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.