Guy claims to have invented a BJ betting system

Save your breath, Ex. These household name guys have made millions, cough, in the gambling industry. At any rate, I think that they've lost their imagination.

"Eternal inflation is a next step in inflation theory, and it allows scientists to avoid some other tricky cosmology questions, such as what existed before our universe (answer: other universes) and why our universe appears to have properties fine-tuned for life (answer: everything is possible)." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101027-science-space-universe-end-of-time-multiverse-inflation/

Every little thing is still full of possibility. (Just make a note of it to yourself, as the really interesting stuff pops up, and move along.)

Quote: Exoter175

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.

Someone who actually knows what a mathematical proof is would never say that. Have you ever written a mathematical proof? If so, please reveal your proof that "the martingale is +EV" here. BTW, emphatic rhetoric does not count as a mathematical proof.

(This space for rent)

Meanwhile, here's the counterproof that demonstrates that the Martingale is, in fact, -EV when applied to any house-advantageous wager:
1) For each wager Wi, i=1..n, EV(Wi) < 0.
2) EV(n-step Martingale on wagers Wi, i=1..n) = SUM (EV(Wi)), i=1..n
3) From 1, SUM (EV(Wi)), i=1..n < 0
4) Therefore, EV(n-step Martingale on wagers Wi, i=1..n) < 0. QED.
In English, "A series consisting of an arbitrary number of only -EV wagers is itself -EV." Note the conspicuous lack of constraints like table maximums or bet limits or bankroll considerations. Are you really going to argue against the premise that "the sum of a series of negative values is also negative"?

Quote: TheGrimReaper13

Save your breath, Ex. These household name guys have made millions, cough, in the gambling industry. At any rate, I think that they've lost their imagination.

Millions of pennies, perhaps. I don't see an attempted AP lasting very long if he believes that betting systems have +EV under any circumstances. In any event, there are better ways to make millions in the gambling industry than grinding at card counting or slot hustling or playing a $1 martingale with a bankroll of a trillion dollars.

Quote: MathExtremist

Someone who actually knows what a mathematical proof is would never say that. Have you ever written a mathematical proof? If so, please reveal your proof that "the martingale is +EV" here. BTW, emphatic rhetoric does not count as a mathematical proof.

(This space for rent)

Meanwhile, here's the counterproof that demonstrates that the Martingale is, in fact, -EV when applied to any house-advantageous wager:
1) For each wager Wi, i=1..n, EV(Wi) < 0.
2) EV(n-step Martingale on wagers Wi, i=1..n) = SUM (EV(Wi)), i=1..n
3) From 1, SUM (EV(Wi)), i=1..n < 0
4) Therefore, EV(n-step Martingale on wagers Wi, i=1..n) < 0. QED.
In English, "A series consisting of an arbitrary number of only -EV wagers is itself -EV." Note the conspicuous lack of constraints like table maximums or bet limits or bankroll considerations. Are you really going to argue against the premise that "the sum of a series of negative values is also negative"?

I see the error of your ways. You assume that a series of -EV bets are independently -EV. The martingale is in and of itself, a system. A system devoid of -EV bets as the VERY DESIGN of the system is to gain +EV through probability. Probability that eventually you'll win, and the return will be at minimum +1 unit, or in the fortunate case of a blackjack, the previous level bet +1 unit.

Through days of debate and constant deflection, you've still yet to answer my question ME, on whether or not the completion of the cycle of a Martingale yields more money than you started with, or not.

Please answer before we go any further.

PS, ME, I've got extensive experience in statistical analysis and probabilities, as well as Game Theory. Absolutely none of this is new to me and I'm struggling to continue this debate with you, simply because you're avoiding the obvious, which is the answer I just posed to you. Further, at no point did I say or even remotely suggest that using a martingale in a casino would be a smart thing or even advisable thing to do. I simply corrected statements about its ability to "work".

Quote: MathExtremist

Millions of pennies, perhaps. I don't see an attempted AP lasting very long if he believes that betting systems have +EV under any circumstances. In any event, there are better ways to make millions in the gambling industry than grinding at card counting or slot hustling or playing a $1 martingale with a bankroll of a trillion dollars.

Please, MathExtremist, do enlighten us. Show us a "better way" to make millions in the gambling industry, other than card counting and slot hustling. I mean, there are so very few of us who can actually say with honesty, that we even make money doing this, even fewer who have made even remotely close to what I've made in my time.

Unless of course, your idea is to come up with a "system" to sell that doesn't work, and swindling gullible gamblers into spending their hard earned money because they are idiots. Aside from that, I couldn't think of another way to make those "millions" aside from card counting and machine hustling, and in fact, the very proposition is insulting to those of us who do, and the greats that paved the way before we came along.

I get the impression that you are a man who gives very little respect to anyone, whether they deserve it or not, and further I feel like you're on the opposite side of the "AP" fence, always being a naysayer despite the obvious staring you in the face because you either lack the discipline to do so, the time, or the intellect.

Either way, you've made a lot of bold claims so far, perhaps its time you start providing evidence for some of them before we carry on any further.

Quote: Exoter175

Either way, you've made a lot of bold claims so far...

Really, Sir?

Do you write this stuff, then click 'post', then burst out laughing?

Quote: AlanMendelson

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

My thoughts: I haven't been to Vegas in a dozen years - but my thinking has always been that even though Christ is Lord, Cash is king.

If I come to a casino with $1000 or $10k, or even 100 bucks - I want to leave with more than I came with.

If I lose a grand - and all I have to show for it is a few buffets and a free room or two - that's just not worth that much to me. I don't consider comps in the evaluation of my return. They're gravy, nice to get to be sure, but they don't pay the mortgage. You can't put it in your IRA, heck, you can't even transfer them as gifts.

As for gift cards - they sell them here- but they don't let you use comp dollars in Biloxi - at least, not that I've heard.

I believe Harrah's has some sort of program, but it requires a credit card of theirs which I don't wish to have just so I could get some gift card which resulted from considerable risk.

Anyways, just thought I'd share my two cents on the subject. Have a nice day!

Let me see if I have this straight:

Exoter175: Given an infinite bankroll and an infinite betting limit, Martingale works with probability 1.

MathExtremist: Given that there's no such thing as an "infinite bankroll," the statement is meaningless.

Exoter175: Eventually, you will win, and when you do, you have (whatever your base betting unit is) more than when you started.

MathExtremist: The last time I checked, {aleph-null} plus {some discrete value} still equals {aleph-null}.
(Perhaps, but doesn't that statement imply that {aleph-null} minus {aleph-null} is necessarily always zero?)

Is this the gist of it?

BTW, Exoter175, you need to take into account that infinite bankroll and infinite betting limit aren't enough; you also need infinite time - something that even those of us who threw Cs in astrophysics know isn't true. Also, saying "Martingale is +EV" implies "Martingale is +EV every time."

Exeter - I completely agree with you.

You will not convince mathheads that you can lose infinitely. It would be interesting for them to calculate the possibility of red spinning infinitely in roulette with black NEVER happening. But here is what would happen.

The mathhead will tell you it is impossible based on an infinite simulation because since its infinite the simulation hasn't finished yet.

They will then tell you they limited the sim to ten billion and the possibility of this happening is zero.

They will then tell you that every spin is independent and the odds are unchanging 1/38 in double zero roulette so it could happen because theoretically the ten billionth spin could be the ten billionth red spun since the past 9 billion + spins don't count for the current one.

So, you see its circular math logic -- you cannot win against these people even in a live environment, they will just tell you, "well, proves nothing against my theoretical math because I am a mathematician."

I remember talking about a surprising lucky win where I bet from a $75 free-spin at roulette to $3500 by staying on red which streak lasted for fifteen spins. The math geeks told me I had actually LOST money. Their explanation is I lost money by not being paid full odds in a -ev game. I should have been 37 dollars instead of 35 for every dollar bet so I was a loser.

Personally you just have to laugh at them when they call $3500 a losing winning streak.

IMPROBABLE to never win is nowhere near the same as IMPOSSIBLE to never win.

There is a ton of stuff out there on the internet on the martingale.

Here's an example:

http://vegasclick.com/gambling/martingale-betting-system

look the charts for Chances of Win, Average Win, Average Loss.

here is an example -
85% chance of winning, $13 average win, $91 average loss.

17 times out of 20, you win $13, for a total of $221
3 times out of 20, you lose $91, for a total of $273

see there? That is the important part - the sums of your wins are not greater than the sums of your losses.

Quote: Exoter175

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.



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.



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.

Wow! Can anyone tell us the odds of losing 29 blackjack hands in a row? It must be very high.

I think I can safely say that I've got more blackjack under my belt than most here and I don't think I've lost that many in a row. Of course I wouldn't know because losing or winning x number of hands in a row is not something I would ever keep track of. I just don't see the point. Sort of like wasting time counting down a deck of cards at the kitchen table for speed. I don't see the point of that either. I do know that the odds of losing 29 hands in a row is less than the 3964000000-to-1 for losing 30 in a row.

Where did I get that huge number? Not from my math skills. This is where I would type LOL - if I were 12. I got the number from a post by a very respected mathematician.

Quote: 1BB

Wow! Can anyone tell us the odds of losing 29 blackjack hands in a row? It must be very high.

I think I can safely say that I've got more blackjack under my belt than most here and I don't think I've lost that many in a row. Of course I wouldn't know because losing or winning x number of hands in a row is not something I would ever keep track of. I just don't see the point. Sort of like wasting time counting down a deck of cards at the kitchen table for speed. I don't see the point of that either. I do know that the odds of losing 29 hands in a row is less than the 3964000000-to-1 for losing 30 in a row.

Where did I get that huge number? Not from my math skills. This is where I would type LOL - if I were 12. I got the number from a post by a very respected mathematician.

Or its like figuring out something that never really happened.

Quote: MathExtremist

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?

"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.

You could get hit by lightning.

You could get hit by lightning nth times.

You could get hit by meteoroid.

You could get hit by meteoroid nth times.

You can lose 40 consecutive hands in a row.

Planet Earth WILL get hit by a giant “rock” from outer space, and subsequent events will destroy all human lives on Earth and the human race will become extinct (the dinosaurs can tell you this catastrophic event will happen, but they can’t tell you when it will happen).

The casino can go bankrupt before a player with $ One trillion bank roll before its customer(s) encounter bad luck of 40 consecutive losing hands.

Sh!t happens!

Let’s say you take $1.4 in $100 bill to Exorter-Martingale casino, and play a casino game (any game – blackjack, bac, poker, etc…) at a consistent bet of $5000 per hand, and will only apply progressive betting method on an instant of a losing hand, and in a progressive system below, you would lose all of your fortune in a 40-hand losing streak.

(1) 5,000 (instant of a losing hand) --- (21) 2,621,440,000
(2) 5,000 (progressive betting start) -- (22) 5,242,880,000
(3) 10,000 ------------------------------ (23) 10,485,760,000
(4) 20,000 ------------------------------ (24) 20,971,520,000
(5) 40,000 ------------------------------ (25) 41,943,040,000
(6) 80,000 ------------------------------ (26) 83,886,080,000
(7) 160,000 ----------------------------- (27) 167,772,160,000
(8) 320,000 ----------------------------- (28) 335,544,320,000
(9) 640,000 ----------------------------- (29) 671,088,640,000
(10) 1,280,000 (million) ----------------- (30) 1,342,177,280,000
(11) 2,560,000 --------------------------- (31) 2,684,354,560,000
(12) 5,120,000 --------------------------- (32) 5,368,709,120,000
(13) 10,240,000 ------------------------- (33) 10,737,418,240,000
(14) 20,480,000 ------------------------- (34) 21,474,836,480,000
(15) 40,960,000 ------------------------- (35) 42,949,672,960,000
(16) 81,920,000 -------------------------- (36) 85,899,345,920,000
(17) 163,840,000 --------------------------- (37) 171,798,691,840,000
(18) 327,680,000 --------------------------- (38) 343,597,383,680,000
(19) 655,360,000 --------------------------- (39) 687,194,767,360,000
(20) 1,310,720,000 (billion) ---------------- (40) 1,374,389,534,720,000 (trillion $$$ fortune gone)

Let’s assume no table max limit and you play an average of 200 hands per hours, 8 hours/ day, and play on 300 days/year (you deserve 2 months of vacation per year).

Let’s assume a winning rate of 85 hands per hour (a 42.5% winning rate) then your annual gambling income is a cool $1.02 billion if you don’t encounter a 40-hand losing streak. And if you encounter a 40-hand losing streak ….

If you encounter a bad losing streak, your fortune will become Exorter-Martingale casino’s fortune. And if you don’t encounter a 40-hand losing streak, then Exorter-Martingale casino will be bankrupted and there is no other place for you to gamble.

Yes, we all know that sh!1 happens! But the question I have for everyone is this: Which is a more likely event: the bankruptcy of Exorter-Martingale casino, or the 40-hand losing streak? Sure, the 40-hand losing streak is more likely to occur than get hit by lightning. But between the bankruptcy of Exorter-Martingale casinos and the 40-hand losing streak, I would say the bankruptcy of Exorter-Martingale casino is a more likely event.

The intent of this reply is to discuss viability of progressive betting system in a non-table max limit, and in my opinion, progressive betting system DOES work when there is no table max limit for player with gigantic fortune who is willing to tolerate a great degree of risk. It is worth noting that this reply does not address the risk/benefit scenario (risk of $1.4 trillion in exchange for $1.02 billion benefit) when the probability of a 40-hand losing streak is taken into consideration.

Quote: AxelWolf

Or its like figuring out something that never really happened.

My record is twenty, which I've posted before. I suspect that 1BB remembers that, don't know why. If it happens it happens, whatever the mathematical probability says it really shouldn't happen in your lifetime. Life is real, math is an attempt at an explanation.

Quote: 777

The intent of this reply is to discuss viability of progressive betting system in a non-table max limit, and in my opinion, progressive betting system DOES work when there is no table max limit for player with gigantic fortune who is willing to tolerate a great degree of risk.

No, it doesn't, and it's a calculable question that's not open to interpretation or opinion. For someone with a gigantic but finite fortune F, they can only make log_2(F) bets before they no longer have enough to cover all of the prior losses. For any -EV bet, the odds against making bet N are always greater than the amount bet (and therefore the amount won). Table limits don't matter, what matters is that at some point, either you or the casino will be unable to book the bet. Either it's you or it's the casino. You can calculate the non-zero probability of reaching that amount and therefore the frequency with which you will fail to recoup all your losses even if you do win (or will lose the max if you lose again). So no, the martingale does not "work" when someone has a gigantic fortune.

The related intuition, that the martingale "works" when the player has an "infinite" fortune, is invalid because it's based on the impossible concept of "an infinite fortune." There's no such thing as an infinite amount of money. Really, there isn't. Saying "the martingale works if the impossible happens" isn't really a compelling or intelligent argument, and I've no desire to debate impossibilities.

Quote: odiousgambit

Really, Sir?

Do you write this stuff, then click 'post', then burst out laughing?

Not entirely sure what you're trying to get at odiousgambit.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Let me see if I have this straight:

Exoter175: Given an infinite bankroll and an infinite betting limit, Martingale works with probability 1.

MathExtremist: Given that there's no such thing as an "infinite bankroll," the statement is meaningless.

Exoter175: Eventually, you will win, and when you do, you have (whatever your base betting unit is) more than when you started.

MathExtremist: The last time I checked, {aleph-null} plus {some discrete value} still equals {aleph-null}.
(Perhaps, but doesn't that statement imply that {aleph-null} minus {aleph-null} is necessarily always zero?)

Is this the gist of it?

BTW, Exoter175, you need to take into account that infinite bankroll and infinite betting limit aren't enough; you also need infinite time - something that even those of us who threw Cs in astrophysics know isn't true. Also, saying "Martingale is +EV" implies "Martingale is +EV every time."

Considering my statement was that it would only work in a world where the system was not constrained, and I said this countless times, the last statement you made is irrelevant.

All I did here was correct some silly idea that the design of the Martingale wasn't +EV. It absolutely is, 10000000000000000millionbajillion%, it just can't be used in a casino with table limits. Furthermore, I pointed out that one of the many reasons there are table limits is for the EXACT same reason. Partly to dissuade people from using betting systems against the casino, partly because of the "maintenance" on a table where a player might be playing a martingale past 5 or 6 lost hands and essentially needing to wager for more chips than the table currently has offered. There's a few smaller reasons as well, but they won't add or detract anything from the current "argument" if you could call it that.

Quote: darkoz

Exeter - I completely agree with you.

You will not convince mathheads that you can lose infinitely. It would be interesting for them to calculate the possibility of red spinning infinitely in roulette with black NEVER happening. But here is what would happen.

The mathhead will tell you it is impossible based on an infinite simulation because since its infinite the simulation hasn't finished yet.

They will then tell you they limited the sim to ten billion and the possibility of this happening is zero.

They will then tell you that every spin is independent and the odds are unchanging 1/38 in double zero roulette so it could happen because theoretically the ten billionth spin could be the ten billionth red spun since the past 9 billion + spins don't count for the current one.

So, you see its circular math logic -- you cannot win against these people even in a live environment, they will just tell you, "well, proves nothing against my theoretical math because I am a mathematician."

I remember talking about a surprising lucky win where I bet from a $75 free-spin at roulette to $3500 by staying on red which streak lasted for fifteen spins. The math geeks told me I had actually LOST money. Their explanation is I lost money by not being paid full odds in a -ev game. I should have been 37 dollars instead of 35 for every dollar bet so I was a loser.

Personally you just have to laugh at them when they call $3500 a losing winning streak.

Yeah, these so called "math wizards" can't swallow their own pride to admit the fallacy of an "infinite loss", while I (from the opposite end of the argument) can admit to its existence in a purely theoretical world.

See the problem there? I'm being the realistic, rational one here, yet I'm getting debated on semantics about moot points.

That's just silly.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

IMPROBABLE to never win is nowhere near the same as IMPOSSIBLE to never win.

I know it isn't, however, you and I and every living being on this earth knows that in a game like blackjack, where the possibility of "winning" prior to the dealer action makes realistically impossible. The only realm in which an infinite loss like that exists is in a purely theoretical world.

I'll even be bold and honest right now, and say that it cannot happen in the real world. The odds of it happening are so impossible, you'd likely stand a better chance at being struck by lightning indefinitely.

Quote: Dalex64

There is a ton of stuff out there on the internet on the martingale.

Here's an example:

https://easy.vegas/gambling/martingale-betting-system

look the charts for Chances of Win, Average Win, Average Loss.

here is an example -
85% chance of winning, $13 average win, $91 average loss.

17 times out of 20, you win $13, for a total of $221
3 times out of 20, you lose $91, for a total of $273

see there? That is the important part - the sums of your wins are not greater than the sums of your losses.

Please don't post something that silly in this debate ever again.

Did you even READ the article you posted? That was absolute NONSENSE in relation to the current topics.

For what its worth, so you understand the situation completely. If you stop the system after your win, you cannot have lost, ever, period, finito, donezo, impossible.

Quote: 1BB

Wow! Can anyone tell us the odds of losing 29 blackjack hands in a row? It must be very high.

I think I can safely say that I've got more blackjack under my belt than most here and I don't think I've lost that many in a row. Of course I wouldn't know because losing or winning x number of hands in a row is not something I would ever keep track of. I just don't see the point. Sort of like wasting time counting down a deck of cards at the kitchen table for speed. I don't see the point of that either. I do know that the odds of losing 29 hands in a row is less than the 3964000000-to-1 for losing 30 in a row.

Where did I get that huge number? Not from my math skills. This is where I would type LOL - if I were 12. I got the number from a post by a very respected mathematician.

1.186395310948284e-11:1 ish for 29 hands in a row.

I only know the number because I remember losing through a few shoes of single deck without a win or push lol.

Mathextremist -

I personally find your math too extreme!

Quote: MathExtremist

No, it doesn't, and it's a calculable question that's not open to interpretation or opinion. For someone with a gigantic but finite fortune F, they can only make log_2(F) bets before they no longer have enough to cover all of the prior losses. For any -EV bet, the odds against making bet N are always greater than the amount bet (and therefore the amount won). Table limits don't matter, what matters is that at some point, either you or the casino will be unable to book the bet. Either it's you or it's the casino. You can calculate the non-zero probability of reaching that amount and therefore the frequency with which you will fail to recoup all your losses even if you do win (or will lose the max if you lose again). So no, the martingale does not "work" when someone has a gigantic fortune.

The related intuition, that the martingale "works" when the player has an "infinite" fortune, is invalid because it's based on the impossible concept of "an infinite fortune." There's no such thing as an infinite amount of money. Really, there isn't. Saying "the martingale works if the impossible happens" isn't really a compelling or intelligent argument, and I've no desire to debate impossibilities.

Yet you debate something like an infinite loss.

Give me a break ME, you've been arguing semantics and tangents this entire time.

Again, for the last effing time. Answer yes or not to the following question.

Does the martingale yield +1 units over all units bet, minimum, at the end of its cycle? (That cycle being a win)

Answer it or stop posting.


PS, you still haven't explained how we can make millions more by not counting or machine hustling in the casino. Still waiting on pins and needles for that one.

Quote: Exoter175

PS, you still haven't explained how we can make millions more by not counting or machine hustling in the casino. Still waiting on pins and needles for that one.

I have the answer for that one because I've heard it before.

Get a meaningful high-paying job in the business world outside of the casino.

Quote: darkoz

I have the answer for that one because I've heard it before.

Get a meaningful high-paying job in the business world outside of the casino.

Well, his quote was

"Millions of pennies, perhaps. I don't see an attempted AP lasting very long if he believes that betting systems have +EV under any circumstances. In any event, there are better ways to make millions in the gambling industry than grinding at card counting or slot hustling or playing a $1 martingale with a bankroll of a trillion dollars."

I'm wanting to know what he's suggesting here. If he's simply being a smartass about getting a job within the industry, or if he's some kind of rare breed of many who figured out a way to "beat" the casino, not using card counting or machine hustling.

I see, Exeter.

Well, as one of those rare breed who AP's for large sums of money without card counting or machine hustling, I can testify it is possible.

Quote: Exoter175

Well, his quote was

"Millions of pennies, perhaps. I don't see an attempted AP lasting very long if he believes that betting systems have +EV under any circumstances. In any event, there are better ways to make millions in the gambling industry than grinding at card counting or slot hustling or playing a $1 martingale with a bankroll of a trillion dollars."

I'm wanting to know what he's suggesting here. If he's simply being a smartass about getting a job within the industry, or if he's some kind of rare breed of many who figured out a way to "beat" the casino, not using card counting or machine hustling.

Machine hustling usually means bonus vulturing there's certainly better ways and plays than that.

Like reading intense political debates on Facebook pages, this was fascinating. Thanks to all the participants.

Quote: darkoz

I see, Exeter.

Well, as one of those rare breed who AP's for large sums of money without card counting or machine hustling, I can testify it is possible.

That's because the folks who spend time card counting and machine hustling don't have time to make the bigger money (or don't know how). Those particular activities take a long time so hourly win is low.

Quote: Exoter175

Does the martingale yield +1 units over all units bet, minimum, at the end of its cycle? (That cycle being a win)

Not always, no.

Quote: Exoter175

Well, his quote was

"Millions of pennies, perhaps. I don't see an attempted AP lasting very long if he believes that betting systems have +EV under any circumstances. In any event, there are better ways to make millions in the gambling industry than grinding at card counting or slot hustling or playing a $1 martingale with a bankroll of a trillion dollars."

I'm wanting to know what he's suggesting here. If he's simply being a smartass about getting a job within the industry, or if he's some kind of rare breed of many who figured out a way to "beat" the casino, not using card counting or machine hustling.

You're not actually in the gambling industry if your only interaction with gambling operators (or vendors) is as a player, just like you're not in the cattle industry if your only interaction with beef producers or vendors is eating a hamburger.

And no, I'm not suggesting something as trite as "get a job in the gambling industry," though for the almost everyone that's a quicker and safer way to riches than being an AP. There are far more people working for slot companies who have made more than $1M in a decade than APs who make more than $1M in a decade. Have you made $1M over the past decade by playing blackjack and slots?

No, I'm talking about actually running a gambling business, whether that's as an operator, a vendor, or some other service provider. There are exceedingly few legitimate gaming businesses that fail to make millions of dollars in revenues while managing to actually stay in business. There are a few exceptions in specialized niches, but really, if you've been around for more than a few years and you haven't grossed over $1M total, you're either a solo practitioner or an underperforming firm.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's because the folks who spend time card counting and machine hustling don't have time to make the bigger money (or don't know how). Those particular activities take a long time so hourly win is low.

I will tell Don Johnson he was wasting his time next time I see him and Phil Ivey together.

Quote: redjohn

I will tell Don Johnson he was wasting his time next time I see him and Phil Ivey together.

You think Don Johnson or Phil Ivey made their money counting cards?

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

Quote: 1BB

Wow! Can anyone tell us the odds of losing 29 blackjack hands in a row? It must be very high.

I think I can safely say that I've got more blackjack under my belt than most here and I don't think I've lost that many in a row. Of course I wouldn't know because losing or winning x number of hands in a row is not something I would ever keep track of. I just don't see the point. Sort of like wasting time counting down a deck of cards at the kitchen table for speed.

Less than entertaining thread for me. But I love these two points, losses in a row and counting down decks, so kudos to you, 1BB. :)

I laugh every time someone talks about # of blackjack losses in a row. Like you, I've played a fair amount. I would say I have lost 10-12 in a row....maybe. :/ But, I have no idea for sure. WHO counts losses in a row?? Don't want to even if I could....lol. Usually the way it works is I realize I have lost a number of hands in a row. But is it 7 or 8, or 10? I don't know.....I don't care. (other than re-doubling my attention that I am not being cheated)

Quote: MathExtremist

That's because the folks who spend time card counting and machine hustling don't have time to make the bigger money (or don't know how). Those particular activities take a long time so hourly win is low.

You obviously don't think much of card counters as you constantly put us down. That's fine. That's your right. But just know that SOME of us choose this elementary method of AP.

I appreciate that you are extremely 'gifted' in mathematics. I am not, but I do have the ability to apply some other so called 'more advanced' methods of AP. I choose not to for a variety of reasons. I have turned down offers to participate with some gifted colleagues and teams. Just not my thing. Some of us CHOOSE and enjoy this method of AP. :)

Quote: RS

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

Um, no the Britney Spears analogy makes no sense.

How about this anyone. Can anyone perform a simulation where even a large -ev game (how about sic bo) with high/lo goes for just ten thousand results and the computer (after as many attempts as you feel comfortable with) results in ten thousand straight results of High (or low pick your side.)

Now I have seen EVERY mathematician on here argue that simulations cannot be put down as not being similar to real world conditions (assuming programming is correct) and you can check Jay's system challenge and the WOV both saying anyone who challenges the validity of a sim programmed correctly with the excuse its not in the real world is a fool.

So, if programmed properly sims are to be taken as absolute proof of what can and will happen in the real world, please do the sims until you've found one where the same side loses just ten thousand times in a row.

And if after as many attempts as you wish you can't make it happen, then admit that in the real world (not some theoretical mathematicians wet dream) that its impossible.

Quote: darkoz

Um, no the Britney Spears analogy makes no sense.

How about this anyone. Can anyone perform a simulation where even a large -ev game (how about sic bo) with high/lo goes for just ten thousand results and the computer (after as many attempts as you feel comfortable with) results in ten thousand straight results of High (or low pick your side.)

Did you not understand the analogy? Or perhaps you don't understand what Exoter is actually saying...I think this is more likely.


Are you really arguing the whole "such a number is so vastly gigantically small, it is 0"? Come on, we all know the chance of losing 10,000 hands in a row is so tiny....and I'm sure you also know it would take a very long time to find such a situation on a computer, when simulated.

You may as well argue "flipping a coin an infinite amount of times...you will never get 10,000 heads in a row...just try it out for yourself and see!".

Quote: RS

Did you not understand the analogy? Or perhaps you don't understand what Exoter is actually saying...I think this is more likely.


Are you really arguing the whole "such a number is so vastly gigantically small, it is 0"? Come on, we all know the chance of losing 10,000 hands in a row is so tiny....and I'm sure you also know it would take a very long time to find such a situation on a computer, when simulated.

You may as well argue "flipping a coin an infinite amount of times...you will never get 10,000 heads in a row...just try it out for yourself and see!".

Show Spoiler

I don't know what trolls smell like...

Show Spoiler

...but it's really starting to smell like them!

The last refuge of a person who knows he's wrong is to resort to insults. So now we are trolls even as you admit that it would take so long (how long? Too long to even attempt it because almost certainly it would never happen) that you realize you've been trapped by your own tripe.

And yes, I understood Exeter, probably and obviously much better than you do.

I don't think anyone understands discussions of Britney Spears loving people because they love her. That's a nonsensical non-mathematical argument with no comparison to this discussion (naturally brought up by a mathematician.)

So if I understand you correctly RS, you are saying you can't run the sim which every mathematician says proves things in the real world because you can't make it work in the real world?

Every system bettor is challenged with sims that the mathematicians claim will prove how their system can't work but suddenly, when a mathematician says its possible to have infinite losses (and I'm only asking for ten thousand), it can't be done because it would take too long, lol.

Does anyone else smell the bull-crap!

Here's a scenario:

You're in a casino at a Craps table. Someone has just thrown a seven/eleven ten thousand straight times.

The casino shuts down the table and makes the accusation the dice must be loaded (my guess is they would have done after just the fiftieth throw but hey, what's another 9,950 throws, nothing suspicious here.)

You now accuse the casino of being ridiculous, because of course it's possible to throw a seven/eleven ten thousand straight times. Within the mathematical world, it's entirely feasible.

You would sit there and make that argument with the pitboss?

Simulations are not necessary if you can determine the result using math. For example, there serves no purpose in simulating a roulette game to determine the HE, when I can use simple math to determine the HE [result].

I'm not sure what your purpose is for asking me to run a simulation to find 10K losses in a row, other than to waste my time. I may as well ask you to run a simulation of infinite # of hands to determine 10K losses in a row is impossible....but I won't, that's silly.

The bottom line is this: Exoter created a pretend environment (infinite bankroll, infinite time, but NOT infinite losses) where martingale would work. It's like arguing in my pretend world I will flip a two-sided coin (one side heads the other tails) where the coin will land on heads every time, because I make some rule that the coin can never land on tails.

Quote:

You now accuse the casino of being ridiculous, because of course it's possible to throw a seven/eleven ten thousand straight times. Within the mathematical world, it's entirely feasible.

You would sit there and make that argument with the pitboss?

After/during an infinite # of dice throws, that will happen. In the real world, I would not make such an argument, because the chance of that happening in a finite # of dice throws is small. Well, depends on the sample size.


I think you're going down the path of "10,000 X's in a row is not possible, ever."

Quote: darkoz

I see, Exeter.

Well, as one of those rare breed who AP's for large sums of money without card counting or machine hustling, I can testify it is possible.

And you do this within the casino? Please enlighten me (PM if you will)

Quote: AxelWolf

Machine hustling usually means bonus vulturing there's certainly better ways and plays than that.

That's certainly part of the equation, yes. What you should know, is that there are many, many, many vulturable plays out there, some right under your nose without even knowing. I'm the rare breed who knows these machines, knows the ins and outs of "why" they work and "how" they work, better yet, how to exploit them. These aren't the old days of obvious accumulators, though some do exist.

I've found "few" better ways and plays to concentrate on, including card counting, to be able to make what I make. We're not even talking one play, or two plays, we're talking about the culmination of all possible plays, a "playbook" if you will.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's because the folks who spend time card counting and machine hustling don't have time to make the bigger money (or don't know how). Those particular activities take a long time so hourly win is low.

Really? Interesting.

Just curious, do you even know what you're talking about, or are you throwing shit at a wall in hopes that it sticks, again?

Quote: MathExtremist

Not always, no.

That wasn't a simple yes or no.

Allow me to rephrase.

Aside from a purely theoretical infinite loss, does it always yield a minimum of +1 unit at the completion of its cycle?

Yes or No.

Quote: MathExtremist

You're not actually in the gambling industry if your only interaction with gambling operators (or vendors) is as a player, just like you're not in the cattle industry if your only interaction with beef producers or vendors is eating a hamburger.

And no, I'm not suggesting something as trite as "get a job in the gambling industry," though for the almost everyone that's a quicker and safer way to riches than being an AP. There are far more people working for slot companies who have made more than $1M in a decade than APs who make more than $1M in a decade. Have you made $1M over the past decade by playing blackjack and slots?

No, I'm talking about actually running a gambling business, whether that's as an operator, a vendor, or some other service provider. There are exceedingly few legitimate gaming businesses that fail to make millions of dollars in revenues while managing to actually stay in business. There are a few exceptions in specialized niches, but really, if you've been around for more than a few years and you haven't grossed over $1M total, you're either a solo practitioner or an underperforming firm.

Blah blah blah, blah blah, "get a job in the gaming business" is what I read. So no, there's not a better way to make money INSIDE the casino as a player, than what I do.

I will be honest, I haven't made a million, yet. I'll be there very soon, though. Two years of 100k+, 7 years of 60k+, and at this point with the network I've put together, I don't see a reason that should be going downward anytime soon.

Quote: RS

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

Not even remotely what I've said here, nor is that the gist of the argument either. All I've been pointing out is that the system itself is designed to return +EV with a minimum of +1 unit per cycle. I also stated that, though that is true and indisputable (despite these fools trying to dispute it), it is impractical due to bankroll sizing, table minimums, and table maximums. Keep in mind RollingStoned, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII am the one who pointed that out first. I prefaced the entire thing by highlighting the vulnerabilities that these "math wizards" waited pages and pages to start arguing about, long after I addressed them and corrected a few parts of their opinions (not facts) about the martingale.

This entire argument has basically boiled down to MathExtremist avoiding answering the obvious, because it counters his stance. Meanwhile, he's over there arguing semantics about impossibilities and improbabilities.

Quote: kewlj

Less than entertaining thread for me. But I love these two points, losses in a row and counting down decks, so kudos to you, 1BB. :)

I laugh every time someone talks about # of blackjack losses in a row. Like you, I've played a fair amount. I would say I have lost 10-12 in a row....maybe. :/ But, I have no idea for sure. WHO counts losses in a row?? Don't want to even if I could....lol. Usually the way it works is I realize I have lost a number of hands in a row. But is it 7 or 8, or 10? I don't know.....I don't care. (other than re-doubling my attention that I am not being cheated)




You obviously don't think much of card counters as you constantly put us down. That's fine. That's your right. But just know that SOME of us choose this elementary method of AP.

I appreciate that you are extremely 'gifted' in mathematics. I am not, but I do have the ability to apply some other so called 'more advanced' methods of AP. I choose not to for a variety of reasons. I have turned down offers to participate with some gifted colleagues and teams. Just not my thing. Some of us CHOOSE and enjoy this method of AP. :)

KJ, I'll say it again. You're far too modest dude.

As far as counting hands lost, and streaks, that's just something I do to keep my mind busy while I'm counting. I think we may have discussed this on BJTF before, about my memory, but I can basically recall every hand I've played in a session up to a few days out. Hell, I could probably nail down most information I"m not truly focusing on to a pretty accurate account. Specifically, though, during this session of 29 losses in a row (not pushes, but legit losses) I was playing an "off the top advantage" on a trip last year, which I may have mentioned a little bit about over there. I won't break into the complete details, but we'll just say that the game was in the upper midwest, and there was a "gimmick" for the month going on that I figured out would be advantageous to play "heads up" versus a dealer in SDBJ in a "playall" with a small spread. I could have likely milked this casino for their net worth at the time, but didn't feel like arousing too much suspicion as I needed "them" to comp me. In essence, I worked their SDBJ game from the 2nd to the 29th of an entire month, 600 miles from home with a room comped by them the entire time, and nearly 8 hours a day in playing time. At the end of the month and the trip, I came away with over $19,000 in winnings, free food/drinks and a comped room with free laundry the entire time. I've rarely ever seen such a "gimmick" or "promotion" but when I hear of them, I tend to evaluate them pretty heavily before I make my move. It started incredibly slow at first, as I had to "size up" their floor personnel as well as dealers to "squeeze" the "gimmick" as much as I could within reason, and I doubt I'll ever find such a "gimmick" again. Anyways, we ended up going though 3 shoes of 75% pen on SDBJ before I broke my streak. It was the roughest patch during that time where I milked very little out of the "gimmick" while losing on a fairly positive count almost the entire way through.

Quote: RS

Simulations are not necessary if you can determine the result using math. For example, there serves no purpose in simulating a roulette game to determine the HE, when I can use simple math to determine the HE [result].

I'm not sure what your purpose is for asking me to run a simulation to find 10K losses in a row, other than to waste my time. I may as well ask you to run a simulation of infinite # of hands to determine 10K losses in a row is impossible....but I won't, that's silly.

The bottom line is this: Exoter created a pretend environment (infinite bankroll, infinite time, but NOT infinite losses) where martingale would work. It's like arguing in my pretend world I will flip a two-sided coin (one side heads the other tails) where the coin will land on heads every time, because I make some rule that the coin can never land on tails.

Quote:

You now accuse the casino of being ridiculous, because of course it's possible to throw a seven/eleven ten thousand straight times. Within the mathematical world, it's entirely feasible.

You would sit there and make that argument with the pitboss?

After/during an infinite # of dice throws, that will happen. In the real world, I would not make such an argument, because the chance of that happening in a finite # of dice throws is small. Well, depends on the sample size.


I think you're going down the path of "10,000 X's in a row is not possible, ever."

Actually, I didn't create a scenario where we have an infinite bankroll, time, and no infinite losses. In fact, I did just the opposite. I created a scenario where the limits to the system, which I've mentioned countless times now, were not a factor. I did that because to get down to the bottom line of the system, we must take away all "practical" constraints to the system to evaluate the system.

The system itself is +EV, because the win returns greater value than the sum of all losses. This is true, this is fact, this is indisputable. All we need for the martingale to cycle itself to the win, is enough "room" to allow for it. I mentioned this, because I was serving both sides of the argument to make multiple points.

Those points are as follows

1. The martingale as a system, works and is +EV
2. The martingale as a system cannot work while constrained by limits
3. You should never use a martingale, or any betting system, ever, inside of a casino.
4. Systems generally don't work for reasons unrelated to the +/- EV of the raw game, such as table limits, bankroll sizing, and time.

If at any point you feel I didn't validate those points, then you did not actually read the entirety of what was said, and are in fact adding nothing to the discussion, other than trolling bait.

The purpose of asking you to do the sim is to show you that 10,000 straight losses would never happen.

You are hiding behind the common bully tactic of "its a waste of my time" Kind of like when the big punk at school won't fight the weaker kid because everyone knows he'll beat him (I laughingly saw this big punk say that until the little kid knocked his lights out.)

So everyone here really sees -- its a waste of time in your words, because there will never be a time when you can have a sim do this because guess what? It's not possible.

And if it is possible, I challenge you to prove it with a sim. (Go ahead, say again you don't need to prove something that you can't)

Quote: darkoz

The purpose of asking you to do the sim is to show you that 10,000 straight losses would never happen.

You are hiding behind the common bully tactic of "its a waste of my time" Kind of like when the big punk at school won't fight the weaker kid because everyone knows he'll beat him (I laughingly saw this big punk say that until the little kid knocked his lights out.)

So everyone here really sees -- its a waste of time in your words, because there will never be a time when you can have a sim do this because guess what? It's not possible.

And if it is possible, I challenge you to prove it with a sim. (Go ahead, say again you don't need to prove something that you can't)

Despite his counter to the situation, RollingStoned is a reasonable human being. He's smart enough and rational enough to know that he'd be wasting his time trying to prove a 10,000 loss streak simulation because it could take decades to run a simulation to prove that. He knows the highly improbable nature of the game to lose 10,000 hands in a row against an approximate 4.75% chance of a dealt blackjack over those 10,000 hands on every........single.....hand. He knows not to support the idea of it being able to occur, but also knows that its existence, though purely theoretical, is to be taken into account, though unlikely and improbable against what most would consider "impossible odds".

darkoz, if 10K losses in a row "would never happen"....would 9,999 losses in a row "never happen"? What about 9,998 in a row? 9,997 in a row? 9,996? Continue until you get to a number where it would happen. At which point does it switch from "would never happen" to "would happen"?

Quote: RS

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

Let’s apply a realistic (or non-weird) progressive betting scenario where the table limit bet is $25 min/$100,000 max and a game of backjack where 3:2 payout is an added benefit. And to reduce the risk of a huge loss in a SINGLE hand and the combined bet could exceed or fast approaching the table max limit, split or double down will not be used.

It would take 14 consecutive losing hands to reach $100,000 table limit ($25, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200, $102,400).

Let’s assume a 200 hands/hour, 8 hrs/day, and 300 days of playing, then the total hands to be played is 480,000 hands. Depending on your luck, there could be none, few or many instance of 15 consecutive hands losing streak(s) during those 300 days. If you encounter a series of many win-loss streak (a win immediately followed by a loss) then your net win is $0, but if there are many series of 2 or more wins in a row, then your net wins could be sizable. A very rough estimate -- a win of 200,000 hands could net between $0 to $5,000,000. And the bad luck of 15 consecutive losing streaks could give you a slight gain or put your bankroll in the negative or big negative territory. And don’t forget a few or many black jacks during many regular bets and/or series progressive bets. Imagine a black jack when your table max bet is on the line …

Not everyone is lucky, but if progressive betting is applied and table $25 min and $100,000 table max is allowed, the casino would be at a disadvantage or big disadvantage because the 14 consecutive losing hands does not occur very often. For this reason, when the table max is $100,000 then the table min is normally set at $5000 or higher (it would take 4-5 hands go from table min bet to table max bet in a progressive betting, and a 4-5 consecutive hands losing streak is a much more common scenario).

So the scenario that I outlined above begs a question -- does progressive betting work in a very low table min and substantially high table max limit? The answer is it depends on your luck on individual basis, but on the average it works often enough for the casino to reduce the delta between the table min – table max amount.

Please post here if you find a casino that has $25 table min - $100,000 table max limit.

(I am highly confident that many of posters here have more than sufficient dough to sustain/survive MANY $100,000 max bets when the situation arise).

Do whatever you want, 777, but make no mistake: Martingale is a losing game. Expect to lose $$$ playing it.

Quote: 777

Quote: RS

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

Let’s apply a realistic (or non-weird) progressive betting scenario where the table limit bet is $25 min/$100,000 max and a game of backjack where 3:2 payout is an added benefit. And to reduce the risk of a huge loss in a SINGLE hand and the combined bet could exceed or fast approaching the table max limit, split or double down will not be used.

It would take 14 consecutive losing hands to reach $100,000 table limit ($25, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200, $102,400).

Let’s assume a 200 hands/hour, 8 hrs/day, and 300 days of playing, then the total hands to be played is 480,000 hands. Depending on your luck, there could be none, few or many instance of 15 consecutive hands losing streak(s) during those 300 days. If you encounter a series of many win-loss streak (a win immediately followed by a loss) then your net win is $0, but if there are many series of 2 or more wins in a row, then your net wins could be sizable. A very rough estimate -- a win of 200,000 hands could net between $0 to $5,000,000. And the bad luck of 15 consecutive losing streaks could give you a slight gain or put your bankroll in the negative or big negative territory. And don’t forget a few or many black jacks during many regular bets and/or series progressive bets. Imagine a black jack when your table max bet is on the line …

Not everyone is lucky, but if progressive betting is applied and table $25 min and $100,000 table max is allowed, the casino would be at a disadvantage or big disadvantage because the 14 consecutive losing hands does not occur very often. For this reason, when the table max is $100,000 then the table min is normally set at $5000 or higher (it would take 4-5 hands go from table min bet to table max bet in a progressive betting, and a 4-5 consecutive hands losing streak is a much more common scenario).

So the scenario that I outlined above begs a question -- does progressive betting work in a very low table min and substantially high table max limit? The answer is it depends on your luck on individual basis, but on the average it works often enough for the casino to reduce the delta between the table min – table max amount.

Please post here if you find a casino that has $25 table min - $100,000 table max limit.

(I am highly confident that many of posters here have more than sufficient dough to sustain/survive MANY $100,000 max bets when the situation arise).

I'm not even really going to take the time to read most of that, since I read the phrase "progressive betting".

There is absolutely, positively, no possible way to beat the casino at its own game with its own rules at a game like blackjack WITHOUT card counting. It just cannot be done. Countless thousands have racked their brains to come up with a system to beat it, and if they get close, the casinos changes a rule and its no longer viable (like martingales with the addition of table maximums).

Quote: RS

darkoz, if 10K losses in a row "would never happen"....would 9,999 losses in a row "never happen"? What about 9,998 in a row? 9,997 in a row? 9,996? Continue until you get to a number where it would happen. At which point does it switch from "would never happen" to "would happen"?

The key to that entire argument of infinite losses, isn't that they could unrealistically happen, its that it literally defies all odds to exist in the first place. And this whole talk about 10,000 hands is simply an arbitrary number that I threw out so that we could identify a finite number and assess its likelihood of occurring.

In this case, to lose 100 hands in a row we have

8.875203712247715e-39

or

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000008875203712247715%

Vs. 4.75% chance of a player dealt blackjack.

And that's just for 100 hands in a row, not 10,000 or an "infinite loop of losses".

Which is more probable? Which is more likely? If that number I just posted represents just 100 hands, and we need 9,900 more hands to create an arbitrary simulation, and the number just grows in orders of magnitude to the point that the number is so large against the possibility of its outcome, that a dealer mispay is far more likely to have occurred. A player dealt blackjack looks so super massive by comparison, that in terms of a physical representation of size, the number will likely be smaller than the order of magnitude in which the largest star in the known universe is by comparison to a simple grain of salt.

That's why I can call the "theory" impossible, because we aren't talking about a world where infinite losses WILL happen, we are talking about the possibility (in theory) that infinite losses could happen within our own realm of existence. Unfortunately, it cannot physically manifest itself, as there are forces far greater at work that would occur long before this "infinite losses" theory could ever begin to become "a thing".

Even a number as small as 10,000 losses in a row might not even be possible in this realm of existence. There's just too much going against it. ~42% player win rate, ~28% rate of a dealer bust out, ~4.75% rate of player dealt blackjacks, hell, even a dealer mispay leading to a win is more likely than any "losing streak"of large number.

RS said:

Simulations are not necessary if you can determine the result using math. For example, there serves no purpose in simulating a roulette game to determine the HE, when I can use simple math to determine the HE [result].

First off, RS, if you want to win your argument so badly, it is in poor taste to tell lies to win your argument.

You don't need to run a sim to determine the HE on Roulette because that is an ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE.

However, I know for a fact if you are designing a new game, first you do the math, then you run a sim.

Are you telling all the game designers on here that no sims were run on say Poker for Roulette to establish HE?

Are you telling me Charles Mousseau didn't send me sims verifying HE after he did the math on my game?

Just the fact you are veering into the prosecutorial error of blending half-truth with falsity by omission of example to get a conviction shows you really have no case.

Quote: Exoter175

...There is absolutely, positively, no possible way to beat the casino at its own game with its own rules at a game like blackjack WITHOUT card counting. It just cannot be done...

100% false.

Quote: RS

Do whatever you want, 777, but make no mistake: Martingale is a losing game. Expect to lose $$$ playing it.

I am afraid the 15 consecutive losing hands probably would occur more often, and their repeated occurrences are at much closer intervals. And if this happens, it would put the player’ bankroll (let’s assume $10,000,000) at negative territory much sooner than the anticipated 480,000 hands of playing. Also, I think the risk/reward is not attractive -- risking $10,000,000 for how much gain???

My guess is there are many posters here with programming skills that already have functioning BJ computer programs. If it does not take too much time and the change is relative simple & easy, how about modifying your BJ program to do a simulation of the situation that I described earlier ($25 regular bet with normal BJ strategy, and for progress betting cycles there will be no split & double down strategy). I’m curious how many times the 15 consecutive losing hands were encountered and the net loss or gain result at the end of a simulation representing 480,000 hands?

Quote: RS

TL[DR]: (might read later)

Exoter: "It works with infinite bankroll"
Knowledgeable people: "You'll eventually get an infinite string of losses"
Exoter: "Impossible to lose an infinite amount of hands in a row."
Knowledgeable people: "Also impossible to have an infinite bankroll."
Exoter: "!$^%! I've said 10000magillianzilliontimes% this is in an environment where infinite bankroll is possible."


In your weird f*cked up scenario, then yeah sure, I guess Martingale works under the weird constraints you've given it. But that's also like saying something stupid like, "Britney Spears is in love with me and I can prove. First, let us assume Britney Spears loves me. There you go! She loves me."

But its far simpler than that. Exoter thinks the EV of a plurality of independent bets is not the sum of those EVs. That's trivially wrong. He also thinks that using the phrase "in theory" eliminates the need to adhere to reality. That's equally wrong. His notion that "a betting system has a +EV if you have an infinite bankroll" is just as fantastical and irrelevant as the notion that "betting on 14 at roulette has a +EV if the floating roulette gnomes move the ball to number 14 every other spin." Any "theory" that is predicated on a known falsehood isn't worth considering. Floating roulette gnomes that prefer the number 14 don't exist. Neither does an infinite bankroll.

And yet Terry Watanabe credits all his sucess at casino gambling to the Martingale. Go figure.