start over with any loss.

Research dual ramps as Freightman suggested for bets at =>TC2. Look at Dynamic Blackjack.

**Freightman** · 02-03-2018, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by Stealth

Suggest positive 4 step martingale in negative counts rather than negative...

collect first win then chip up for each other win until win 4 and then start over
Obviously start over with any loss.

Research dual ramps as Freightman suggested for bets at =>TC2. Look at Dynamic Blackjack.

Neither Stealth nor I will discuss much. A clue - a form of opposition betting. Look up Snyder.

**Member Name Hidden** · 02-04-2018, 04:30 AM

Yes. Snyder. Especially given the fact that he was primarily a red-chipper.

**SpikeBJ** · 02-04-2018, 11:07 AM

I appear to play a positive progression between -2 and +2. Not quite doubling on each hand won. My base bet is 15 so I really don't see much heat.

**ZenMaster_Flash** · 02-06-2018, 10:54 PM

A nice thread. We all stuck to the topic.

**vegaskid** · 02-07-2018, 03:11 AM

Yeah, Snyder laid this out as "opposition betting" in Blackbelt many years ago. Loss of EV isn't the problem, increased variance is.

**NB10** · 02-07-2018, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by SpikeBJ

I appear to play a positive progression between -2 and +2. Not quite doubling on each hand won. My base bet is 15 so I really don't see much heat.

How much does increasing your bet in a negative count/at a disadvantage cost in terms of EV on the games you play? Just trying to get an idea of cost vs cover it provides.

**Freightman** · 02-07-2018, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by vegaskid

Yeah, Snyder laid this out as "opposition betting" in Blackbelt many years ago. Loss of EV isn't the problem, increased variance is.

That can be smoothed out.

**Freightman** · 02-07-2018, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by NB10

How much does increasing your bet in a negative count/at a disadvantage cost in terms of EV on the games you play? Just trying to get an idea of cost vs cover it provides.

It's not so much increasing your bet in a negative count. It's more of increasing your bet in a declining count, or reducing your bet in a rising count. Done right, not much. Somewhere in this small thread, someone said something close to - no effect on overall EV, just an effect on variance.

**SpikeBJ** · 02-07-2018, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by NB10

How much does increasing your bet in a negative count/at a disadvantage cost in terms of EV on the games you play? Just trying to get an idea of cost vs cover it provides.

Cost me a little over $1/hour which is ~5% of my expected EV. I thought it would be a lot higher. Again I am a $15 bettor.