Wizard is wrong on his Martingale analysis

I understand the math that the wizard presents in slamming the Martingale system as a loser. However, his calculations assume a constant odds of winning each hand -- like Roulette. And that if you double your bet each time you lose, when you finally get a win, you have only won your minimum bet. Eventually you will hit a losing streak and lose everything.

The problem with this logic is that there are clear situations in Blackjack where you have a better than 49% odds of winning. This is when you face a favorable double down or split situation. In these cases, the chances that you will win are up to 80%. And when you win, you are winning a lot more than your original bet. This effect is not modeled into his mathematics of dissing the Martingale system, and is why Martingale is better played using Blackjack than Roulette.

For example, if you have a minimum bet of $10, then lose the $10 bet, the $20 bet, and the $40 bet, then when you win the $80 bet you only net $10. A long losing streak will kill you, and you cannot win enough of the minimums to make up for losing streaks beyond the table max or your own bankroll. However, what about when at the $80 bet level you have an 11 against a 6. You will win that almost 80% of the time. When you win a double down there, you win the $10 minimum bet PLUS the $80 you just wagered as the double. If you lose, you continue to double, and then bet $320, but if you win the $320 bet then you actually are winning $90 again, not just the original minimum bet.

Situations like favorable splits and double downs, and the occasional blackjack, actually do help the Martingale system look a lot better than the doomsday scenario he paints, when playing blackjack. It is not Roulette where all bets are the same. I think the Wizard is wrong in this one. I am not sure how you model it though? The chances of facing an occasional situation with better than 50% odds, with a big bet out, turns it in your favor. I would say that the Martingale system actually works best when you are floundering collecting your original minimum after every win, but hit it big after a big win in a favorable situation of doubling down or splitting 9s against a 6, etc.

I think that using the Martingale system, and employing card counting, is the best strategy. Wizard, you would be surprised how the occasional double down, split, or blackjack especially on a big bet turns the Martingale favorable for blackjack. Your anaysis is wrong, and lets see you model it with these facts in mind...

First, doubling an 11 against a 6 has a 67% expected return, not 80%. Beyond that, you're completely ignoring the negative possibilities at the higher levels of the Martingale. What happens when you get 8-8 against a 9, split, and lose both hands? Then you're much worse off for having raised your bet, right? Instead of losing $10, $20, or even $80, you've lost $160. To get back to even (or, I guess, +$10), you would have to increase your starting wager to $320 on the next hand...

While counting with martingale is probably good disguise, rdw is right: you are ignoring all the downsides. In the straight up game of blackjack, you don't win anywhere near 50% of your hands, so you will have deeper and longer losing streaks than one might expect. A double or split that goes wrong will kill the bankroll, as already mentionted. Very volatile, and very dangerous. It doesn't need to modeled, it won't work. I hear someone will bet you 10:1 it won't work, if you have the cajones.

Quote: andraaklly

I think that using the Martingale system, and employing card counting, is the best strategy. Wizard, you would be surprised how the occasional double down, split, or blackjack especially on a big bet turns the Martingale favorable for blackjack. Your anaysis is wrong, and lets see you model it with these facts in mind...

Six hundred years this has been debated, and there are still people who think that the Martingale system works.

Relative advantage doesn't matter. Give yourself a situation where you win 60 percent of your bets--a 50% advantage--and you will STILL inevitably go broke using a Martingale. It just takes longer.

I guess you, like the child who is told that the stovetop is hot, will have to learn through experience. It may amaze you to learn that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TRIED the Martingale, and NONE has succeeded. If this were an infallible EZ-win method of amassing riches, do you think any casino in the world would still be operating? Oh, wait, they survive because the Secret Brotherhood of Martingale Wizards only shares its methods with a select few.

Quote: mkl654321

Oh, wait, they survive because the Secret Brotherhood of Martingale Wizards only shares its methods with a select few.

The select few who pay them for lessons or buy their books, no doubt.

Blackjacks (3:2) and other better than 1:1 payouts HURT you if you are doing a martingale, making you lose faster. Every time a casino is giving better than even money on any wager, that means they are beating you that many more times above 50%, which makes longer losing streaks and more martingale-busting hands in a row. If you were forced at gunpoint to Martingale for as long as you could, I'm guessing something like Bac with no bonus payouts on the Banker or Player wager (always 1:1 or 1:1 minus commission) would keep you in the game the longest.

Quote: mkl654321

... where you win 60 percent of your bets--a 50% advantage--and you will STILL inevitably go broke using a Martingale.

If win 60%, then lose 40%... a 20% advantage?

Anyway, there are many aspects to this topic... too many for any of us to hope to properly address now in a single reply. (Other than the rhetoric, one way or the other.)

Asfaras picking one's spot(s) to morph the standard ramping of bj-bets into some sort of martingale, rightly or wrongly, i have seen players try far-worse approaches just in the name of "cover".

The biggest problem with such questions is that too few of the supposed experts are ever really "in the field", or available as such. And beyond the "endless" talk, same-old refinements to the AP stuff, etc, found on most bj message-boards... oh yes, another book to buy.

Quote: Garnabby

If win 60%, then lose 40%... a 20% advantage?

No. 50% more wins than losses=50% advantage.

Quote: Garnabby

Anyway, there are many aspects to this topic... too many for any of us to hope to properly address now in a single reply. (Other than the rhetoric, one way or the other.)

Asfaras picking one's spot(s) to morph the standard ramping of bj-bets into some sort of martingale, rightly or wrongly, i have seen players try far-worse approaches just in the name of "cover".

The biggest problem with such questions is that too few of the supposed experts are ever really "in the field", or available as such. And beyond the "endless" talk, same-old refinements to the AP stuff, etc, found on most bj message-boards... oh yes, another book to buy.

It's sort of like a discussion on alchemy in the year 2010. If someone claims to be able to turn lead into gold, I don't actually need to see his experimental apparatus to know that it won't work. Similarly, we don't need to minutely examine a Martingale, nor pay attention to any new "twist" or variation thereon, to know that it's an exercise in futility.

Quote: Garnabby

If win 60%, then lose 40%... a 20% advantage?

60/40-1 = .50, or 50%