Partner Martingale System?

Hey guys first post here. And I am probably off the a bad start asking about a betting system. But this has been on my mind. I am sure like all systems it will not work, but I am just curious on what others' opinions are.

Lets say you are playing baccarat (the game I envisioned this for). You and a friend both go with an equal bankroll (lets say 1k each) and agree to combine both of your bankrolls at the end of the session (meaning you split all losses and wins 50/50).
I bet on banker, and my friend bets on player. Whenever one of us loses we double up (don't double up on pushes). One of us would be winning every hand.

In theory the wins would rotate back and forth between the player and banker every other hand or every couple of hands. Which would mean you would both be steadily bringing in money.

Now of course the worst case scenario (and this is where the partner part is key) is if one of you lose 7 hands in a row (or whatever number would break your bankroll). If at a 10minimum table about 7 hands would break 1k. So then when one of you runs out you both stop. Now on those 7 hands that one of you lost everything the other was winning every hand. So even if you 7 losses in a row happens on the very first 7 hands you will only lose 40-45% of your bankroll (my math is probably off, I did all of this off of my head). So even though you both came to the table with 1k you still end up with about 600 or so left.

Obviously this has the same flaw with single player martingale which is when you are bound to run into streaks. But this method has the draw of minimizing personal risk while allowing for a chance of potentially doubling your money in 30 mins if you don't hit any bad streaks.


I suppose this could also work (or not work) for roulette where one player bets on red and the other on black and each play martingale on their respective color. The downside with roulette is, it is possible to lose everything if the zeros were to hit 10 times in a row (as unlikely as that is its still possible). However, in Atlantic City (where I play as I go to school nearby) the risk is mitigated as if a zero hits on an outside bet you only lose 50% of you bet, which from what I understand , makes the house edge even lower than a single zero roulette wheel (on outside bets). So I suppose alternatively it could reasonably tried on roulette, but baccarat still seems safer to me.

But anyway, is there any chance of this working? From what I can ascertain, the absolute worst case scenario with this is you lose 40% of your bankroll and have a very good chance of doubling it or at least profiting. Because as long as one player makes at least double the original amount then both players profit even if the other busts out completely?

Quote: Gandler

Hey guys first post here. And I am probably off the a bad start asking about a betting system. But this has been on my mind. I am sure like all systems it will not work, but I am just curious on what others' opinions are.

Lets say you are playing baccarat (the game I envisioned this for). You and a friend both go with an equal bankroll (lets say 1k each) and agree to combine both of your bankrolls at the end of the session (meaning you split all losses and wins 50/50).
I bet on banker, and my friend bets on player. Whenever one of us loses we double up (don't double up on pushes). One of us would be winning every hand.

In theory the wins would rotate back and forth between the player and banker every other hand or every couple of hands. Which would mean you would both be steadily bringing in money.

Now of course the worst case scenario (and this is where the partner part is key) is if one of you lose 7 hands in a row (or whatever number would break your bankroll). If at a 10minimum table about 7 hands would break 1k. So then when one of you runs out you both stop. Now on those 7 hands that one of you lost everything the other was winning every hand. So even if you 7 losses in a row happens on the very first 7 hands you will only lose 40-45% of your bankroll (my math is probably off, I did all of this off of my head). So even though you both came to the table with 1k you still end up with about 600 or so left.

Obviously this has the same flaw with single player martingale which is when you are bound to run into streaks. But this method has the draw of minimizing personal risk while allowing for a chance of potentially doubling your money in 30 mins if you don't hit any bad streaks.


I suppose this could also work (or not work) for roulette where one player bets on red and the other on black and each play martingale on their respective color. The downside with roulette is, it is possible to lose everything if the zeros were to hit 10 times in a row (as unlikely as that is its still possible). However, in Atlantic City (where I play as I go to school nearby) the risk is mitigated as if a zero hits on an outside bet you only lose 50% of you bet, which from what I understand , makes the house edge even lower than a single zero roulette wheel (on outside bets). So I suppose alternatively it could reasonably tried on roulette, but baccarat still seems safer to me.

But anyway, is there any chance of this working? From what I can ascertain, the absolute worst case scenario with this is you lose 40% of your bankroll and have a very good chance of doubling it or at least profiting. Because as long as one player makes at least double the original amount then both players profit even if the other busts out completely?

Instead of one player betting $100 on player and the other betting $50 on banker, why not just have one player bet $50 on player, the other bet $0 on banker, and save the commission when the banker wins? You will end up with the same amount of shared money, plus the commission you saved.

So you can see that the 2nd player is useless, since you should never both place bets at the same time.

So we are back to a normal martingale.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Instead of one player betting $100 on player and the other betting $50 on banker, why not just have one player bet $50 on player, the other bet $0 on banker, and save the commission when the banker wins? You will end up with the same amount of shared money, plus the commission you saved.

So you can see that the 2nd player is useless, since you should never both place bets at the same time.

So we are back to a normal martingale.

My thoughts were that both players betting at the same time would somewhat mitigate a losing streak because even if one player was betting on a losing bet 7 or 8 times in a row the other would be winning that whole time hence mitigating some of the losses from expected streaks.

Quote: Gandler

My thoughts were that both players betting at the same time would somewhat mitigate a losing streak because even if one player was betting on a losing bet 7 or 8 times in a row the other would be winning that whole time hence mitigating some of the losses from expected streaks.

But my point is, you can just remove the smaller bet, and subtract that amount from the bigger bet. The total result is identical EXCEPT you save 5% of that amount every time the banker wins.

Oh goodie, whose system does this sound like, folks? ;)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

But my point is, you can just remove the smaller bet, and subtract that amount from the bigger bet. The total result is identical EXCEPT you save 5% of that amount every time the banker wins.

Good Point. I guess it was a dumb idea, but it seemed so good in my head lol.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

But my point is, you can just remove the smaller bet, and subtract that amount from the bigger bet. The total result is identical EXCEPT you save 5% of that amount every time the banker wins.

OK I have been thinking about this more today. I am sure you are still right and I'm not trying to argue. But for sake of humoring me, I think at the very least this would have to be safer than the Martingale (it forces you to save at least 60% of your total bankroll). And you mention the player getting a bad streak which is more likley than banker (since banker is slightly more likley to win any given hand). But if it was the other way around commission would not be an issue and it would be the same result?

To me this seems like a safer alternative than 1person martingale since the worst case scenario you still have 55-60% of starting bankroll. But with the potential to be just as quickly profitable if the hands vary back and forth as they statistically should every couple times at the most?

Write out both versions. You'll see how it behaves on paper. Losing a smaller percent of a larger bankroll is the same amount of money (in this case).

The trouble I see with what you're talking about doing is that the partner who's winning is base betting (flat betting) each time if I'm understanding you correctly. So, when you Martingale your losings over 7 hands to around 1K losses (using your numbers), your partner has only won $70 on those same 7 hands. Yikes. not much padding there from the partner, with only ~7% hedge on your losses.

Quote: Gandler

OK I have been thinking about this more today. I am sure you are still right and I'm not trying to argue. But for sake of humoring me, I think at the very least this would have to be safer than the Martingale (it forces you to save at least 60% of your total bankroll). And you mention the player getting a bad streak which is more likley than banker (since banker is slightly more likley to win any given hand). But if it was the other way around commission would not be an issue and it would be the same result?

To me this seems like a safer alternative than 1person martingale since the worst case scenario you still have 55-60% of starting bankroll. But with the potential to be just as quickly profitable if the hands vary back and forth as they statistically should every couple times at the most?

Ok, suppose your two partners are A and B. A always bets on banker. B always bets on player. They are playing form a shared bankroll.

Suppose your system requires A to bet $200 on player and B to bet $100 on banker.

If player wins, A wins $200 and B loses $100. Total team result = +$100.
If banker wins, A loses $200 and B wins $95 (due to commission). Total team result = -$105.

Now suppose, instead you have A bet $100 on player and B not bet.

If player wins, A wins $100. Total team result = +$100.
If banker wins, A loses $100. Total team result = -$100.

Clearly the 2nd situation is better. The total team win is the same in case of a player win, but does $5 better in case of a banker win.

Since you are playing from a shared bankroll, it doesn't matter who wins and loses; only the totals matter. You can just pass chips back and forth to balance it out if you want.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The trouble I see with what you're talking about doing is that the partner who's winning is base betting (flat betting) each time if I'm understanding you correctly. So, when you Martingale your losings over 7 hands to around 1K losses (using your numbers), your partner has only won $70 on those same 7 hands. Yikes. not much padding there from the partner, with only ~7% hedge on your losses.

What if during a long streak (more than 3 bs or ps in a row) that the winning partner increased his bet (not necessarily double but maybe a unit or 2, that way if the streak goes on til the other busts out he will make back more or if the streak ends suddenly he will still be ahead)?

Quote: Gandler

What if during a long streak (more than 3 bs or ps in a row) that the winning partner increased his bet (not necessarily double but maybe a unit or 2, that way if the streak goes on til the other busts out he will make back more or if the streak ends suddenly he will still be ahead)?

Pressing the winning side (while still playing the losing side) was discussed extensively in another thread.
You're proposing a variation to that system by simultaneously utilizing both a positive progression and a negative progression.
Without going into too much detail, it still will not work due to commissions owed on the Banker side.

At the top of the screen, you can click on "games", then go to Baccarat. It has a starting bank of $10k, and allows you to bet on both Player and Banker during the same hand.

Quote: rob45

Pressing the winning side (while still playing the losing side) was discussed extensively in another thread.
You're proposing a variation to that system by simultaneously utilizing both a positive progression and a negative progression.
Without going into too much detail, it still will not work due to commissions owed on the Banker side.

At the top of the screen, you can click on "games", then go to Baccarat. It has a starting bank of $10k, and allows you to bet on both Player and Banker during the same hand.

I tried this on an online (in state NJ)casino last night using a starting bet lf 1dollar on both. And I profited 100dollar in less than 45mins. Now I know 40mins of play is not nearly enough hands to have any mathematical significance but it was hopeful.

Quote: Gandler

I tried this on an online (in state NJ)casino last night using a starting bet lf 1dollar on both. And I profited 100dollar in less than 45mins. Now I know 40mins of play is not nearly enough hands to have any mathematical significance but it was hopeful.

Ok. Your first bet was $1 on both. Why play that bet at all? Why not just watch the outcome of the hand, and save yourself the 5c when Banker wins? Then you can make your next bet as though you had played the first one, except you will be 5c richer on the Banker wins.

Do you really not understand this?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Do you really not understand this?

Were it not for the lack of glitz, glamour, false claims, etc. in the attempt to promote a system, I would almost be convinced that my Master was somehow reincarnated.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Ok. Your first bet was $1 on both. Why play that bet at all? Why not just watch the outcome of the hand, and save yourself the 5c when Banker wins? Then you can make your next bet as though you had played the first one, except you will be 5c richer on the Banker wins.

Do you really not understand this?

I understand when playing alone that makes a lot of sense, I am sure it makes sense with pooled money as well. But I guess in my mind two players working together but opposing bets forces you to conserve your bankroll as oppose to just one person having access to everything and getting carried away and blowing it all. Meaning in the very worst case scenario you will both leave the table with 55ish% of your starting bankroll for the night, and that is the very worst case scenario more than likley you will leave with at least 80% and there is a good chance of quickly doubling it if the wins rotate as they statistically should.

Quote: Gandler

I understand when playing alone that makes a lot of sense, I am sure it makes sense with pooled money as well. But I guess in my mind two players working together but opposing bets forces you to conserve your bankroll as oppose to just one person having access to everything and getting carried away and blowing it all. Meaning in the very worst case scenario you will both leave the table with 55ish% of your starting bankroll for the night, and that is the very worst case scenario more than likley you will leave with at least 80% and there is a good chance of quickly doubling it if the wins rotate as they statistically should.

So you think that by betting against yourself and paying the casino commission on half the hands, you increase your chances of winning?

I really, really, really need to open a casino.

Has the OP ever been to Fallsview? :)

But at least one of me will be winning ? As it is now, all of me is losing. Do not ignore the benefits of such improvement !

Quote: Beethoven9th

Has the OP ever been to Fallsview? :)

I never heard of it. I go to college just outside of Atlantic City so that is the only place I gamble plus online casinos run by the respective local casinos occasionally.
Also, I have no clue what "op" is but I assume its some sort of negative term describing me, probably referring to my mathematical ignorance, its all good because its probably true lol...

Quote: Gandler

I never heard of it. I go to college just outside of Atlantic City so that is the only place I gamble plus online casinos run by the respective local casinos occasionally.
Also, I have no clue what "op" is but I assume its some sort of negative term describing me, probably referring to my mathematical ignorance, its all good because its probably true lol...

OP is original poster.

Saves time looking you up. Plus easier to type.

Quote: Gandler

Good Point. I guess it was a dumb idea, but it seemed so good in my head lol.

This is a form of martingale described by author Fernand Crommelynck in one of his novels (Monsieur Larose est-il l'assassin ?). Actually, that is what first brought me to the casino; I thought it so brilliant.
But I quickly realized it would be more efficient to NOT bet the second bet. So in the end my progression looked like 1, 3, 7, 15, 31, etc.

Pity me! I lost a lot of money on this. It is just as useless as any martingale.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Oh goodie, whose system does this sound like, folks? ;)

NOW COME ON... he didn't say anything about the commission not being counted since tat is just cost of doing business. ;-)

OP if you would like to read from the master check out this thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/15164-baccarat-partner-betting/

The only person capable of beating baccarat is Egalite, and it's because he's savvy.