When do you know, a system works?

First of all: I am new to this board and sorry for my English. I try to keep it as short as possible:

I started with 2000 € in an online casino and I´m only playing live dealer blackjack. I´m playing a modified positive progression system, I can post the detailed system if somebody wants to know it. I play for about 2 weeks now and I doubled my stake to 4000. But I always start with 5 euro and just have to wait until a win streak (about 6 or 7 wins in a row) comes. Nothing else. No betting over 10 bucks, when there wasn´t a win streak before. So after plenty of hours playing (and until today it was only a matter of time until the wins came) I start to get curious about the question: Does this system really work for a long time? Or would you say it is just a question time until I lose all my wins again (even if I stick to my 5 euro bets)? I am not a math genius, but I think you have to win with the positive progression, provided you have enough money at the start (if the first win row takes a while), or not?

Thanks for your advices.

No system will ever work at all times under all circumstances.

You are playing in an online casino. That is a risk.
You are playing Live Blackjack. That is a risk. Even if run honestly, the game has a Negative Expectation.
There are NO systems that can take a negative expectation and slice it and dice it until it becomes a positive expectation system.

Rather than wait for six or seven wins in a row, you might just as well wait for six or seven losses in a row and see what happens.

This thread has been relocated to Betting Systems.

Systems never work long-term in a negative expectation game, and they can even be dangerous in a positive expectation game if you don't have the bankroll to undoubtedly cause your positive expectation to materialize during a run of negative Variance. However, given infinite time, limits and bankroll, any system would always work in a positive expectation game.

What are the Rules of this BJ game? There are certain sets of theoretical Rules, rarely actual Rules, that can make it a +EV game. Maybe your on-line casino has such Rules, but I tend to doubt it.

Quote: Mission146

This thread has been relocated to Betting Systems.

Systems never work long-term in a negative expectation game, and they can even be dangerous in a positive expectation game if you don't have the bankroll to undoubtedly cause your positive expectation to materialize during a run of negative Variance. However, given infinite time, limits and bankroll, any system would always work in a positive expectation game.

What are the Rules of this BJ game? There are certain sets of theoretical Rules, rarely actual Rules, that can make it a +EV game. Maybe your on-line casino has such Rules, but I tend to doubt it.

Actually I would think given infinate time, roll, and limits most systems would beat negative expectation games. For example, we know martingale always returns one unit *if* you can keep playing. So suppose Ben Bernake walked into Flamingo a d starts at $100 per unit with the ability to print all the cash he needs. If CET is forced to keep taking bets at higher levels be will sooner or later own the joint.

To me that is why systems keep popping up. Even those of us who know better often listen because it is fun to say, "it would work if....."

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually I would think given infinate time, roll, and limits most systems would beat negative expectation games. For example, we know martingale always returns one unit *if* you can keep playing. So suppose Ben Bernake walked into Flamingo a d starts at $100 per unit with the ability to print all the cash he needs. If CET is forced to keep taking bets at higher levels be will sooner or later own the joint.

To me that is why systems keep popping up. Even those of us who know better often listen because it is fun to say, "it would work if....."

I respectfully disagree. (Again). You could lose every blackjack or even money bet you make for the rest of your life. Then so could your heirs. Even in theory, martingale and other systems don't work. Even when you start talking about asymptotic behaviour at infinity the systems are always at the mercy of the house edge.

whats the system?


i dont believe in systems (that is unless there is an infinite max bet)

Quote: dwheatley

I respectfully disagree. (Again). You could lose every blackjack or even money bet you make for the rest of your life. Then so could your heirs. Even in theory, martingale and other systems don't work. Even when you start talking about asymptotic behaviour at infinity the systems are always at the mercy of the house edge.

If your resources were infinate your heirs would not matter. Look at it another way. Limited resources aside martingale always returns one unit. Always, as long as you can keep betting.

Now yes, if you have infinity to bet you really don't care about a return. But if someone has to take your bet until you win and you can outlast them forever sooner or later you get it all.

Once you bring infinity into the picture you might as well bring in Santa Claus. And the fact of the matter is the mathematicians argue whether even an infinite number of bets would work.

Realistic criticism of Martingale:

*The idea is extremely old - the name is old and the idea older no doubt - and to say it has been discredited is putting it mildly.

*the chances of losing many, many times in a row is very real and is actually expected outcome in short order. You can be talking 20 times and more.

*getting one unit back after sweating the extremely large bets really sucks.

with an infinite ceiling to your bet you will never lose at martingale

your odds of losing 10,000+ in a row in nearly impossible, (extreme example)


lets say you bet baccarat player. 49.6% chance to win, omitting ties

martingale on player $5 at a time

10 times - $2560 bet on 10th bet (odds of 10 bankers in a row omitting ties) 1 in 1109
20 times - $2,621,440 bet on 20th bet (odds of 20 bankers in a row omitting ties) 1 in 1,231,307
50 times - 1 in 1,682,349,314,330,603

only 1 in 1.6 quadrillion, if we keep getting bigger it becomes never impossible (meaning it wont happen)

my calculator cant even equate 10,000 bankers in a row.


so like i said, without a cap on max bet its impossible for you to lose and systems do work

@FleaStiff: I already had 9 and 10 losses in a row. The consequence was, that I continued playing my system and waited until the wins came. I always play until wins and losses are almost equal (what can take hours sometimes) and a good win streak was there.

Rules are pretty standard, I think about 4-6 decks, dealer stands on soft 17, blackjack 2:1, split every pair and so on (Party Casino).

I forgot to ask (besides the mathematical theory, which I know would say "Never!"): At which stake would you say this system really works? I mean just a feeling. Like I said, with 5 euro bets I doubled my stake from 2000 to 4000. Almost every day I can get about 100 euro, if I play disciplined. For several weeks already. And I also had days, were my won-lost ratio was like 20 to 60 with big lose streaks in there. I´m so euphorized right now, I could never imagine to lose this money again with this strategy (positive progression like I already said, sometimes with a really low martingale).

And I also wanted to ask, if there is a risk that a reputable online casino like Party Casino would ban my account? Slowly I begin to think about that, I heard lots of stories on some boards, almost every casino seems to block some players. Is strategic playing a reason to ban me?

the casino wins by math and you cant beat it.

no such thing as a feeling. its just math man plain and simple

So even at 50.000 you would say: No, its math, cant work?

would say its possible to fail but very very unlikely, i mean 1 in 1.6 quadrillion? thats a lot...

He doesn't need to lose 10,000 times in a row to lose 50,000. With a positive progression, he just needs to lose a few hundred times more than he wins over some large number of trials, which is essentially guaranteed to happen if you play long enough.

My dirty little secret is I tried stuff like this when I was younger. And won. Then lost a lot. I have a degree from the school of hard knocks, and now I have advanced degrees in Math.

I guarantee your failure. So... good luck.

-----
As an aside to those arguing for the theory of the martingale, the expectation of the martingale is the sum of an infinite series of doubled bets, all exposed to the same house edge. You long-term expectation is to lose everything, regardless of your resources. Something weird happens if you imagine that infinite resources exist, but they don't. Even if they did, the resulting series still has a negative summation.

Well I´m not so sure, because if there is a chance to get 100 losses in a row (and even that wouldn´t be enough, 100x5 = 500 lost), there is an almost equal big chance to win 100 times in row, what would make me a millionaire (theoretically). I know that you guys think really in terms of pure maths, but with the facts I told you, couldn´t there a possibility, that I win enough money to survive some big losts?

Quote: Tracker

Well I´m not so sure, because if there is a chance to get 100 losses in a row (and even that wouldn´t be enough, 100x5 = 500 lost), there is an almost equal big chance to win 100 times in row, what would make me a millionaire (theoretically). I know that you guys think really in terms of pure maths, but with the facts I told you, couldn´t there a possibility, that I win enough money to survive some big losts?

The odds of winning and losing 100 times in a row aren't very close at all. In a game with a 0.8% house edge, you'll win 10 in a row one in every 1109 streaks and lose 10 in a row one in every 945 streaks. The gap widens considerably as the streaks get longer.

Edit: I played with the numbers a bit more in Excel. You're about 5 times more likely to lose 100 in a row than you are to win 100 in a row.

Quote: Tracker

there is an almost equal big chance to win 100 times in row

but do you double your bets after a win too?

Quote: nezbit

so like i said, without a cap on max bet its impossible for you to lose and systems do work

$2560 is a sweaty bet for a $5 bettor and the chances for 1 in 1109 mean that if you keep playing you will indeed lose 10 times in a row.

$2,621,440 bet? really?

This is not what whales do with their gambling. If I was whale-level I wouldnt dream of it [I do dream of 100x odds at craps though {g} ]

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually I would think given infinate time, roll, and limits most systems would beat negative expectation games. For example, we know martingale always returns one unit *if* you can keep playing. So suppose Ben Bernake walked into Flamingo a d starts at $100 per unit with the ability to print all the cash he needs. If CET is forced to keep taking bets at higher levels be will sooner or later own the joint.

To me that is why systems keep popping up. Even those of us who know better often listen because it is fun to say, "it would work if....."

That is true in the sense that a system such as the Martingale MUST win if you assume infinite time, bankroll, and limits. Even that is not strictly true, it's just that you would never lose any given series, the only possibilities would be either to eventually win or continue to lose an endless number of rounds.

Given the assumption of infinite time, limits and bankroll, even the Labouchere must win eventually simply because that system's success is predicated upon the ability to lose more rounds than you win, while mixing wins and losses (as opposed to the Marty where you just wait for one win) and still come out ahead.

Quote: Tracker

I forgot to ask (besides the mathematical theory, which I know would say "Never!"): At which stake would you say this system really works?

There is no, "Works," from a mathematical standpoint for any system in any negative expectation game. Even if you win money, mathematically, the system is still a failure because it can never overcome the house edge (what you are trying to do) nor does it make the House Edge any worse. It changes your distribution and how you will win and lose in the short run, and how much, but the long-term effect (infinite bankroll and play) is the same as flat betting.

From a utility standpoint, the system works when it accomplishes what you wanted it to accomplish and you stop using it. Alternatively, you could say that a system, "Works," every time there is a successful series.

For example, when I talk about, "Accomplishing what you want it to accomplish," let's say you had a guy who only wanted to go to a casino once in his life, had a monster bankroll, and his goal was just to profit any amount and never play again just for the sake of saying he was a lifetime winner: In that situation, I would probably recommend that he go with the Martingale and whatever casino allowed for the best bet spread, or if he were willing to switch casinos, he should start at the one with the lowest minimum and be prepared to continue his system at whatever one with the highest maximum.

He could even start at some sort of machine or E-Game with a lower limit, and then graduate to a higher limit or table if he loses a few rounds, allowing for a bigger spread! You could even switch games if you wanted to, as the Marty doesn't necessarily require an Even-Money play (though that is generally what they are used for) or that one even stay at the same game (though that is what people generally do). He could play $0.05 Video Poker, one credit, and double from there, play again on any result (such as Jacks or Better on JoB) that returns the bet...or use the double-up function (if applicable).

Again, what, "Works," just depends on what goal you seek to achieve and whether or not you achieve it, from a utility standpoint. And, in that limited definition, ignoring the House Edge, and in my opinion, some systems can be more tailored to meet your purpose(s) than others.

Again: I know that I cant beat math and cant increase my chances against the house edge, but when you say, the chance for a big lose streak is much higher than a winning streak: With the positive progression you only need a few wins, but a lot more losses to equalize the bankroll. Therefore it´s more a question of: How long "can" it take until I get my 6-8 wins. And mathematically it´s just a question of time until it comes. But I think it´s quiet hard only to discuss in this mathematical terms, I know the facts. My question was more something like: Is it only luck or part of my bet system that I doubled my bankroll.

Quote: Tracker

With the positive progression you only need a few wins, but a lot more losses to equalize the bankroll.

Why do you say that? If I win 4 times in a row and then lose, haven't I lost back all my winnings in a positive progression?

Quote: AZDuffman

If your resources were infinate your heirs would not matter. Look at it another way. Limited resources aside martingale always returns one unit. Always, as long as you can keep betting.

Now yes, if you have infinity to bet you really don't care about a return. But if someone has to take your bet until you win and you can outlast them forever sooner or later you get it all.

No, sooner or later you get 1 unit... then you start the dance over again. That's the suckage of Martingale... just a tedious exercise with plenty of risk and little reward.

Let's say Michael Bloomburg buys in for his entire $27 billion of net worth with $100,000K bets at roulette and martingales, and the casino decides to allow a bet up to today's market cap of $1.92 billion.

It would take 19,200 wins and about 40K trials to make the 1.92 billion for Bloomburg to buy CZR (if he wanted it, he could buy it), and Bloomburg would reach "max bet" (16,384 units -- 15 losses in a row) more often then not, making it a losing proposition for Bloomburg most of the time. Of course, you might argue that the casino would just keep allowing the bet to increase, but what person in their right mind would allow an infinite betting limit?

When money is concerned, there is no such thing as infinite. A casino would never take that risk and someone with that kind of money would never make that risk.

@rdw4potus: Right, I meant 7 wins precisely.

Given infinite time, infinite limits, and infinite bankroll, the Martingale still would be a loser in the long term in a negative expectation game. That can be shown mathematically. In practice, such a game would deliver a 1-unit profit pretty much every single time from now till the end of the universe.

Quote: boymimbo

No, sooner or later you get 1 unit... then you start the dance over again. That's the suckage of Martingale... just a tedious exercise with plenty of risk and little reward.

Yes, but that is the allure. Say you have $10,000 and want to bet $10 units. You can say you only want 1 unit win a day, which is 3% a month. 3% a month would get you huge bonuses on Wall St. You could make your car payments with just a unit a day.

We all know what will happen eventually, but this is why systems keep living.

You could. You have a 99.8725% chance of succeeding for every trial at single zero. The problem is that you also have a .1275% chance of failing.

Over a 5 year payment plan, you have a 90.26% chance that you will lose $10,230 and lose 10 bets in a row.
Over a 4 year payment plan, you have a 84.48% chance of failing.
Over a 3 year payment plan, you have a 75.27% chance of failing
Over a 2 year payment plan, you have a 60.6% chance of failing

Martingales suck.

Ok so your advice would be: Payout or system change?

isn't there some online free play casino 1 can try this at? Better yet Perfect idea go to MyVegas play collect chips get your account up to 1 million chips then martiangal it You have - chip EV but plus comps EV. Casinos must love martiangal players they only ever risk paying you 1 small unit at a time but have a chance to win big bets.

admittedly at times I have used martingal while cycling free play on BJ or something I had to complete wagering requirements on.

I had a promotion that I was playing at the HolyCow I went in each day for a few weeks with a AP friend we split only the bonus wins +EV
My friend flat bet I martingaled both + EV
each day I made an extra $50 to $200 on the BJ machines u could bet 1-100 .25- $5 denom. my wins not including the promotion bonus , that was gravy.
After a few weeks he said ,"Holy cow", dumbfounded I kept beating the machines and said "I'm in" ..."Perhaps the machines are gafed" so now he's watching in anticipation
W $10 tie,tie W$10 L$10 win $20 $10 bet DBL win $20 normal stuff
*Then it happened*
$10L--$20L tie $40L-$80L-$160L-$320L-$500L $500L $500L 11 vs 6 DBL 500.L Conversation: "Oh shit we forgot to get our bonuses" "We're idiots" " and this is stooped unnecessarily creating fluctuation." "Never mentioning this again... or until Monday night football"

Now Im not sure what exactly Martingale is, because I play a positive progression.

Quote: Tracker

Now Im not sure what exactly Martingale is, because I play a positive progression.

It sounds to me as though you are playing a Reverse Martingale, which is simply where you double your bet (i.e. let it ride) on every win until you hit a certain win goal, is that the case?

My point is try your systems on a site that has some value when it fails. Of course when it fails (and it will fail eventually) you will just think its rigged. You have a better chance proving Big foot Is an alien, then some betting "system" works.

disclaimer counting cards,Video poker,promotions, cheating or playing against house rules and other proven techniques by real math are excluded from my statement.

Quote: Tracker

Ok so your advice would be: Payout or system change?

These kind of questions assume, that you play a system a couple of times, you get closer and closer to losing with each win. And then you decide to change it up a bit, so you start again far from the losing round.
This is simply not true. You don't get closer and closer to losing, it just comes out of the blue. So changing it up doesn't help at all.

So if you want to have fun, then do whatever, if you are in just for the money, then payout.

Ok then its called reversed Martingale, what I play. No I´m not afraid I could lose all my money in the next few days/weeks, but nobody seems to give me a chance to increase my bankroll with this strategy ^^. Like I said, I won 2000 and thats a lot of money for me, maybe I listen to you guys and just pay it out.

martingale in a nut shell

keep doubling your bet if you lose. when you finally end up winning you win the amount of you very first bet.

so without a cap on max bet you could keep betting any 50/50 game and eventually win.

Quote: nezbit

so without a cap on max bet you could keep betting any 50/50 game and eventually win.

Sure. Now, name a truly 50/50 game that is available in a casino;-)

I think I saw a roulette table without zero but tax on your wins.