Quote:yvgtghUnfortunately, it seems like at least 1 person in his comments fell for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re8Cd9OokCA ... was wondering if some of you more articulate people could explain why the Martingale ("his system") is flawed in the comments so other people don't fall for this bs? thanks

The martingale is only really flawed for one reason, the table maximum amount.

Here's the break down.

Bet Goes 1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1024->2048->4096->8192 etc.

Lets say you did just that, if you won 8192 on your final hand, which is impossible because there just aren't table max games that high, nor is the likelihood that you have that much cash on you, but back to the question at hand. Subtract 8192-4096-2048-1024-512-256-128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1, and what do we get? 1. In the case of you betting $1 and being able to sustain all possible losses due to no table max and there being an infinite bankroll, you would always win 1 for every successful martingale. Of course, depending on the size of the betting unit, you'll be able to plug in the value of any 1 unit into the double up pathway and you'll receive the value of a single unit. In this case, usually 1 dollar or 5 dollars in most places. As we can see, however, the martingale quickly escalates. Once you reach the 256 hand, you'll be out of possible double ups on future bets since the table max in this scenario is 500. So, if you lose only 9 hands in a row, you'd have broken the martingale and lost SIGNIFICANTLY.

In a perfect world where there are no limits and your bankroll is infinite, you could essentially never lose, as long as you can accurately compute the numbers high enough. But even if we got into the realm of 3.9385602e-12, we'd only ever win the value of a single betting unit that started the process.

That being said, it isn't "his" system, and is one of the oldest "systems" in the book. However, he's modified it for the video, as he goes 1-2-5-10-25-50-(likely 100) or by his previous parameters 125-250-625-1250, etc. In doing this pattern, by the time he would reach his 9th loss, he'd be in for 1250 on his 10th hand, and would net 157 for the win. Again, far beyond a table limit and reasonable BR.

Quote:Exoter175The martingale is only really flawed for one reason, the table maximum amount.

... Again, far beyond a table limit and reasonable BR.

I think you are being overgenerous to Marty: I see it as having the following flaws:-

It shows noobies that they can easily win consistently (They are likely to), thus giving them a false sense of security. They then go on to mortgage their souls to get enough together for that 'recovery' wager.

It is mis-represented as a way of offering a decent chance of significantly multiplying one's starting bankroll. It cannot do that.

It really gets unnecessarily dangerous and scarey if BJ doubles or splits crop up.

Table Max isn't necessarily such a big issue as our idiot martyman can just take his next, bigger losing bet to a higher max table.

Suppose you find a friendly $5 minimum table for your low end wagers, and have a string of tables that will accept your action up to $100k. Once you lose 15 in a row, you're down about $164k. Even if you could double again, you're looking to win $5.

Quote:DieterThe problem with martingale is that your wins are in single units, and your loss is in hundreds or thousands of units.

Suppose you find a friendly $5 minimum table for your low end wagers, and have a string of tables that will accept your action up to $100k. Once you lose 15 in a row, you're down about $164k. Even if you could double again, you're looking to win $5.

What if you were to add in the value of comps, reward points, gift cards, free play, etc.? Does the math change?

When I was standing in line at a casino cage the other day two young guys in front of me were talking about how they were going to take out $500 on a credit card, go to roulette, and make a $5 bet... and then bet $15 if they lost, and then $35 if they lost that. They weren't just doubling but also adding a unit to each subsequent bet.

It was a long wait at the cage, so I asked them "what about reaching the table limit?" And they said they were guaranteed to have a winner within 8 spins.

Quote:AlanMendelsonWhat if you were to add in the value of comps, reward points, gift cards, free play, etc.? Does the math change?

Pretty sure that the usual comp structure isn't going to make up for it.

$164k is a ridiculously expensive buffet, even for 4. Hope they didn't overcook the beef roast this time.

Quote:AlanMendelson...When I was standing in line at a casino cage the other day two young guys in front of me were talking about how they were going to take out $500 on a credit card, go to roulette, and make a $5 bet... and then bet $15 if they lost, and then $35 if they lost that. They weren't just doubling but also adding a unit to each subsequent bet.

It was a long wait at the cage, so I asked them "what about reaching the table limit?" And they said they were guaranteed to have a winner within 8 spins.

This has never been thought of before!!

Quote:OnceDearI think you are being overgenerous to Marty: I see it as having the following flaws:-

It shows noobies that they can easily win consistently (They are likely to), thus giving them a false sense of security. They then go on to mortgage their souls to get enough together for that 'recovery' wager.

It is mis-represented as a way of offering a decent chance of significantly multiplying one's starting bankroll. It cannot do that.

It really gets unnecessarily dangerous and scarey if BJ doubles or splits crop up.

Table Max isn't necessarily such a big issue as our idiot martyman can just take his next, bigger losing bet to a higher max table.

And get maybe 2 more bets in before having to go to another table, and so forth until you've mortgaged the house and have hit the upper echelon of limits.

My point was simply, the system works if there are no table limits and the bankroll is never ending, to account for the possibility of losing 50-100 times in a row. The statistical anomalies that wreck the plan in modern casinos.

Quote:AlanMendelsonWhat if you were to add in the value of comps, reward points, gift cards, free play, etc.? Does the math change?

When I was standing in line at a casino cage the other day two young guys in front of me were talking about how they were going to take out $500 on a credit card, go to roulette, and make a $5 bet... and then bet $15 if they lost, and then $35 if they lost that. They weren't just doubling but also adding a unit to each subsequent bet.

It was a long wait at the cage, so I asked them "what about reaching the table limit?" And they said they were guaranteed to have a winner within 8 spins.

The math would change, but it wouldn't account for much, you'd have to do this over a long period of time and "hope" that the pit guy rating you is doing so when you have a large bet out, assuming of course, no table max and an endless bankroll. Both of which don't exist.

I'm not defending Martingale because I'm certain it doesn't work. Nowadays with computers and things like Bit Coin where you can bet 0.00000001 (Lets not add a BC discussion about how stable BC is or whatever regarding BC and RNG'S). Include a casino like Just Dice https://just-dice.com/ (sorry WOV). You can auto play very fast 24/7 (Program martingale ). I'm guessing the limit is whatever the casino has?Quote:Exoter175

Lets say you did just that, if you won 8192 on your final hand, which is impossible because there just aren't table max games that high, nor is the likelihood that you have that much cash on you, but back to the question at hand.

My point is I don't like the argument about time, table limits and bankroll limitations.

Quote:AlanMendelsonWhen I was standing in line at a casino cage the other day two young guys in front of me were talking about how they were going to take out $500 on a credit card, go to roulette, and make a $5 bet... and then bet $15 if they lost, and then $35 if they lost that. They weren't just doubling but also adding a unit to each subsequent bet.

It was a long wait at the cage, so I asked them "what about reaching the table limit?" And they said they were guaranteed to have a winner within 8 spins.

In which case, you should have responded, "Well, in that case, don't actually bet anything until a particular bet loses seven times, after which, bet everything you have on it, since it's 'guaranteed' to win the eight time."

Quote:AxelWolfIll apologize in advance because I didn't read all the comments and only part of Exoter175's because the Marty topic is a wast of time. I stopped reading after this I'm not defending Martingale because I'm certain it doesn't work. Nowadays with computers and things like Bit Coin where you can bet 0.00000001 (Lets not add a BC discussion about how stable BC is or whatever regarding BC and RNG'S). Include a casino like Just Dice https://just-dice.com/ (sorry WOV). You can auto play very fast 24/7 (Program martingale ). I'm guessing the limit is whatever the casino has?

My point is I don't like the argument about time, table limits and bankroll limitations.

I don't really care "what" you like, AW, your certainty that Martingale doesn't work is an admittance of not knowing the system or its limitations. The martingale in an environment where you have no table limit, all the time in the world, and an infinite amount of money will 100000000% absolutely, positively, always work. I Brought up the limitations of time, table limits, minimum bet values, and bankroll sizing because those are the actual limiting factors on the martingale NOT working, not the system itself. The system itself is designed to yield 1 betting unit by the end of its completion, it just isn't a practical in this day and age because we are very well limited by those variables I mentioned. The whole reason blackjack tables have table limits despite the casino having millions upon millions on hand at any one given point, is so that a person couldn't come in and play a game and indefinitely win, provided they had enough money to support a very long losing streak. After all, the casino wasn't built on winners.

you will have to explain how you know it will work if you have infinite time and money . I say it's possible to never win a bet and never run out of money you just keep going infinite without ever winning or running out of of money. WORKING meaning your up money. Personally I don't think you can prove you are right nor can I prove I'm right it's impossible for any human to actually understand or know the right awnser.Quote:Exoter175I don't really care "what" you like, AW, your certainty that Martingale doesn't work is an admittance of not knowing the system or its limitations. The martingale in an environment where you have no table limit, all the time in the world, and an infinite amount of money will 100000000% absolutely, positively, always work. I Brought up the limitations of time, table limits, minimum bet values, and bankroll sizing because those are the actual limiting factors on the martingale NOT working, not the system itself. The system itself is designed to yield 1 betting unit by the end of its completion, it just isn't a practical in this day and age because we are very well limited by those variables I mentioned. The whole reason blackjack tables have table limits despite the casino having millions upon millions on hand at any one given point, is so that a person couldn't come in and play a game and indefinitely win, provided they had enough money to support a very long losing streak. After all, the casino wasn't built on winners.

Quote:Exoter175I don't really care "what" you like, AW, your certainty that Martingale doesn't work is an admittance of not knowing the system or its limitations. The martingale in an environment where you have no table limit, all the time in the world, and an infinite amount of money will 100000000% absolutely, positively, always work. I Brought up the limitations of time, table limits, minimum bet values, and bankroll sizing because those are the actual limiting factors on the martingale NOT working, not the system itself. The system itself is designed to yield 1 betting unit by the end of its completion, it just isn't a practical in this day and age because we are very well limited by those variables I mentioned. The whole reason blackjack tables have table limits despite the casino having millions upon millions on hand at any one given point, is so that a person couldn't come in and play a game and indefinitely win, provided they had enough money to support a very long losing streak. After all, the casino wasn't built on winners.

You are never guaranteed to win a bet no matter the amount of bets you can place, unless you have a 100% chance of winning the bet (ie: past-posting a winning wager in roulette).

As the number of bets you place approaches infinity, the chance of winning a bet approaches 100%, but does not actually reach 100%.

Realistically speaking, what is the purpose of debating whether or not martingale works in these limitless scenarios (infinite bankroll, infinite time, no max, etc.)?

But theN you pay your taxes and then it's certainly a loss.Quote:RSYou are never guaranteed to win a bet no matter the amount of bets you can place, unless you have a 100% chance of winning the bet (ie: past-posting a winning wager in roulette).

As the number of bets you place approaches infinity, the chance of winning a bet approaches 100%, but does not actually reach 100%.

Realistically speaking, what is the purpose of debating whether or not martingale works in these limitless scenarios (infinite bankroll, infinite time, no max, etc.)?

* the idea is ancient and no one every ultimately prospered with it

* when it works you wind up back where you started, whoop-de-doo

* you'd have to have iron guts to place those large bets

* to get the progression exactly right is actually unimportant. It's a method of betting more when you are losing. Anymore, I always ask "wouldn't you rather bet more when you are winning?"

Quote:Exoter175The martingale in an environment where you have no table limit, all the time in the world, and an infinite amount of money will 100000000% absolutely, positively, always work.

Nope.

If you have an infinite amount of money, you cannot win more.

Quote:MathExtremistNope.

If you have an infinite amount of money, you cannot win more.

LOL!

Quote:Exoter175The martingale in an environment where you have no table limit, all the time in the world, and an infinite amount of money will 100000000% absolutely, positively, always work.

Not it won't. You can't assume infinite bankroll and infinite table limits and disregard an infinite string of losses.

those online casinos that let you bet partial fractions of a bitcoin in an automated fashion with any betting strategy you want will find those very very long losing streaks surprisingly quickly.

Quote:SiegfriedRoyI understand martingale and why it doesn't work in the long-run, but since online tables allow bets as small as $1. Doesn't that give you better margin as to ones bank roll as you are going from $1, $2, $4, $8...rather than at live tables $5, $10, $20, $40...?

No.

It just means you can wager in a lower league.

If you want to marty your bankroll from 1000 to a target of 1010, then by all means do it in $1 base bet If you want to Marty from bankroll of $1,000,000 to $1,010,000 do it in $10 base bet.

If you want to increase your bankroll from $1000 to $1000,000 then don't marty even with a 10c base bet

Quote:MathExtremistNope.

If you have an infinite amount of money, you cannot win more.

Of course you can, it all depends on how you quantify infinities.

The martingale is designed around the idea of returning the original bet or in many cases, 1 standard betting unit. There is no way to defeat that design, other than a string of infinite losses which is impossible to account for considering the probability of being dealt a blackjack when the dealer has none to push the hand. That's where most people get disconnected in the "infinite loss" theory, because you cannot, in that theory, suggest the liklihood that the player would never be dealt a blackjack, in which the dealer would have to have defeated him with one of his own. The player could also have taken even money on the blackjack to return the 1 betting unit win, should the dealer have an ace up blackjack. Which then means that the only way for a dealer to ultimately and infinitely beat a player with a blackjack is to have the player dealt a blackjack with the dealer having an ace under.

I mentioned the infinite bankroll and infinite table limit only because the likelihood of losing 10-15 hands in a row is a REAL threat to a martingale player, so one would have to account for that before using that system. The casino knows this, and is a big part in why they have table limits in the first place, among other things.

To say that a martingale doesn't work is silly, it does, absolutely. However, it cannot work at any brick and mortar casino that I've ever seen due to the table min/max requirements, simply due to the threat of losing 15-20 hands in a row.

To argue that the martingale cannot work because the remotely impossible theory of infinite losses is just silly.

At the end of the day, we all "should" know that the martingale does indeed work, especially so in blackjack with 3:2 or even 6:5 pay, but realistically could not work due to table minimums and table limits, and shouldn't use the system.

Says the guy who argued *for* the martingale by using the "infinite bankroll" theory? Here's a napkin, you have some hypocrisy dripping down your chin.Quote:Exoter175Jesus Christ kids, are you guys really going to use the "infinite string of losses" theory to argue against the martingale?

The reason the martingale doesn't "work" -- where "work" means "provide the player with a theoretical advantage over the house" -- is that none of the individual bets in a martingale have anything to do with another. If I flat bet $1 only on some hands, I don't have an edge. (If you don't agree with this then we have a different, more fundamental disagreement.) If you flat bet $2 only on some hands, you don't have an edge. If your friend Lumpy flat bets $4 only on some hands, he doesn't have an edge. If Lumpy's girlfriend Shireen flat bets $8 only on some hands, she doesn't have an edge. Now if we all flat bet together, just in the pattern of the martingale, you must be able to see that there's no magic ingredient that turns our four individual house edges into a combined player edge. Right?

If you think the martingale "works" per some other definition, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But the only definition that matters is the one where the player has the edge. And no betting system can make that happen with a string of independent, house-favorable wagers. Card counting is a betting system that *does* work because it identifies and wagers more heavily on rare but player-favorable situations. That's not what's happening in the martingale, though, and I presume you understand the distinction. If each bet in a series of bets is house-favorable, then it trivially follows that the total amount wagered across all of them has an expected loss for the player, not an expected gain.

Quote:Exoter175

To say that a martingale doesn't work is silly, it does, absolutely. However, it cannot work at any brick and mortar casino that I've ever seen due to the table min/max requirements, simply due to the threat of losing 15-20 hands in a row.

Ok, time to fess up.

Last weekend, I found myself with £490 credit in my online account ( after a few wins and a healthy withdrawal of funds )

What the heck, I thought I'd marty my way up to £500 at the RNG BJ where £1 per hand is possible.

I'm glad I bottled it and levelled my betting.

14 fr1gging consecutive losses without even a bl00dy push along the way.

Needless to say, even with reduced wagers below marty, I was wiped out.

It happens. you have to be prepared to hit it with all your wealth, or chicken out while you are painfully behind.

Quote:IbeatyouracesI've lost more than 9 in a row on numerous occasions. It's quite frequent.

As have I, thus the mention of table maximums, since they generally cut a martingale to 8-9 hand streaks before reaching the upper limits at most places.

Bet 1: 5

Bet 2: 10

Bet 3: 20

Bet 4: 40

Bet 5: 80

Bet 6: 160 or capped by 100 limit (roulette)

Bet 7: 320 or capped by 200 limit (roulette)

Bet 8: 640 or capped by 500 limit

Bet 9: 1280 and capped by 1000 limit.

Quote:MathExtremistSays the guy who argued *for* the martingale by using the "infinite bankroll" theory? Here's a napkin, you have some hypocrisy dripping down your chin.

The reason the martingale doesn't "work" -- where "work" means "provide the player with a theoretical advantage over the house" -- is that none of the individual bets in a martingale have anything to do with another. If I flat bet $1 only on some hands, I don't have an edge. (If you don't agree with this then we have a different, more fundamental disagreement.) If you flat bet $2 only on some hands, you don't have an edge. If your friend Lumpy flat bets $4 only on some hands, he doesn't have an edge. If Lumpy's girlfriend Shireen flat bets $8 only on some hands, she doesn't have an edge. Now if we all flat bet together, just in the pattern of the martingale, you must be able to see that there's no magic ingredient that turns our four individual house edges into a combined player edge. Right?

If you think the martingale "works" per some other definition, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But the only definition that matters is the one where the player has the edge. And no betting system can make that happen with a string of independent, house-favorable wagers. Card counting is a betting system that *does* work because it identifies and wagers more heavily on rare but player-favorable situations. That's not what's happening in the martingale, though, and I presume you understand the distinction. If each bet in a series of bets is house-favorable, then it trivially follows that the total amount wagered across all of them has an expected loss for the player, not an expected gain.

I think you're having a serious case of not understanding what I've brought up here.

In a purely theoretical world, the martingale works. The probability of an endless streak of losses is impossible due to a player dealt blackjack and being offered even money. To count that out as a possibility goes against probability, and the argument is thrown out.

I mention endless because the likelihood of losing 15-20 hands in a row over the course of a game is small, but probable to occur. It is for these reasons that an infinite bankroll is required, due to the sheer size of a $5 bet becoming millions and billions by the time x or y hands have hit without a win in between.

However, you keep forgetting about the qualifier here, which is "the completion of the cycle" that I've mentioned, which is the final win, which would return at minimum 1 more base unit than bet throughout the entirety of the "cycle" which is in and of itself a win, and a 100% absolute win in the way that the system is designed. Furthermore, with the pay of a 3:2 or 6:5 blackjack, the win could be magnified significantly. Lets say we go 9 hands in a row with a loss, and then receive a blackjack on the 10th hand. The return is no longer +1 unit. Its actually 5+10+20+40+80+160+320+640+1280 or 2,555 dollars in losses offset by a 2560 bet blackjack or a net $1,285 win (257 units).

Again, however, my point is that the Martingale in an unrestrained environment where the table minimum is low, the table maximum is non existent, and your bankroll is large enough to always have the next level bet out there, will always win, 100% absolutely a minimum of your base betting unit or 1 unit. I then mention the fact that it is not a good idea and cannot work due to the fact that both the minimum bet is too high ($5) to sustain with a realistic bankroll, as well as the table maximum being too low to offset the frequency of long losing streaks, where most table max's are set to ~8-9 hands in a row before the martingale would fail.

I'm not supporting the idea that the martingale in this current standard of game rules works, only that in a theoretical world without limits, it will ALWAYS work. If you can't discern the difference between those two points in what I'm saying, you probably shouldn't argue with me about it.

Quote:OnceDearOk, time to fess up.

Last weekend, I found myself with £490 credit in my online account ( after a few wins and a healthy withdrawal of funds )

What the heck, I thought I'd marty my way up to £500 at the RNG BJ where £1 per hand is possible.

I'm glad I bottled it and levelled my betting.

14 fr1gging consecutive losses without even a bl00dy push along the way.

Needless to say, even with reduced wagers below marty, I was wiped out.

It happens. you have to be prepared to hit it with all your wealth, or chicken out while you are painfully behind.

KewlJ and I are probably the most seasoned on this forum in relation to experience with losing streaks. My worst was 29 hands in a row, and I'm sure he's done worse than that before since he's got quite a bit more hands seen than I have by magnitudes. Those long streaks do exist, and we know that and acknowledge them, which is why all of us are not martingale players lol. That being said, in a realistic world where you can bet low and martingale high, you have a fair shot at making a few bucks as long as you don't encounter massive streaks. Since those are impossible to foresee, absolutely none of us suggest betting in such a way.

Even if I could bet a single PENNY on the table, I'd have the following.

1: .01

2:. 02

3: .04

4: .08

5: .16

6: .32

7: .64

8: 1.28

9: 2.56

10: 5.12

11: 10.24

12: 20.48

13: 40.96

14: 81.92

15: 163.84

16: 327.68

17: 655.36

18: 1,310.72

19: 2,621.44

20: 5,242.88

And lets say I won, there. I'd win ONE CENT at the end of its cycle, and that's only 19 losses in a row. Now, of course, the "beauty" of the martingale in that regard is when you get to these massive hands and receive a blackjack, but its nothing to count on, as most mental martingales I've cycled, only occasionally reach 6-8 hands at their worst before a dealer bust, and rarely, rarely is the cycle completed by a "big hand" martingale.

Quote:Exoter175... Now, of course, the "beauty" of the martingale in that regard is when you get to these massive hands and receive a blackjack...

Or with my recent luck, a pair of 8s against a ten

Quote:1BBExoter, how long have you been playing blackjack?

Professionally or recreational?

I had a "blackjack" toy game when I was like, 4, so I guess you could say for a few decades haha.

Professionally? I'd say about.......8,000 hours worth.

Quote:rudeboyoiMarty+DI is a solid combination.

In sarcasm, no. In theory, I guess it could potentially be possible to marty a few bets as a DI as long as you could keep your consistency high and your deviations low. I know a guy, a DI, who marty's the hop 7's and makes a killing on the weekends doing that.

False, and since the probability of a single loss on any hand is non-zero, the probability of an endless streak of losses is also non-zero. You think being dealt blackjack is guaranteed?Quote:Exoter175In a purely theoretical world, the martingale works. The probability of an endless streak of losses is impossible due to a player dealt blackjack and being offered even money.

Quote:I mention endless because the likelihood of losing 15-20 hands in a row over the course of a game is small, but probable to occur. It is for these reasons that an infinite bankroll is required, due to the sheer size of a $5 bet becoming millions and billions by the time x or y hands have hit without a win in between.

"Probable to occur" doesn't mean anything, and you can't have an infinite amount of money. Really, you need to stop and think about the nonsensical idea of "an infinite bankroll" before you misuse the word "theoretical" again.

There is a vast conceptual distinction between "a really, really, really large finite amount of money" and "infinite money." Bill Gates has a really really really large finite amount of money. The concept of "infinite money" makes no sense from a financial standpoint because money is a medium of exchange for other scarce (finite) goods and resources, and if money (as a surrogate for those goods and resources) were infinite, its valuation would be zero. So you can have an infinite amount of "money" but the casino won't book a bet with it. On the other hand, if you somehow had an infinite amount of actual money, you couldn't possibly win or lose any finite amount anyway, so what's the point of playing blackjack? What's infinity plus one?

Really, you can't have an infinite amount of money, and the martingale does not "work" even with a really large amount of money. Plus, it's naive to suggest that anyone with a ridiculously large amount of money would ever play a $1 martingale anyway. At 200 hands per hour, suppose you won $100/hour with a $1 martingale and suppose the probability of wipeout was within epsilon of zero because you had a trillion dollars in hard currency stacked in the main expo floor of the Sands convention center (in $100 bills, it might fit; that's about 20% of the world's hard currency, btw). Good for you, making $100/hour. Guess what? A trillion dollars makes $10 billion a year just sitting in a 1%/year muni bond fund. That's over $1,000,000 per hour. Still want to play blackjack? Let me borrow that trillion dollars for the day first.

Quote:Exoter175Jesus Christ kids, are you guys really going to use the "infinite string of losses" theory to argue against the martingale? That's like claiming "godwin" and ending an argument.

Exoter, you obviously aren't very mathematically inclined. That's fine, except when you insist on having an argument based solely in mathematics. When people are discussing 18th century French ball gowns I typically don't involve myself in the conversation, because I know nothing about 18th century French ball gowns. You should do the same when the subject is math.

Quote:MathExtremistFalse, and since the probability of a single loss on any hand is non-zero, the probability of an endless streak of losses is also non-zero. You think being dealt blackjack is guaranteed?

"Probable to occur" doesn't mean anything, and you can't have an infinite amount of money. Really, you need to stop and think about the nonsensical idea of "an infinite bankroll" before you misuse the word "theoretical" again.

There is a vast conceptual distinction between "a really, really, really large finite amount of money" and "infinite money." Bill Gates has a really really really large finite amount of money. The concept of "infinite money" makes no sense from a financial standpoint because money is a medium of exchange for other scarce (finite) goods and resources, and if money (as a surrogate for those goods and resources) were infinite, its valuation would be zero. So you can have an infinite amount of "money" but the casino won't book a bet with it. On the other hand, if you somehow had an infinite amount of actual money, you couldn't possibly win or lose any finite amount anyway, so what's the point of playing blackjack? What's infinity plus one?

Really, you can't have an infinite amount of money, and the martingale does not "work" even with a really large amount of money. Plus, it's naive to suggest that anyone with a ridiculously large amount of money would ever play a $1 martingale anyway. At 200 hands per hour, suppose you won $100/hour with a $1 martingale and suppose the probability of wipeout was within epsilon of zero because you had a trillion dollars in hard currency stacked in the main expo floor of the Sands convention center (in $100 bills, it might fit; that's about 20% of the world's hard currency, btw). Good for you, making $100/hour. Guess what? A trillion dollars makes $10 billion a year just sitting in a 1%/year muni bond fund. That's over $1,000,000 per hour. Still want to play blackjack? Let me borrow that trillion dollars for the day first.

Basically, reading through your large, nonsensical post, you're arguing at the "chinks in the armor" of the martingale, the very same chinks in the armor that I pointed out for not using the system.

I'm glad we agree on that, but we seem to inherently disagree in the design of the system. In a simply theoretical sense, the martingale is absolutely guaranteed to win, by design. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, tell me why. Don't give me some nonsensical drivel about how its theoretically possible to have an infinite amount of losses in a row because you're arguing .00000000000000000000000001 x e-999 in probability of that single instance occurring, and since no occurrence has ever been shown in the history of the game, it remains simply a theoretical possibility, and not an actual possibility or a realistic one.

To counter that, you're arguing about an infinite amount of money being impossible, with the same air of reality that I argue against your infinite loss possibility. Both are unrealistic in this sense. Neither an infinite loss and an infinite bankroll are possible, and the two should cancel each other out in an intellectual debate.

To answer your question about a blackjack being guaranteed, no it is not guaranteed, however, it is exponentially more probable than an infinite loss, which is why anyone with a working brain laughs at the idea of an infinite loss and discounts it. I"m not going to disagree a tangential argument with you about the theoretical possibility of an infinite loss since it is impossible and cannot happen in the reality of our existence, I will, however, point out again that the system is designed to always return 1 betting unit by the completion of its betting cycle with an absolute 100% win rate.

I will also state, again, for the umpteenth time, that the system cannot work in a real brick and mortar casino since the table minimum, table limits, and realistic bank rolls are impossible to cope with, against much more probabilistic loss streaks, like 7, 8, 9, 10 hands in a row. In reality, most people can't sustain 6 losses in a row, and that's super common to run into.

Again, though, prove to me where the martingale doesn't win in a world without constraints. Run a sim, and tell me how deep it really goes. Show me the numbers supporting the idea of an infinite string of losses, because you simply cannot.

Quote:sabreExoter, you obviously aren't very mathematically inclined. That's fine, except when you insist on having an argument based solely in mathematics. When people are discussing 18th century French ball gowns I typically don't involve myself in the conversation, because I know nothing about 18th century French ball gowns. You should do the same when the subject is math.

Sabre, I couldn't hesitate but laugh a little when you claim that I'm not mathematically inclined. There might even be a few on the forum who know me from the other forum who also might laugh at that suggestion.

The thing is, you don't know me, you're throwing the proverbial "shit at the wall" in the hopes that it might stick. Especially when in this thread, I'm pointing out that a very unpopular system of betting in an unrestrained environment will always win, and it absolutely does 100% of the time. This draws a lot of negative attention for me on this forum full of people against "systems". However, the issue isn't that I'm saying you can use it in a casino, I've stated you cannot at least 6 or 7 times by now. What I am stating, though, is that people are wrong when they say it is a system that cannot win. It is a system that definitely and indefinitely wins without specific limitations.

In regards to the subject of math, unless we're talking about equations unrelated to the games found inside of a casino, I doubt there are even a handful of people that could or would ever challenge me to a battle of mathematics within the confines of a casino on this forum. That is, after all, how I make my livelihood. Then again, everyone can do math well on their computer in the confines of their home, not many can do it in their head in a loud, noisy, and smoky environment with their life's savings on the line. You're welcome to step into my office anytime and challenge me to a battle of mathematical wits, Sabre.

I mean, I don't do this shit for a living or anything

/dripping with sarcasm.

You are misusing the term "theoretical" to mean something that is vague and nebulous, known only to you. What "theoretical" actually means in the context of a wager, whether a single bet or broken up into a series, is the mathematical expectation for that wager.Quote:Exoter175In a simply theoretical sense, the martingale is absolutely guaranteed to win, by design. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, tell me why.

The expectation for the martingale system as applied to any house-advantageous casino game is negative, regardless of the parameters under which you play it. A betting system can only be said to "work" if it results in a positive expectation. Therefore, the martingale does not "work" under any parameters.

If you disagree, demonstrate how you can add up a plurality of negative numbers and arrive at a positive one.

Quote:ajemeisterQuote:MathExtremistNope.

If you have an infinite amount of money, you cannot win more.

Of course you can, it all depends on how you quantify infinities.

You miss the point that an infinite amount cannot be increased to infinite+x.

Exoter, who is going to read those nearly infinitely long posts of yours? Sorry, not me anyway.

Quote:MathExtremistYou are misusing the term "theoretical" to mean something that is vague and nebulous, known only to you. What "theoretical" actually means in the context of a wager, whether a single bet or broken up into a series, is the mathematical expectation for that wager.

The expectation for the martingale system as applied to any house-advantageous casino game is negative, regardless of the parameters under which you play it. A betting system can only be said to "work" if it results in a positive expectation. Therefore, the martingale does not "work" under any parameters.

If you disagree, demonstrate how you can add up a plurality of negative numbers and arrive at a positive one.

Full Definition of THEORETICAL

1

a : relating to or having the character of theory : abstract

b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative <theoretical physics>

2

: given to or skilled in theorizing <a brilliant theoretical physicist>

3

: existing only in theory : hypothetical <gave as an example a theoretical situation>

Haven't even come close to misusing that word, try again.

As far as you deflecting my question with another question, lets just get down to core of it all.

Does the martingale system work? YES, it is specifically designed to yield +1 unit by the completion of its cycle. Since that return is a POSITIVE, it does indeed WORK.

However, as I've explained COUNTLESS times, the system cannot work in confinement, IE, where there is a table minimum and table maximum.

Because of a table minimum and maximum, that doesn't make it "not work" it just makes its use impractical because the system is confined. Because of the fact that the system only works out of confinement, it cannot be relied upon to "gain" betting units within confinement.

Saying that the martingale has no positive expectation in a "generalization" is completely wrong. Saying it has no positive expectation within confinement due to limits, is correct.

Again, though, I've mentioned this countless times and we are boiling down to semantics. So again, I say, in situation where there are no betting restrictions and confinements and the next bet can always be made, the system returns a positive expectation always.

Quote:Exoter175

Does the martingale system work? YES, it is specifically designed to yield +1 unit by the completion of its cycle. Since that return is a POSITIVE, it does indeed WORK.

For the logic of this paragraph to be valid, you need to be able to prove that the cycle always completes. And you can't do that...

Quote:MathExtremist

ME, you are amongst my favorite posters. You often clearly post what I was thinking but just couldn't quite spit out coherently. I think I can assure you that even given an infinite number of posts, you will not be able to convince Exoter.....

Quote:rdw4potusFor the logic of this paragraph to be valid, you need to be able to prove that the cycle always completes. And you can't do that...

For the logic of this statement to be valid, you need to be able to prove that the cycle cannot complete, and you can't do that....

Its an impasse, really. On one hand you have the probable line of reasoning, that eventually you will win and the cycle will complete, and on the other hand you have this "only in theory" belief that one could sustain an infinite amount of losses which is mathematically impossible to prove in and of itself.

In fact, if you were to program a simulation to play blackjack, the probability of it every entering a quasi "loop" of infinite losses is so small, so minuscule, so impossible, that there might not even exist a number to "define" the probability of its occurrence.

Being a "math guy" like the rest of you, I'm willing to admit that it could happen in theory, but that is the only place that it can exist, for the reality of the situation is that its just far too improbable, nay, impossible to never be dealt a blackjack, and for that blackjack to be met by an "ace under" blackjack on the dealer, indefinitely for all of eternity. It just cannot happen in our known reality.

In fact, if we were to take a poll right now, of which is more probable and likely. Winning a hand in blackjack, or infinitely losing every hand you'll ever play, I'd imagine those of us who know how the game works would all vote towards "winning a hand in blackjack" because its more probable, by magnitudes incomprehensible to us.

If we did that, however, then every "naysayer" here would then be admitting to the fact that the "cycle" of the martingale is a +EV design, and all of your heads would explode if that were to happen.

Maybe if I always make my next post twice as long, he'll eventually understand what I said at first...Quote:SOOPOOME, you are amongst my favorite posters. You often clearly post what I was thinking but just couldn't quite spit out coherently. I think I can assure you that even given an infinite number of posts, you will not be able to convince Exoter.....

Quote:SOOPOOME, you are amongst my favorite posters. You often clearly post what I was thinking but just couldn't quite spit out coherently. I think I can assure you that even given an infinite number of posts, you will not be able to convince Exoter.....

Because he could not, ever, prove an infinite string of losses. If he were to run a 10 billion hand simulation, 10 billion times, how many of them end up with 10 billion losses? None of them.

If none of them can be proven in 10 billion simulations, it can only exist in theory, not in reality. In order for something to exist in reality, it has to have happened. Considering his theory of infinite losses has never happened, it is merely a theory. Considering theories are not evident proof of something's existence, he's simply arguing the "idea" of something possibly happening, but improbably. While I can show you proof and evidence of a cycle "Completing" its process in a martingale any time, any day. Why? Because it might only take four actions to do so. Might take thirty, might take two, might take fifteen, but I will always be able to prove its completion at any one point in my life, if we were to all sit down and play some blackjack.

Quote:MathExtremistMaybe if I always make my next post twice as long, he'll eventually understand what I said at first...

Maybe if you read my fucking post and decided to comprehend it, rather than refute a segment of its argument, you'd stop arguing semantics lol.

Quote:Exoter175Maybe if you read my fucking post and decided to comprehend it, rather than refute a segment of its argument, you'd stop arguing semantics lol.

OOOOh, a curse-filled personal insult. So you're admitting defeat? Let's talk about it when you're back from your little trip.

Quote:SOOPOOME, you are amongst my favorite posters. You often clearly post what I was thinking but just couldn't quite spit out coherently. I think I can assure you that even given an infinite number of posts, you will not be able to convince Exoter.....

I'm a fan of MathExtremist as well. Always the epitome of decorum.

I do cut Exoter some slack. A person that smart may not always be able dumb it down for the average person.

As he reminds us "I register in the top .2% of the world in intelligence quotients and factors, grading out as "highly superior", "highly gifted", genius or near genius, and "high extreme" depending on the test you base your judgement on." That's top .2%, not top 2%.

Now I'm no dope but I can't compete with that. Wouldn't the top .2% automatically be genius?

"Anyone who says that they [really] understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics"-Richard FeynmanQuote:1BBNow I'm no dope but I can't compete with that. Wouldn't the top .2% automatically be genius?

Gambling is like Quantum Mechanics. I think.

Refuting a segment of an argument is exactly how you disprove the conclusion that relies on it. Have you never made a formal argument before? Studied boolean algebra or propositional logic? I don't need to read every word of your intercourse-related article; all I need to do is demonstrate that your conclusion is dependent on an obvious falsehood and is therefore also false.Quote:Exoter175Maybe if you read my f***ing post and decided to comprehend it, rather than refute a segment of its argument, you'd stop arguing semantics lol.

Maybe if you'd stop redefining words like "theoretical" to mean "whatever you imagine in your head" rather than "within the universe of possibility" then you'd make some headway. Theories can either be supported or disproven. Your theory that the martingale is +EV relies on impossibility and is thus invalid ab initio.

And when you assert that you're a "math guy" and then, in the next breath, assert that the martingale has a "positive expectation" -- maybe you're like Humpty Dumpty from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When you use a word, it means just what you choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

Quote:rdw4potusOOOOh, a curse-filled personal insult. So you're admitting defeat? Let's talk about it when you're back from your little trip.

That comment is neither curse filled, nor admitting defeat. Its expressing frustration at the fact that he's not willing to admit that his basis for refusal is actually more improbable than the argument at hand.

Quote:MathExtremistRefuting a segment of an argument is exactly how you disprove the conclusion that relies on it. Have you never made a formal argument before? Studied boolean algebra or propositional logic? I don't need to read every word of your intercourse-related article; all I need to do is demonstrate that your conclusion is dependent on an obvious falsehood and is therefore also false.

Maybe if you'd stop redefining words like "theoretical" to mean "whatever you imagine in your head" rather than "within the universe of possibility" then you'd make some headway. Theories can either be supported or disproven. Your theory that the martingale is +EV relies on impossibility and is thus invalid ab initio.

And when you assert that you're a "math guy" and then, in the next breath, assert that the martingale has a "positive expectation" -- maybe you're like Humpty Dumpty from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When you use a word, it means just what you choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

The problem with demonstrating that my conclusion is debendent on an obvious falsehood, is that you have not. The only "demonstration" you've made is a theory that exists in a realm of improbability, where the physical manifestation could never happen. Further, a "theory" cannot refute a fact, if the theory is never proven to exist. It simply remains merely an idea that "could" but never "will" be.

My "theory" isn't a theory at all. The martingale as a system is mathematically proven to return +1 unit, and is therefore +EV. I'd love to see what you could possibly come up with to argue against that, without constraining the system by adding variables like table minimums and maximums.

Again, my issue with the "martingale debate" isn't that it can work in a casino, I've expressed nearly a dozen times it cannot. Its in the belief on your end that the system cannot work, wholly. It absolute does, its mathematically proven, and find myself appalled that a man with the username of "MathExtremist" would so much as argue against the concrete result.

Rather, you're attempting to argue against the idea of the system with a fallacy like "infinite losses" to refute the +EV conclusion of the martingale cycle, because either you just hate systems that much that you'll argue semantics, or because you just can't stand to be wrong. Either way, you cannot be "right" by using a simple "theory" to refute a fact, when the "theory" is nothing but an impossible fallacy used in such a way to do nothing else by cycle a debate endlessly.

Unless you can prove the existence of an infinite loop of losses, your argument is rendered moot, and your stance ignored.

Also, please enlighten me on how I've misused the word or tried to redefine it, I'd love an additional lesson in Grammar from the self proclaimed "math extremist"