AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
• Posts: 11260
January 19th, 2011 at 9:27:30 PM permalink
After dealing a corporate party tonight another dealer who used to work in Vegas told me about a guy who matingaled 14 or so levels and lost his bankroll trying to win back an initial bet of \$.25. Yes, you read that right, it was a bird game and he lost that much. He told me about another system he heard, some kind of "step system" where you add one unit for a win and subtract one after a loss. The end result is a one-unit win but it was not as progressive as martingale. Part of the idea of it was also to extend play.

Please note, neither of us believes in any system and both agree the common factor in them is small wins at risk of huge losses. However, I like hearing about some of so I just know them when a player brings them up and from time to time I will play one of the games here at WoV just to see how bad they really are. This one I have not heard. Sorry, "step system" and what I wrote was all he had to go by.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
• Posts: 23707
January 19th, 2011 at 9:30:43 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

After dealing a corporate party tonight another dealer who used to work in Vegas told me about a guy who matingaled 14 or so levels and lost his bankroll trying to win back an initial bet of \$.25.

I've heard of guys in the 50's losing hundreds using a Marty on roulette and the bet was only 10 cents. Make a \$300 bet to win back a dime. Makes sense to me.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
January 19th, 2011 at 10:20:02 PM permalink
The trick is to play \$300 to win back \$300 and see it that way.... once I explain that, most of my friends realize how mad it is... when you lose, the money has gone... Your in the hole for \$300. Betting \$300 in the hole is not a good idea.

I've seen all sorts of versions of a stepped system... as you state it's up one unit on a loss, down one on a win... wait till you get ahead to quit. Sometimes it starts at 2 units, and drop down on a win. It's like a reverse parlay bet. And as the parlay can be relatively effective (for some value of effective that suits my desires), reversing it seems to be a bad idea.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
• Posts: 3412
January 19th, 2011 at 10:33:46 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

The trick is to play \$300 to win back \$300 and see it that way.... once I explain that, most of my friends realize how mad it is... when you lose, the money has gone... Your in the hole for \$300. Betting \$300 in the hole is not a good idea.

Quite possibly the attraction of a Martingale has to do with the proximity of the bets. You are down \$300 during a Martingaling session. You are about to bet \$300 to "get even". Suddenly, someone bashes you on the head with a rock. You wake up two days later in the hospital--you check out and go back to the casino. Do you now have any urge to bet \$300? (If you do, the guy with the rock is still there.)
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
• Posts: 14235
January 20th, 2011 at 4:48:16 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Make a \$300 bet to win back a dime. Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to the guy who does win back that dime too!
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
• Posts: 2349
January 20th, 2011 at 5:29:37 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

After dealing a corporate party tonight another dealer who used to work in Vegas told me about a guy who matingaled 14 or so levels and lost his bankroll trying to win back an initial bet of \$.25.

It is strange - if you can bet as little as \$.25, the table limit would usually prevent you from going as high as \$4096, wouldn't it?

Quote:

He told me about another system he heard, some kind of "step system" where you add one unit for a win and subtract one after a loss.

Sounds like you'll always lose more than you win this way (win X, add one, lose X+1, subtract one win X, add one, lose X+1 ... etc) - hardly attractive :)
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
• Posts: 11260
January 20th, 2011 at 6:10:58 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

It is strange - if you can bet as little as \$.25, the table limit would usually prevent you from going as high as \$4096, wouldn't it?

I htought so but that is what he said. The place in question was Little Caesers, not exactlhy known for the best management.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
January 20th, 2011 at 8:18:05 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

some kind of "step system" where you add one unit for a win and subtract one after a loss.

That's the reverse of the d'Alembert system, which adds one unit after a loss and subtracts one after a win. The (incorrect) theory is that a streak of wins or losses is less likely than an alternating sequence, and if you alternate between wins and losses then you'll come out +1 on each pair.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
• Posts: 5936
January 20th, 2011 at 10:30:28 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

I've seen all sorts of versions of a stepped system... as you state it's up one unit on a loss, down one on a win... wait till you get ahead to quit. Sometimes it starts at 2 units, and drop down on a win. It's like a reverse parlay bet. And as the parlay can be relatively effective (for some value of effective that suits my desires), reversing it seems to be a bad idea.