BlackJack- Card Counting + Optimum Martingale = Proven Effectiveness

Quote: Thunk

I intend to prove to you, however, that by tweaking the strategy a bit, the "optimum martingale" as I call it can be used to mask card-counting detectors employed by the casinos.


I found that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, reseting(sic) your bet to the original low was most effective when you reset after a three-hand losing streak.

Just show the proof, if you have one.

I just reread the original post. The poster just went through over a 1000 hands playing the martingale, and then figured out with the SMALL sample size, what would have been the optimal reset point. Explicitly leaving out counting.

Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.

2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!

Quote: dwheatley

I just reread the original post. The poster just went through over a 1000 hands playing the martingale, and then figured out with the SMALL sample size, what would have been the optimal reset point. Explicitly leaving out counting.

Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.

2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!

I agree about the total lack of any actual proof at all, but I'm kind of intrigued by the premise. I think a 1-8 unit martingale would be a fairly effective way to mask a 16 or 32 unit jump bet when counting.

Betting systems are all equally worthless, unless of course you have the advantage.

It's not your martingale that's making you win, it's the counting. Any simulation or real hands played w/ the martingale that shows a profit on a -EV game simply means it's not a large enough sample size. Placing -EV bets results in a loss no matter what betting system you use (unless you're martingaling with no table limits and an infinite bankroll)

You're just using the "betting system" as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea.

Nothing like doubling your bets if you're losing as the count's skyrocketing. When you finally win, if the pit boss is around, breathe a deep sigh of relief and say something like "good old martingale, never fails!" and maybe start talking about all the money you win at roulette doing it :D

I just reread the original post. The poster just went through over a 1000 hands playing the martingale, and then figured out with the SMALL sample size, what would have been the optimal reset point. Explicitly leaving out counting.

Um... 1st) you can't go through past results and prove that a useless strategy is optimized by setting a certain parameter. a) that's not how you prove things. b) The martingale is ultimately useless regardless of your reset point.

2nd) how did you make the leap to counting? How does martingale + counting = money? Your 'experiment' specifically left out counting!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely, you did not read the post. I go into great detail about when to employ counting, and the answer is constantly. You keep a running total of the count without adjusting your bet to the count. That is how you set the card-counting detectors off, if you play like a computer. You will, however, let the count effect your gameplay. Only when the count is extremely high or low will you let it effect your betting, i.e. continuing to double after a win (no reset), doubling past three loses if the count justifies it, or halving your bets per hand when the count is incredibly low. (this is tricky because you need experience to know when to actually let the count effect your bet)

Other than that, the only goal of my experiment was to optimize the martingale system as an undercount. I cannot test two variables in the same experiment, let alone three (those three variables being optimum reset, when to employ counting per gameplay, and when to employ counting per betting). I mean, do I really have to run yet another test on how much card counting improves your game? I aimed to eliminate play most counters employ in order to separate myself from most counters, and I do so by gearing count information towards cardplay in a low-risk environment, and sparsely gearing count information towards the bet on the table.

Um... 1st) How else am I supposed to prove the optimum reset point without reseting parameters from past results. a) You can't complain about a theory until you read it with an open mind. b) That's not how you get taken seriously. c) the martingale is useless, as I discussed in the first sentence.

2nd) I'm not looking to write a book, I'm looking to optimize an undercount that isn't completely pedestrian.

f2d understands.

"You're just using the "betting system" as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea."

Most card counters flat-bet until the count is high or low enough to make an impact, some have a continuously exponential or linear relationship with the count or their bet. I have neither :)

Quote: Thunk

f2d understands.

"You're just using the "betting system" as cover for increasing your bets, which isn't a bad idea."

Most card counters flat-bet until the count is high or low enough to make an impact, some have a continuously exponential or linear relationship with the count or their bet. I have neither :)

What exactly does your betting look like? Does the Martingale pattern hold most of the time? Or does the count disrupt the Martingale enough that your bets appear random?

Quote: rdw4potus

What exactly does your betting look like? Does the Martingale pattern hold most of the time? Or does the count disrupt the Martingale enough that your bets appear random?

He says he'll martingale up to 4 units (3 times = 1, 2, 4) if the count's even or negative, and unlimited if the count's positive.

This way he just looks like another idiot trying a dumb betting system instead of a counter.

While betting this way surely isn't optimal for RoR, it may actually have a larger overall EV if it allows you to spread say, 1 - 20 instead of 1 - 8

I think a willingness to act a little would help the situation a good bit. What youd do is play "scared" to bet more than 4 or 8 units in the martingale when the count is negative, then "get the guts" to bet big and "pay yourself back" when the count is high.

I still reject the premise that 1000 is enough trials to prove a theory, but I think there might be some promise here to deflect attention from card counting. Especially in a big corporate casino where it can all be done on one table. Where I run into trouble is that around here, limits are $5 to $200 or $25 to $500. I'd need to go find a $5-$1000 (closest is in northern IA) or $25-$10k (closest is in northern IN) table to really make it work. Oh, and I'd need to find $10k, too...:-)

Quote: rdw4potus

I think a willingness to act a little would help the situation a good bit. What youd do is play "scared" to bet more than 4 or 8 units in the martingale when the count is negative, then "get the guts" to bet big and "pay yourself back" when the count is high.

I still reject the premise that 1000 is enough trials to prove a theory, but I think there might be some promise here to deflect attention from card counting. Especially in a big corporate casino where it can all be done on one table. Where I run into trouble is that around here, limits are $5 to $200 or $25 to $500. I'd need to go find a $5-$1000 (closest is in northern IA) or $25-$10k (closest is in northern IN) table to really make it work. Oh, and I'd need to find $10k, too...:-)

It'll also help if you buy in for EXACTLY like 6 bets or something.

Example:

Your smallest bet is 25

Buy in for 1575 and stack your chips in front of you in the following stacks:

25
50
100
200
400
800

I dont think anything could possibly scream sucker louder then that.

Plus if/when you actually USE those 400 or 800 bets (which would be a whopping 32-1 spread) it'll draw a lot less heat if it's prestacked since the pit boss knows you'll be doing it sooner or later. You won't be the first person to try martingaling at the blackjack table. Im sure plenty of people have done this and busted out in short order.