Robert V. Lux: progression betting in positive situations

[Robert V. Lux]

When betting a progression in games like roulette, the house has their edge to rely on, which makes it impossible to beat the wheel in the long run by using progressions such as Martingale.

Playing progressions in blackjack is considered bad. But, will the player end up a long term winner, using i.e. the Martingale, if he only bets when the count is favorable and has an advantage? It appears logical to me that the player will end up the longterm winner in those situations, or am I wrong?

Thanks in advance.
Best regards, Robert V. Lux

[Pro21]

[Don Schlesinger]

> Playing progressions in blackjack is
> considered bad. But, will the player end up
> a long term winner, using i.e. the
> Martingale, if he only bets when the count
> is favorable and has an advantage? It
> appears logical to me that the player will
> end up the longterm winner in those
> situations, or am I wrong?

It is mathematically certain that, if we overbet our advantage by more than a factor of two, eventually, we are ruined, even if playing wiht an advantage. So, if your progression leads you to make bets that are way beyond the edge you have, for the bankroll you are playing to, it is possible that you will go nowhere.

In short, bet according to the count and the edge you have, not according to a progression, which ignores your advantage.

Don

[Pro21]

What Don says is correct, but - if your idea is to Wong into positive situations and Martingale to look like a meatball, it is a solid approach that may buy you some time.

[Dreamer]

Say you wong into shoes and do a 1,2,3,4,5,6 regardless off the count then if you are not over betting your bankroll at 6 units you would be far
better off coming in and flat betting 6 units.
It looks more natural plus you are likely to get a higher comp rating.

This game is too hard to beat to start giving EV away, just play to win.

D.

> What Don says is correct, but - if your idea
> is to Wong into positive situations and
> Martingale to look like a meatball, it is a
> solid approach that may buy you some time.

[Double21]

> Don; Could you please elaborate on why, if we are overbetting our advantage by more than a factor of two, we are mathematically certain to realize ruin? This despite having an advantage on each and every bet. Thanks for your usual great post.

[John May]

"> Don; Could you please elaborate on why, if we are overbetting our advantage by more than a factor of two, we are mathematically certain to realize ruin? This despite having an advantage on each and every bet. Thanks for your usual great post."

You are not mathematically certain to realize ruin, just very close to it. For every 99.9999999% of counters who overbet, 0.00000001% will get lucky and win a fortune, winning back the losses of all the others and allowing expectation to manifest itself. If it were otherwise, then we could beat negative expectation games by simple overbetting.

Incidentally, the cover afforded by the martingale does not compensate for the loss of control of your bet size. However, the progressive approach has more merit in pitch games, provided you can reset your bet at the shuffle if required. This has two benefits:- 1) a "mild depth-charging" effect whereby more money is bet on average at deep penetration and 2) exploitation of the win/loss correlation with negative/positive counts.

The martingale is too volatile a strategy to use this approach successfully unless you are betting significantly beneath your bankroll. Progressions which escalate less dramatically, such as the D'alembert or Fibonacci progressions, however can yield significantly superior returns to flat betting. Unfortunately, they don't come remotely close to replacing the advantage from betting in accordance with the count.

The archive

[Don Schlesinger]

> Don; Could you please elaborate on why, if we are overbetting our advantage by more than a factor of two, we are mathematically certain
to realize ruin? This despite having an advantage on each and every bet.

Actually, no, I can't. You'd need to read the math concerning the Kelly criterion, and it can be found in excellent treatments of the subject in Allan Wilson's The Casino Gambler's Guide, and Hausch and Ziemba's Beat the Racetrack, among others.

But, the idea is simple. Just because you have an edge doesn't mean you can bet anything you want, in relation to your bank. Suppose we flip a coin with 51% chance for heads and 49% for tails. You have a $100 bank and should be betting your edge, or $2, on each toss, if you bet heads. Suppose, instead, that you decide to bet, say, $50 on each toss. Sooner or later (probably sooner!) an adverse streak is going to wipe you out, no?

Don

[G Man]