Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
• Posts: 1468
April 15th, 2014 at 12:40:45 PM permalink
Now I know everyone's argument against betting systems is that it cannot alter the HE. However lets go with martingale which is probably the simplest. Lets say you are playing a game with a negative HE (meaning the player has the edge, lets say .25 player edge). Since the player has an edge would an aggressive betting strategy like martingale be wise on a game like blackjack to quickly make up for loses as oppose to waiting for it to naturally balance?
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
April 15th, 2014 at 12:43:37 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Now I know everyone's argument against betting systems is that it cannot alter the HE. However lets go with martingale which is probably the simplest. Lets say you are playing a game with a negative HE (meaning the player has the edge, lets say .25 player edge). Since the player has an edge would an aggressive betting strategy like martingale be wise on a game like blackjack to quickly make up for loses as oppose to waiting for it to naturally balance?

No. Use the Kelly Criterion instead. That is the optimal way to grow your bankroll.
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
April 15th, 2014 at 12:44:41 PM permalink
Would not be wise.

The more you bet the more you risk, relative to your bank roll.
MangoJ
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
• Posts: 905
April 15th, 2014 at 12:45:06 PM permalink
The opposite is quite true. In Martingale, you increase your bet when you lose. Instead, you should cut down your bets when you lose (i.e. when your bankroll shrinks).

The optimal betting strategy (call it "lifetime progression" if you like) is to bet a specific fraction of your bankroll, where the fraction is determined by the players edge.
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
April 15th, 2014 at 12:45:50 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Now I know everyone's argument against betting systems is that it cannot alter the HE. However lets go with martingale which is probably the simplest. Lets say you are playing a game with a negative HE (meaning the player has the edge, lets say .25 player edge). Since the player has an edge would an aggressive betting strategy like martingale be wise on a game like blackjack to quickly make up for loses as oppose to waiting for it to naturally balance?

What 'natural balance'? After a decision, the next result doesn't care about the previous result.

The Kelly or just flat betting is a far better way to maximize growth than the Martingale... in the Marty, you'll be increasing bets with only a thin edge, and increasing the risk of ruin. You -really- don't want to bust out when you have an advantage.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought 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
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 14230
April 15th, 2014 at 12:50:00 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Now I know everyone's argument against betting systems is that it cannot alter the HE. However lets go with martingale which is probably the simplest. Lets say you are playing a game with a negative HE (meaning the player has the edge, lets say .25 player edge). Since the player has an edge would an aggressive betting strategy like martingale be wise on a game like blackjack to quickly make up for loses as oppose to waiting for it to naturally balance?

Bored with the board today, huh, Gandler? lol...on your head be it.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
• Posts: 1468
April 15th, 2014 at 12:54:45 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

What 'natural balance'? After a decision, the next result doesn't care about the previous result.

The Kelly or just flat betting is a far better way to maximize growth than the Martingale... in the Marty, you'll be increasing bets with only a thin edge, and increasing the risk of ruin. You -really- don't want to bust out when you have an advantage.

Sorry that was a bad word choice. What I mean to say is statistical expected return. Like if a coin was 1% heavier on one side you would expect heads to appear 51% of the time eventually after enough flips. So my thought was using a martingale type strategy on losses when you have an edge in BJ would make up losses quicker and profit faster?
treetopbuddy
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
• Posts: 1739
April 15th, 2014 at 1:00:05 PM permalink
Gambling systems are valuable in the sense that you have something to blame other than yourself. The GD system ain't worth a s*** as I just lost my ass. F****** system
Each day is better than the next
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
April 15th, 2014 at 1:01:17 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Sorry that was a bad word choice. What I mean to say is statistical expected return. Like if a coin was 1% heavier on one side you would expect heads to appear 51% of the time eventually after enough flips. So my thought was using a martingale type strategy on losses when you have an edge in BJ would make up losses quicker and profit faster?

I think that you misunderstand how reversion to mean works. The coin has no memory.

The main point here is that your bankroll is not infinite. Going broke is a disaster, because then you can't take advantage of your edge any more.

Anyway, again, this problem has been solved for years. The Kelly Criterion is the correct answer. For something more complex like blackjack (where you are not betting a fixed amount due to splits, doubles, etc), just maximize the expectation of the log of your bankroll after the hand.
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014