Target Betting Clarification

I'm referring to the blog at

I'm trying to figure out how his system is supposed to be played. I can't find a clear breakdown of exactly what plays he says you should make, and I've tried both methods based on what I could interpret his meaning to be.

I've tried the following (minor variation to his rules, I know), and I play using the Demo Game at PlayOLG.com (Ontario, Canada, government operated casino) with $1000 starting balance.

Both using Basic Strategy from Wizard of Odds customized to the individual table rules.

Bet Amount: $1 (1 Unit)

Opening Win: Series ends, re-bet with $1
Opening Loss: Mark as -1, bet $5 - if win, start new series with $1
If Loss on 2nd Bet: Mark as -6 Loss in series, Bet $3. If Win, then bet $8 ($3 recovery of loss + $5 target win)
If win, start new series
If loss, revert to minimum bet $1 and keep playing until a Win
With a Win, tally up Total Losses and add $5 target winnings and place bet.

Here's where I get confused on the guy's intentions, and I've tried both variations.

In the blog post, he states "If the mid-series win is followed by a loss (as it will be slightly more often than not) the loss becomes the new NB value, and the series continues until the next win."

So does this mean that if my current losses are $10, and I just placed a bet for $15 (total loss + target win), that following a loss of that, all subsequent bets should also be $15? Or do we revert back to the $1 minimum bet?

I found a forum thread elsewhere that suggested that the rule is: always bet $1/1 unit until you win, then bet all losses + target, then if you lose that, revert back to $1.

But based on the way the blog is written, this doesn't make sense.

I tried both ways, and hit long choppy streaks on both methods, and these were my results:

Continuing with higher bet amounts, as my interpretation of the rules:
8 Bets of $2
8 Bets of $17
1 Bet of $51
1 Bet of $18
5 Bets of $36
3 Bets of $126
End of Series with $5 Profit

With reverting the bet back to $1/1 unit instead of betting the previous loss amount, besides almost going bust, this was my result on a long choppy streak:

5 Bets of $1
1 Bet of $10
3 Bets of $1
1 Bet of $21
4 Bets of $1
1 Bet of $43
1 Bet of $1
1 Bet of $85
5 Bets of $1
1 Bet of $173
2 Bets of $1
1 Bet of $346
End Series with $5 Profit - but had that final bet of $346 become a loss, it would have required a subsequent bet of $682 (exceeding table limit by $182) to come back, and would have also killed my bank roll.

The first method, where you continue higher bet amounts matching your previous loss amount, seems to keep your bankroll in check - as the Win preceding the Target Bet at least reduces the amount by which you need to bet to make your profit, so if you lose on the 2nd bet, you at least lost less and can keep going longer.

So I know what my experience is, and I know that there is no functional betting system, but just on the practice game playing a small amount of time, with a starting $1000 bank roll, I'm up $330, and it seems that reverting to a $1 bet, unless setting a stop loss, seems to wipe you out quicker as you lose the benefit of the larger mid-series wins that keep your bankroll up.

Am I interpreting correctly?

Here's a sample of what I did earlier:

Bet Result Loss Next-Bet
1 L -1 5
5 L -6 3
3 P -9 6
6 W -3 8
8 L -11 8
8 L -19 8
8 W -11 16
16 W 5 DONE

Don't you think it's in poor taste to post a link on this forum that calls the Wizard of Odds a professional shill? Yikes! There are a few more less than flattering comments about him there as well.

Quote: nitromethane126

I'm trying to figure out how his system is supposed to be played. I can't find a clear breakdown of exactly what plays he says you should make, and I've tried both methods based on what I could interpret his meaning to be.

Who cares: It's hogwash either way.

Quote: nitromethane126

... and I know that there is no functional betting system, but just on the practice game playing a small amount of time, with a starting $1000 bank roll, I'm up $330...

But, that's a doddle with any variant of a Marty ( That's all this is) . 1000 to 1330 is a doddle. It's absolutely very likely to happen.

The targetbetting progression is just Marty with a few cop outs where the crashes are smaller and the clambering back is in stages, with no real advantage.

NOBODY here on WOV says that you cannot win with a progressive system like Marty or Target3. All that's said is that the average return will tend towards going broke the more you aspire to win RELATIVE TO your bankroll.

To join here and then link out to an offensive alternative blog was not nice. You should expect a rebuke for that. What was the real point? Don't you trust the guy?

With Marty and the Target3 scheme quoted, for most bets/sessions you will be ahead and you stand a very good chance of being several dozen percent ahead before you bust out. That's great, but is it useful?

Start with $1M in your pocket and play Marty ( or similar) and you have about a 80% chance of hitting $1.25M before you crash and burn. But what a crash when it comes. The longer you play, the worse your chances of survival.

Realistically, the only win that counts is a significant multiplier to lifetime bankroll. Let's say $1M getting doubled to $2M. Marty systems would see you in pocket most of the TIME on the way up to target. BUT your chance of reaching target is never better than Bankroll/(Bankroll+Target Profit) just the same as if you'd bet on one coin toss.

So if your target had been 330 profit your odds of getting there from $1000 were (less than) roughly 1000/1330 = 75%.
Flip side is your probability of losing $1000 was (100-75) = 25%

(roughly)

If you start with $1,000,000 available and your objective was $330 profit, that's a walk in the park with >99.9% probability of success. BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT? What's $330 to you? What's $1000000 to you?

If you are in a war-zone with $1,000 cash and it will cost $1,300 to get a flight home, go for a Marty or watered down Marty system every time. Otherwise, if you aspire to double or triple your bankroll, then save the price of a bullet for your brain for when you have to deal with going bust, because it becomes very likely.

You'd get slightly better odds just finding one big fixed odds bet, such as you might be able to construct on a roulette table or with a six cylendar revolver with one bullet.

Marty systems give the illusion of winning, so you keep going till you crash. It's extra easy on a chart or a 'play money game' because you can just whack another grand or 40 grand in any time to get you back on track.
Life's seldom so easy.

I'm leaving the link up as it seems intrinsic to the discussion, despite its disparagement of this site. Seems ironic that a person who seems to have genuine questions about a Marty comes here for expert advice and analysis, essentially negating those comments, doesn't it?

The blog's system is complicated gibberish as far as I can see, defaulting down to the usual feeding of the Beast with a negative progression, which tends to bust in the long run, whenever that might come. Thanks to those who are debunking the details.

Is this Jerry Patterson's nonsense?

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Is this Jerry Patterson's nonsense?

I think this is a later version. Pattersons's TARGET system goes back to the early 80s. Wong, Schlesinger, Snyder and maybe Uston all distanced themselves from this. Kenny wasn't one to hold back if he didn't like something. Even the average player wasn't buying this...... I'll be nice and call it stuff. The seminars weren't cheap.