martingale better suited for blackjack?
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
Quote: netwerkerI started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
This is pretty much the opposite of limiting your risk.
Quote:2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
The house's edge over you is the total amount that you bet multiplied by the percentage edge. So, the more you bet, the higher their edge.
If you fail to double or split when you are supposed to, the house's edge is even bigger. Huge, actually, for the hands that you refuse to double or split.
If you want to reduce the edge in blackjack (or maybe even beat the game) learn to count. It's not hard.
Quote: netwerkerI started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
The only way to get ahead in blackjack is to count, make strategy adjustments based on the count, and have a big bankroll.
Quote: netwerkerI started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
1. Putting as much money as you can at risk isn't limiting risk.
2. This only helps if you never go back. Eventually, you're going to put the money at risk...
3. How does this help? What happens if you get to the magic number and you're in the middle of a series? If reached spin #1000 and had lost 5 in a row, would you strand those losses and walk away?
It does not follow - at all, really - that winning most of your sessions means you'd be up overall. The martingale trades lots of little wins for a few huge losses. Winning most of your sessions in no way guarantees that your wins will exceed your losses overall. 1+1+1+1+1-1000 is a very large negative number...
If you do martingale on BJ, it's not too hard to get around splits and doubles. If you net win, start over. If you net push, redo. If you net lose, pick a rule about whether you'll just double or whether you'll bet to be up 1 unit after the net loss. It's not too bad to manage through.
Quote: rdw4potus1. Putting as much money as you can at risk isn't limiting risk.
2. This only helps if you never go back. Eventually, you're going to put the money at risk...
3. How does this help? What happens if you get to the magic number and you're in the middle of a series? If reached spin #1000 and had lost 5 in a row, would you strand those losses and walk away?
It does not follow - at all, really - that winning most of your sessions means you'd be up overall. The martingale trades lots of little wins for a few huge losses. Winning most of your sessions in no way guarantees that your wins will exceed your losses overall. 1+1+1+1+1-1000 is a very large negative number...
If you do martingale on BJ, it's not too hard to get around splits and doubles. If you net win, start over. If you net push, redo. If you net lose, pick a rule about whether you'll just double or whether you'll bet to be up 1 unit after the net loss. It's not too bad to manage through.
It's not what do you do after the split/double hand....it's how do you play it. Do you double down your A8v6? Split your 99v8? Double your 11vT? Of course, you SHOULD according to basic strategy, but basic strategy maximizes EV per hand and does not minimize RISK, which should be taken into account when playing such an idiotic system like the Martingale.
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
Quote:Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
Then you say:
Quote:when playing bj, i strictly follow this guide https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
These are contradictory statements.
Also, if you are playing for real money, learn real basic strategy, not that simplified stuff.
Quote: netwerkerwhen playing bj, i strictly follow this guide https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
These rules suck. No double after split is uncommon and gross
Quote: netwerkerI started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
Martingale, flat betting, positive progression.. It doesn't matter what system of betting you do for roullete and craps, the house edge is still the same. And if your playing blackjack and not executing all proper splits and doubles for the full amount, then you're just making the house edge even worse.
Quote: michael99000Martingale, flat betting, positive progression.. It doesn't matter what system of betting you do for roullete and craps, the house edge is still the same. And if your playing blackjack and not executing all proper splits and doubles for the full amount, then you're just making the house edge even worse.
Obv you suffer from Mathematicians Fallacy. Lol
Quote: Lemieux66Obv you suffer from Mathematicians Fallacy. Lol
Yes but my doctor has me on something to control it.
Quote: netwerkerwhen playing bj, i strictly follow this guide https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
What are the table limits on your BJ and craps games? If I was dead-set on playing a marty, I might consider doing it on a game like craps where splits/doubles weren't a concern. BJ starts with a lower edge, but lost splits/doubles increase the effective HE by increasing the likelihood that the table max will bite you.
Quote: netwerkerI started experimenting with the martingale system. I know it's a losing system in the long run but there are a couple things you can do to limit your risk:
1. bring as much to the table as you can (max table limit)
2. set a goal and walk away once you reach it
3. set a max number of spins or dice rolls (roulette/craps).
using these rules, I've won most of my sessions and thus, I am up overall. I was wondering if the house might have less of an edge if I use the same system in blackjack. Obviously, split hands and double-downs throw a wrench in the system so they would be used only with the smaller bets or not at all.
thoughts?
This is absurd. Using martingale, you can expect to be ahead a good portion of the time because it tilts the house edge. Like a delay--instead of a constant stream, you dam it up, then it suddenly comes at you in a flood. What happens is that you will, very quickly--and much more quickly than the worst of players--end up losing all your gains. You are not limiting your risk, you are increasing it. Setting goals is nonsense, you are playing a negative expectation game. A max number of spins/rolls is similar nonsense. Any martingale user will win most sessions. You are playing with the same house edge as everyone else, only with a different standard deviation; martingale changes the variance, not the house's advantage. Of course, since you don't double down or split when it is optimal, you obviously are far from playing perfect strategy. So you are playing with a higher house edge than everyone else. You are basically a very poor player, which results in a higher than normal house edge--using a system that will result in frequent small wins and occasional massive losses. You have been gambling this whole time with a horrible system that does not work. If you don't quit while your ahead, you will regret it.
Quote: netwerkerwhen playing bj, i strictly follow this guide https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/
no one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
dealer hits on soft 17
BJ pays 3:2
dealer uses 6 decks
no surrender
no double after split
What am I missing? Did you really just ask which game gives you the best odds between BJ (at the above mentioned rules) or Roulette?????
Unless I'm monumentally naive or I have missed something quite blatant, perhaps you should do some more investigation before trying to put more money at risk on games you clearly don't understand AT ALL!
Quote: TomspurWhat am I missing? Did you really just ask which game gives you the best odds between BJ (at the above mentioned rules) or Roulette?????
Unless I'm monumentally naive or I have missed something quite blatant, perhaps you should do some more investigation before trying to put more money at risk on games you clearly don't understand AT ALL!
His question is in regards to his system.
When playing a system like that, you want to avoid (I assume) those wild swings (variance), that are mostly caused by (in BJ) splits and doubles. If you're betting on the outside in roulette (black/red, odd/even, first/last 18), you're not going to have that kind of variance. Although, yes, there is a higher HE in roulette, I'm going to say you're probably better off playing roulette than BJ, because you don't have to double down and whatnot in roulette. At least, you might be able to stay alive longer in roulette than BJ. Your best bet is likely to be at a craps table, martingale on the pass (or don't pass).
In my opinion, the best betting system out there today, is not to use one!
]Quote: RSHis question is in regards to his system.
When playing a system like that, you want to avoid (I assume) those wild swings (variance), that are mostly caused by (in BJ) splits and doubles. If you're betting on the outside in roulette (black/red, odd/even, first/last 18), you're not going to have that kind of variance. Although, yes, there is a higher HE in roulette, I'm going to say you're probably better off playing roulette than BJ, because you don't have to double down and whatnot in roulette. At least, you might be able to stay alive longer in roulette than BJ. Your best bet is likely to be at a craps table, martingale on the pass (or don't pass).
In my opinion, the best betting system out there today, is not to use one!
Yeah, I'm with you. The fact of the matter is still that even with low variance bets such as the even money bets on AR it doesn't change the fact that you are giving away 5.26% whereas you give away 0.5% average on the blackjack tables. If you use his system he is going to perhaps lose money slower on the even money bets but he will still lose money.
If he is looking for longevity, you are absolutely right. If he thinks his system will allow him to win, he is gravely mistaken, even in the short term.
Quote: Tomspur]
Yeah, I'm with you. The fact of the matter is still that even with low variance bets such as the even money bets on AR it doesn't change the fact that you are giving away 5.26% whereas you give away 0.5% average on the blackjack tables. If you use his system he is going to perhaps lose money slower on the even money bets but he will still lose money.
If he is looking for longevity, you are absolutely right. If he thinks his system will allow him to win, he is gravely mistaken, even in the short term.
The Wizard, in the blackjack section of his site, lists the effect on house edge of NEVER splitting or doubling as -1.91% (I'm surprised it's not even worse)... So after thinking this over, I believe that using a martingale system in blackjack is much better then using it in roullette. Even under average bj rules, the -1.91 would not get you to worse than roulettes -5.26%. You just play hands like 8-8 vs a dealer 7 like you would play 10-6. It sucks but if your married to your martingale system and hell bent on never losing on a given hand more than you originally put in the bet circle, then this is the better way. Even better is if you get lucky and get dealt a blackjack on the 6th or 7th martingale double up.
Edit: just to be clear I don't use martingale, condone using martingale, or even allow people who use martingale to make direct eye contact with me. I'm just trying to answer the OP's question regarding which game is better suited for it.
Quote: michael99000The Wizard, in the blackjack section of his site, lists the effect on house edge of NEVER splitting or doubling as -1.91% (I'm surprised it's not even worse)... So after thinking this over, I believe that using a martingale system in blackjack is much better then using it in roullette. Even under average bj rules, the -1.91 would not get you to worse than roulettes -5.26%. You just play hands like 8-8 vs a dealer 7 like you would play 10-6. It sucks but if your married to your martingale system and hell bent on never losing on a given hand more than you originally put in the bet circle, then this is the better way. Even better is if you get lucky and get dealt a blackjack on the 6th or 7th martingale double up.
Edit: just to be clear I don't use martingale, condone using martingale, or even allow people who use martingale to make direct eye contact with me. I'm just trying to answer the OP's question regarding which game is better suited for it.
much appreciated, thanks! If we meet on the street I will avert my gaze.
Most pressers press when they are winning. These people seem to have more fun.
Quote: netwerkerno one has answered my question. I know all the pitfalls and fallacies involved with this system, thanks anyway for the advice. All I'm asking is, given the same bankroll and the following bj rules, which gives me better odds, bj or roulette?
Martingale bettors should be more concerned about the probability of consecutive losses than HE.
Even under liberal rules, the probability of consecutive losses is much higher for Blackjack than Roulette, Craps or Baccarat.
The Banker bet in Baccarat has the lowest probability for consecutive losses.
It wins 50.7% of the time.
This discussion reminded me of a challenge the Wizard accepted ten years ago.
Rainsong
What intrigued me about the challenge was that Rainsong's system lasted 168,621 hands.
The Rules were the most liberal that anyone could imagine.
His book "Blackjack A winning Procedure -Using Statistical Performances" is available on Kindle.
I saw a hard cover version on E-Bay for $400.
It's not whether martingale is better suited for blackjack; it's whether blackjack is better suited for martingale.
Since we all know that your expected losses are exactly the percent house edge multiplied by your total bets, the betting system becomes irrelevant. So the question reduces to, is blackjack a game with a lower house edge than roulette? And we all know that the answer is yes. Blackjack is SUCH a better game than roulette that even if you refuse to double or split on your big bets (multiplying the house edge by a factor of about 5) it's STILL significantly better than roulette. That is more of a statement of how bad roulette is than how good blackjack is, though.
So, yes, regardless of betting system, blackjack is better than roulette.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe thing is, the question is poorly phrased.
It's not whether martingale is better suited for blackjack; it's whether blackjack is better suited for martingale.
Since we all know that your expected losses are exactly the percent house edge multiplied by your total bets, the betting system becomes irrelevant. So the question reduces to, is blackjack a game with a lower house edge than roulette? And we all know that the answer is yes. Blackjack is SUCH a better game than roulette that even if you refuse to double or split on your big bets (multiplying the house edge by a factor of about 5) it's STILL significantly better than roulette. That is more of a statement of how bad roulette is than how good blackjack is, though.
So, yes, regardless of betting system, blackjack is better than roulette.
Per resolution, I definitely agree with you. But per unit of time, it's quite close. If you don't split or double, the house edge of BJ is about 2.5%. So, if the BJ game is twice as fast as the roulette game, you'll lose at about the same rate in both games. And, if you can find single-0 roulette, you'll lose much more slowly than you will at BJ without splits or doubles.
I can't understand why it is so popular. The house edge is astronomical and it's too slow for me to get my gambling fix in. It's like playing slots at one spin every 2 minutes, except that you have to stand. It's pretty much the worst game that I can think of.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceFair enough. Roulette is a painfully slow game.
I can't understand why it is so popular. The house edge is astronomical and it's too slow for me to get my gambling fix in. It's like playing slots at one spin every 2 minutes, except that you have to stand. It's pretty much the worst game that I can think of.
A lot of people don't trust any game that's run by a computer. Roulette is very simple, no strategy cards to memorize... It's not computerized, you see the result play out right in front of you.. And it offers low risk/high reward payouts that games such as blackjack don't. (Not considering bj side bets). And also, some people prefer a slow game. If your there for the entertainment then why would you want speed.
Quote: michael99000A lot of people don't trust any game that's run by a computer. Roulette is very simple, no strategy cards to memorize... It's not computerized, you see the result play out right in front of you.. And it offers low risk/high reward payouts that games such as blackjack don't. (Not considering bj side bets). And also, some people prefer a slow game. If your there for the entertainment then why would you want speed.
I don't have the attention span for that.
If I'm going to play a slow game for fun, I will sit at the baccarat table, get a glass of the best scotch that they will comp me, sit back in the nice comfortable chair, relax, and light up a cigar. Then, the gambling is just an afterthought, so I don't mind that it's slow.
Standard flim-flam. Seller A lists the book, then his partner B buys it for $400. Now it has established value for the chumps. A or B uses new identity to sell copies, notes , whatever.
Similar scam on Amazon. If only one new book listed it might be $149 or higher. I love it when i get a copy of same book, list it for $49 and it sells . LOL
Quote: TankoMartingale bettors should be more concerned about the probability of consecutive losses than HE.
Even under liberal rules, the probability of consecutive losses is much higher for Blackjack than Roulette, Craps or Baccarat.
The Banker bet in Baccarat has the lowest probability for consecutive losses.
It wins 50.7% of the time.
This discussion reminded me of a challenge the Wizard accepted ten years ago.
Rainsong
What intrigued me about the challenge was that Rainsong's system lasted 168,621 hands.
The Rules were the most liberal that anyone could imagine.
His book "Blackjack A winning Procedure -Using Statistical Performances" is available on Kindle.
I saw a hard cover version on E-Bay for $400.
yes, exactly. I should've simply asked, is it more likely that I'll lose 6 spins in a row out of 30 spins total or 6 bj hands in a row out of 30 hands total?
Quote: TankoMartingale bettors should be more concerned about the probability of consecutive losses than HE.
I disagree with this. In fact, I think that this is the same fallacy that martingale bettors use to come to the false conclusion that martingale betting is a good idea. (It's based on the premise that what is important is your probability of having a winning session, rather than your total amount won or lost after several sessions).
Martingale or not, the player will lose less money at blackjack.
Quote: TankoMartingale bettors should be more concerned about the probability of consecutive losses than HE.
.
Not true.
Because that's like saying that betting both the 2nd and 3rd dozen in roulette is a better Martingale play then let's say bacarrat or blackjack, and it's not.
