Martingale System in Blackjack Revisited: DECREASE THE HOUSE EDGE!!!

I understand the wizard's point that betting systems don't work; in nearly every case he's right. The one exception would be a game where the odds change as the game continues, like blackjack. In roulette or craps, your odds are the same every roll so the Martingale System is bunk. In blackjack you have worse odds with a high proportion of low value cards and better odds with a high proportion of high value cards (the basis of simple card counting), so it's possible that the system may reduce the house edge.

For example, say you get a streak of bad luck and lose 7 times in a row. There's a good chance that the majority of those cards were low cards which increases your chances of winning and getting a blackjack on the subsequent hand. Not only does this decrease the odds of a devastating losing streak but it increases the odds of getting a blackjack on a substantially higher bet than the table minimum.

My question is this - assuming you are playing a 2 deck game with standard Vegas rules and without automatic shuffle, does this phenomenon decrease the house edge? More importantly, does it decrease the rate of money lost over time or does the increase in average bet make you lose money faster? Are there any situations where the player actually gets an edge over the house?

Also, sorry for putting caps lock on the title... I wanted to make sure people would read this ;)

Well, I believe that there are a lot of card counters all over the world that would tell you that it is possible to have a 'player edge' despite any bet system. Actually couting cards is sort of a system, right? Everyone would raise bets in a favorable scenario.

Quote: mmichelman

I understand the wizard's point that betting systems don't work; in nearly every case he's right. The one exception would be a game where the odds change as the game continues, like blackjack. In roulette or craps, your odds are the same every roll so the Martingale System is bunk. In blackjack you have worse odds with a high proportion of low value cards and better odds with a high proportion of high value cards (the basis of simple card counting), so it's possible that the system may reduce the house edge.

For example, say you get a streak of bad luck and lose 7 times in a row. There's a good chance that the majority of those cards were low cards which increases your chances of winning and getting a blackjack on the subsequent hand. Not only does this decrease the odds of a devastating losing streak but it increases the odds of getting a blackjack on a substantially higher bet than the table minimum.

My question is this - assuming you are playing a 2 deck game with standard Vegas rules and without automatic shuffle, does this phenomenon decrease the house edge? More importantly, does it decrease the rate of money lost over time or does the increase in average bet make you lose money faster? Are there any situations where the player actually gets an edge over the house?

Also, sorry for putting caps lock on the title... I wanted to make sure people would read this ;)

I'm confused about a couple things:

Are you martingaling the whole time? Or only in good counts? I agree that continually raising your bet as the count gets better is a good idea. But that's not really martingaling, because you should do it whether or not you lost the previous hand. Similarly, I agree that you should bet 1 unit in low counts. That is also true whether or not you won the previous hand.

You mention losing 7 hands in a row, but then you ask about a double deck game. Even in a game alone with the dealer, you probably won't get 7 hands out of a double deck game. But if you did get that many hands and lost them, how would you fare on the 8th bet in a new deck with a fresh count? Aren't you sitting there with a 128 unit martingale bet and a house edge of .5%? (or whatever the base HA is) That is definitely not ideal.

Quote: aluisio

Actually couting cards is sort of a system, right?

It doesn't seem like that according to Shackleford.

Quote: rdw4potus

Are you martingaling the whole time? Or only in good counts?

The whole time. If I was card counting I would use a better strategy than the Martingale system, but I was hoping to find a way to beat the house edge without having to pay much attention or stay sober...

Quote: rdw4potus

I agree that continually raising your bet as the count gets better is a good idea. But that's not really martingaling, because you should do it whether or not you lost the previous hand. Similarly, I agree that you should bet 1 unit in low counts. That is also true whether or not you won the previous hand.

I'm suggesting that losing hands will generally raise the count and vice versa.

Quote: rdw4potus

You mention losing 7 hands in a row, but then you ask about a double deck game. Even in a game alone with the dealer, you probably won't get 7 hands out of a double deck game. But if you did get that many hands and lost them, how would you fare on the 8th bet in a new deck with a fresh count? Aren't you sitting there with a 128 unit martingale bet and a house edge of .5%? (or whatever the base HA is) That is definitely not ideal.

Good point. Maybe instead of using the Martingale or card counting, it would be easier to count player wins (- count) and losses (+ count) at the table. This would require less effort than card counting and should somewhat reflect the actual card count.

Quote: mmichelman

Maybe instead of using the Martingale or card counting, it would be easier to count player wins (- count) and losses (+ count) at the table. This would require less effort than card counting and should somewhat reflect the actual card count.

That is definitely easier. It's also quite a bit less precise. I looked at doing something similar this spring. Here is the link to my post about it on this site. What I found is pretty much exactly what people warned me about. Results just weren't nearly as good as with actual simplified counting. Once you start really paying attention to when you win and when you lose, you start to see that the player wins on some ridiculous 4-6 card hands and the player also loses/pushes on 2-card 20s more often that you'd think. I think the game I'm working with is a little simpler than the game you're working with (single deck versus double deck) but some counting methods would be easy enough to work with without a sobriety requirement:-)

The Wiz's ace 5 count is pretty easy to keep track of, even after a few drinks. If you really don't want to count, I think your best bet might be to go with more of a feel-based system. Basically, I think you'll track the couht better with a general "holy crap, that was a lot of high cards!" approach versus the "hey, I won!" method. At least, that was my experience earlier this year.

Quote: rdw4potus

The Wiz's ace 5 count is pretty easy to keep track of, even after a few drinks. If you really don't want to count, I think your best bet might be to go with more of a feel-based system. Basically, I think you'll track the count better with a general "holy crap, that was a lot of high cards!" approach versus the "hey, I won!" method. At least, that was my experience earlier this year.

Right after I posted the last comment I read how easy the A-5 count is and that it can give a player edge of 0.5%, so I feel pretty stupid. Great advice rdw4potus, thanks!