|
| rtpud Member since: Sep 2, 2010
Threads: 6
Posts: 26 | Quote: andraaklly I disagree with you -- it is too simplistic to say that any overall house advantage would automatically mean that a betting system will lose, in a game with occasional variable odds. Remember, with Martingale you can lose 80% or more of your overall bets and still come out a winner. You just don't want negative streaks. You calculate the probability of a long negative streak (which will kill Martingale) based on the overall house advantage. However, that is not correct in blackjack where occasionally bets are made with better odds. Perhaps if the house advantage is big enough, you may still come out a loser, but you would rather have a game with variable odds than with consistent odds to break streaks. Lets say that you are in the 10-20-40-80-160 progression, the ability to place another 160 down with better than 50% odds (if you get 11 against a 6, for example) helps to break streaks. You can say, well that is factored into the overall odds of a 51-49 house advantage with perfect basic strategy, but I would say, that is correct when your bets are even each time, but not correct with a progressive betting system where you don't care how many wins you get you just care about not having long losing streaks.
Overall, practically you might hit the table limit or run out of money before you get enough "favorable" bets to make a difference, but theorectically I would like to see the math in a situation where there are variable odds (even occasionally) not consistent odds in a progressive betting system. That is my point.
I play Martingale because I walk into a casino about once a month with $1000 and don't care about losing it, and don't care about walking out with $700 or $1200 by playing straight bets, but care about occasionally hitting it big. Yes, I have busted many times with my $1000 after being up and then crashing. Then I walk out. But last month, I walked out with exactly $25,000 from my $1000 using Martingale. Many times, $3000 - $7000. Over time, if I played once a month for 10 years with my $1000, then added up all my winnings and losses, I would probably come out behind, unless you count. But it is a lot more fun -- playing straight Martingale 90% of the time you are up at some point (unless you hit a bad losing streak right at the beginning) and that is what is fun. According to you, no matter what in the long run, you will end up a loser with gambling. But would you want to win or lose $200-300 each time or lose your grand 75% of the time but almost always be up (before you crash, but that only takes 5 minutes) with a lot of chips on the table and occasionally walk out with LOTS of money? That is what gambling is about, entertainment. This is a lot more fun. And not as doomsday as you state -- for the reasons above.
By the way, I count too and quickly adjust my Martingale (keep high bets out) when the count is favorable and stop at only 3 progressions when the count sucks. The dealers can't figure out I am doing it, as I am always adjusting my bets and with a busy table they can't remember what progression I am on. That is probably the best way to play. Maybe that is why I am ahead, as I can get to 50% odds or perhaps more by counting...
The above post is the "advantage" of the martingale system. Shouldn't be surprising, the Wizard already produced a graph of this:  The benefit of the martingale system is that you walk away a big winner or a big loser. It gives the feeling of success or the "oh well, i lost it all" feeling. Hitting blackjack on your 1 unit bet is "meh" but hitting it after your 6th losing hand on the martingale system and BANG you feel fantastic...like a genius that cracked the game. I am not completely on board about betting systems being phooey though. I do agree that all hands are stochastic instances and rely on nothing but chance (well, mostly...obviously BJ has a running count that could influence your net EV), but for games with more complicated dynamics it feels like you could exploit those dynamics via a betting system. Let It Ride comes to mind...I don't have a good strategy for this but I can see an opportunity for development there. |
|
| thecesspit Member since: Apr 19, 2010
Threads: 38
Posts: 3109 | That's a -small- winner or big loser.. as the ratio is about 5:1 between wins and losses there... "Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept through nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire, for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829 |
