Quote:GandlerNow 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.

The more you bet the more you risk, relative to your bank roll.

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.

Quote:GandlerNow 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.

Quote:GandlerNow 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.

Quote:thecesspitWhat '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?

Quote:GandlerSorry 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.

Quote:GandlerSorry 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?

In theory, you're right. But you should also be taking into consideration variance.