1-2-4 Unit Martingale

I have played over 10,000 hands of a 1-2-4 Martingale on the iPhone app Blackjack WorldPro and am up by a good margin. I know The Wizard doesn't give any credence to systems but I haven't been able to fail my system using a simulator. I would say I am down in live casino action but it is a small sample size. I tried figuring this out pseudo-mathematically using Excel and it seems to not work well but I am sure I am making broad incorrect assumptions (e.g., I started with the assumption that all eight three deal combinations happen equally....WWW, WWL, WLW, WLL, LWW, LWL, LLW, LLL) Anyone use this system? Can any one figure out the house/player edge?

System:
Start at one unit
Bet one unit after every win
Double the bet after a loss and a subsequent loss (1 then 2 then 4)
Start over at one unit after three consecutive losses
Pushes are ignored in the betting progression
Double downs, splits, BJs are ignored in the betting progression
I do not count cards
I use 8 decks at 80% penetration but I am not sure that matters

Three consecutive losses certainly happen with regularity (7 unit loss). But you are continually winning one unit and the extras (double downs, splits, blackjack) get magnified at the 2 and 4 unit bets.

A few years ago there was a lawsuit in which game programmers had rigged some handheld/computer-based games to payout more often than would randomly occur in an actual fair game found in a casino. The suit alleged that it was more likely to cause gambling addiction and encourage "problem" casino gambling. I wonder if some of todays phone apps and computer-based versions use some of the same algorithms. I had an app on my phone a few years ago that was definitely this way. It was fun to play because I won way more often than I lost - regardless of my betting strategies in many cases. I quickly discovered, however, it was a terrible way to "test" new strategies. I would be careful what software you use when practicing and testing so you won't be dissapointed when you go to the casino where the money is real.

Thanks for the information. I have gone to the casino a few times because of this game! I should at least try different simulators. I just love the game play and the stats kept in this particular game. I am probably making the assumption that the algorithm in the game is good because my winning percentage is what it should be. I do go on very bad streaks in the game but I am up overall. I know deep down that this system doesn't work and I need it disproven before I lose any more real $.

Quote: skrbornevrymin

A few years ago there was a lawsuit in which game programmers had rigged some handheld/computer-based games to payout more often than would randomly occur in an actual fair game found in a casino. The suit alleged that it was more likely to cause gambling addiction and encourage "problem" casino gambling. I wonder if some of todays phone apps and computer-based versions use some of the same algorithms. I had an app on my phone a few years ago that was definitely this way. It was fun to play because I won way more often than I lost - regardless of my betting strategies in many cases. I quickly discovered, however, it was a terrible way to "test" new strategies. I would be careful what software you use when practicing and testing so you won't be dissapointed when you go to the casino where the money is real.

How are surrenders treated? Loss or push?

Quote: skrbornevrymin

A few years ago there was a lawsuit in which game programmers had rigged some handheld/computer-based games to payout more often than would randomly occur in an actual fair game found in a casino.

Even the old Nintendo Gameboy had a Casino game which was rigged in letting the player win. You could flat bet the slots until you "broke the casinos bank" almost every time.

I do not surrender when the dealer has Ace nor do I take even money when I have blackjack and the dealer is showing an Ace. If one were to do that I would think that those would be outside the betting progression.

Quote: PatrickKiefer

How are surrenders treated? Loss or push?

Quote: rtoothman

but I am sure I am making broad incorrect assumptions (e.g., I started with the assumption that all eight three deal combinations happen equally....WWW, WWL, WLW, WLL, LWW, LWL, LLW, LLL)

There is a broad incorrect assumption right there. Losses are more likely than wins, so all eight combinations will not happen equally. You will Lose three in a row more times than you will win three in a row, etc.

deleted

I've been playing a similar system with roulette. I downloaded a free casino app for iPad and I'll bet 5 on each of two of the thirds. So betting two units but ahead one after a hit. I must TRIPLE after a loss to insure ahead after wins. I've gone from 1000 to 3000 without any losing sessions. I've reached my max bet of 405 a couple times but always hit. Since the app was free and doesn't seem to be the greatest quality, I suspect the algorithm isn't the best..

If you look around on this website and WizardofOdds.com you can find several discussions that include the mathematics of the martingale strategy. It fails faster than flat betting because you are exposing an increased amount of money to the house edge in a shorter amount of time. It is also surprising how often you would face your maximum bet even if you carried it out several more generations.

If you want to beat the house edge in blackjack you have to learn to count cards and spread your bets sufficiently to overcome it. However, it actually requires a surprisingly large bankroll to avoid the "risk of ruin" inherent in such a strategy.

If you are just a casual player, I would recommend a strategy that is a flat bet most of the time and has a mechanism for increasing itself when you are winning. I personally like to use progression that increases when I win 3 hands before I lose 2 hands. If I am winning more often than I am losing the bet goes up. If I am not winning the bet reverts to the base amount until another "winning streak" comes along. I usually start with a 2-unit bet and increase by 1 unit per step. I can often create a profit of at least 10 units at some point before losing 20 units. It seems to work for my needs and I have fun with it. The hardest part is to quit while you are winning because winning is fun, so I would recommend setting a "stopping point" such as being up "x" units or a loosing streak of "n" hands. Try to avoid the most common stopping point of "my money is gone." In addition, I would definately avoid any system that causes you to increase your bet when you are losing (such as the martingale) because it makes a bad situation (a losing streak) worse.

Quote: skrbornevrymin

If you look around on this website and WizardofOdds.com you can find several discussions that include the mathematics of the martingale strategy. It fails faster than flat betting because you are exposing an increased amount of money to the house edge in a shorter amount of time. It is also surprising how often you would face your maximum bet even if you carried it out several more generations.

If you want to beat the house edge in blackjack you have to learn to count cards and spread your bets sufficiently to overcome it. However, it actually requires a surprisingly large bankroll to avoid the "risk of ruin" inherent in such a strategy.

If you are just a casual player, I would recommend a strategy that is a flat bet most of the time and has a mechanism for increasing itself when you are winning. I personally like to use progression that increases when I win 3 hands before I lose 2 hands. If I am winning more often than I am losing the bet goes up. If I am not winning the bet reverts to the base amount until another "winning streak" comes along. I usually start with a 2-unit bet and increase by 1 unit per step. I can often create a profit of at least 10 units at some point before losing 20 units. It seems to work for my needs and I have fun with it. The hardest part is to quit while you are winning because winning is fun, so I would recommend setting a "stopping point" such as being up "x" units or a loosing streak of "n" hands. Try to avoid the most common stopping point of "my money is gone." In addition, I would definately avoid any system that causes you to increase your bet when you are losing (such as the martingale) because it makes a bad situation (a losing streak) worse.

The strategy of increasing one after wins and reverting back to base amount after loss is pretty good I think. Ultimately, I think it losses more in the long run if not counting but I had a very good run for about six weeks. I found that most sessions didn't last very long, maybe. An average of twenty minutes.

You know you could try this.
Find a table minimum of 10 or so, craps would work well.
Then, just take around 50 dollars and every once in awhile just make a passline bet, that way the dealers won't think your just hanging around not bettng.

...then in your head, or even on paper if you wish, pretend your making your real martingale bets, and just keep track, then you will have some real results from your idea, and you won't have to risk all the dough for your trials ;)

just my thoughts.

I have been playing this exact 1-2-4 system at my kitchen counter for the past 5 years (it's become a habit-- waiting for the coffee to make, or the toaster to go off, etc.) 2 decks (for convenience of shuffling), S17, DAS. I play perfect basic strategy, 3 hands at a time running the system independently on each, $5 unit bet.

I'm on board with the obvious truth that house advantage stays the same regardless of the bet. And of course it follows that if you bet more, you lose more in the long run.

Nevertheless, in my pretty long run here, I have found that this system is a pretty good way to break even. I'm currently up ~$2300. I've been down ~$3000 and up ~$3000. I've had some horrible losing streaks that if they happened in a casino I'd have never let myself go that far. But, w/fake money, I just keep at it, and have always come back.

I accept math and logic. I don't believe in magic. I know that betting systems don't change expectation. But something is different with this style of play vs. flat betting. It seems that with flat betting, you have smaller swings with an overall downward trend. With this 1-2-4 betting, you have bigger swings and overall break even (or at least it seems to make the long run in which you lose much longer).

Can someone explain what's going on here mathematically? For one thing, it seems we need to compare the odds of losing 3 in a row (result: -7 units) to the odds of winning 1 in 3 hands 7 times in a row (result: +7 units).

Quote: skrbornevrymin

If you look around on this website and WizardofOdds.com you can find several discussions that include the mathematics of the martingale strategy. It fails faster than flat betting because you are exposing an increased amount of money to the house edge in a shorter amount of time. It is also surprising how often you would face your maximum bet even if you carried it out several more generations.

If you want to beat the house edge in blackjack you have to learn to count cards and spread your bets sufficiently to overcome it. However, it actually requires a surprisingly large bankroll to avoid the "risk of ruin" inherent in such a strategy.

If you are just a casual player, I would recommend a strategy that is a flat bet most of the time and has a mechanism for increasing itself when you are winning. I personally like to use progression that increases when I win 3 hands before I lose 2 hands. If I am winning more often than I am losing the bet goes up. If I am not winning the bet reverts to the base amount until another "winning streak" comes along. I usually start with a 2-unit bet and increase by 1 unit per step. I can often create a profit of at least 10 units at some point before losing 20 units. It seems to work for my needs and I have fun with it. The hardest part is to quit while you are winning because winning is fun, so I would recommend setting a "stopping point" such as being up "x" units or a loosing streak of "n" hands. Try to avoid the most common stopping point of "my money is gone." In addition, I would definately avoid any system that causes you to increase your bet when you are losing (such as the martingale) because it makes a bad situation (a losing streak) worse.

Finally, I found someone who is using his head rather than maths in gambling....hat's off to you, Sir!

I use a 1-2-4 martingale when I gamble, but not for blackjack. It has worked out fairly well for me. However, I have strict win/loss goals that get me in and out of the game whether I win or lose. The key to winning (IMO) is to bet larger units out of a large bankroll for a short period of time at the tables. I think the longer you play the more likely you will lose; just my opinion though.

The good ole Marty can be fun since it seems to initially work better than flat betting, but over a decade of casino experience has taught me that you will eventually bust out if you keep using this terrible system.

The last time I attempted the Marty in baccarat, I donated $1.2K to the casino within minutes after losing 8 hands in a row! ;-(

I finally came to my senses recently and abandoned this crappy system for good.