Double bet system

I know this can't work, but I'll float the question anyway.

Ok, take Bodog Blackjack. Play using a good statistical method with splits/doubles/etc. Don't count cards, but you could change up your rules with a high count.

First bet $5, if lose double the bet ($10,20,40,80,160,320) if win go back to $5.
If you lose a $320 bet, then go back to $5.
If you lose/win a double, split, just treat it like a typical win/loss.

The method certainly keeps you on the upward account balance for sometime, but then the big loss takes a chunk out of your gains.

The reason I think it might work, is that it essentially gives you a means to oscillate your bet size without increasing your overall risk, while you wait for the opportunity to double, split, and BJ.

Please, tell me why I'm stupid.

Gambeano

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt this the Martingale all over again?

Stupid? Nah. You've just stumbled upon the oldest betting system in the world. The Martingale System.

The reason that IT'S stupid is that sooner or later, you'll have a string of losses that puts you up against the table limit. Or destroys your bankroll.

All for the chance to get $5 ahead.


You have an interesting twist to avoid total financial ruin: Reset when you hit -$320.

But how many times does that happen, vs the number of times you win more than $320?

You are not stupid, but it's a system that will ultimately bankrupt you. Check out

https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

It's called "Martingale". Every day people "discover" this system, but it won't work. The fact that you thought of it at least means you are using your mind more than the average gambler, so consider yourself ahead of the game. Just don't use this system with real money AND expect it to work.

Gambeano you're not "stupid", it's just that an Martingale system will eventually result in a HUGE loss if you play long enough. Just because you have an OPPORTUNITY to split or double-down does not mean that you'll win those hands. It's not uncommon to lose seven or more hands in a row. It can totally wipe out your bankroll or at the very least put you in the hole.

I know that it's a Martingale approach and that the reason it won't work is the the table limit and/or my personal limit. It does work in theory with an unlimited amount of money, but that is not very important here.

The reason I think it might work has to do with the improved money odds when you have BJ, double, or a split. Think of the limited Martingale as a means to have a higher than normal bet in place to catch the 3/2 or double money hand.

Without doing some calculations/simulations I would assume that the odds are still NOT in my favor and if they were I would just get banned after a short run.

One more thing about Martingale, it actually works much much better if you have a 3-5% or more edge. Would using simple (or less aggressive) card counting with the Martingale approach I describe work?

Gambeano

everything works better when the odds are in your favor.

get that 3% deal and drop the martingale and go to the kelly criterion. You'll be able to retire soon a rich man.

How does the system do anything to get big bets out when the odds are in your favor (e.g. a double situation)? No betting system can change the house edge, and without counting the HA is effectively the same for every hand. So your large bets are effectively exposed to the sane edge as your small one.

If you're counting you want to vary the bet with the count, not with the results of the last hand.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You have an interesting twist to avoid total financial ruin: Reset when you hit -$320.

But how many times does that happen, vs the number of times you win more than $320?

Well, you get a net loss about 49.1% of the time.* In order to hit the reset button, you have to lose 7 times in a row. That has a 0.69% chance of happening. And your actual loss in that case is $5+$10+$20+...=$635 (assuming no doubles or splits).

I suppose the 99.31% of the time you don't run into seven losses in a row, you'll eventually win the $635 to cover the times you do. It'd be a long grind, though, unless you win a double after several losses (and your bankroll can cover a double; to cover just a double with the $320 bet out there, you'd need to start with at least $955, and that's a best case scenario).


* Of course, that counts surrender, which may not be possible at Bodog. If not, it still wouldn't change things much, because you only surrender 4.5% of the time, and you wind up losing most of those anyway (15 vs. 10, 15 vs. 9/10/A, etc.).

Odiousgambit is right. Gambeano what are you going to do when you LOSE those double-downs or splits? If you think this system will work in a casino environment, call a host. They'll send a car to pick you up!

When you actually have an 11 and the house is showing a 6, the odds of you winning that hand are much better than before any cards were dealt. The problem is that you can only double your bet with a double down. So, if your bet size were $5 you would win $10. With the Martingale I described, most of the time you will have a bet size of $5, but a significant amount of the time you will have a bet of $10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and $320. The same goes for a BJ, if you bet $5 you would win $7.5, but if your bet was $40 it would be $60.

As long as you don't lose 7 times in a row, the net win for a series of Martingale bets is +$5, so effectively (was it 99.3% of the time) you are not risking the current bet amount, but the potential string of bets totaling $635.

It is a slow grind, but about as much fun as playing solitaire.

Gambeano

Explain your plan to a casino host. They'll offer you a free room.

Quote: gambeano

When you actually have an 11 and the house is showing a 6, the odds of you winning that hand are much better than before any cards were dealt. The problem is that you can only double your bet with a double down. So, if your bet size were $5 you would win $10. With the Martingale I described, most of the time you will have a bet size of $5, but a significant amount of the time you will have a bet of $10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and $320. The same goes for a BJ, if you bet $5 you would win $7.5, but if your bet was $40 it would be $60.

As long as you don't lose 7 times in a row, the net win for a series of Martingale bets is +$5, so effectively (was it 99.3% of the time) you are not risking the current bet amount, but the potential string of bets totaling $635.

It is a slow grind, but about as much fun as playing solitaire.

Gambeano

The problem is that doubling down on those hands is part of the strategy that reduces the house edge to under 1%. By taking advantage of doubling down and splitting, you aren't gaining any benefit ABOVE the edge that the house has. And a decent minority of the time, you will lose the double down as well, meaning your trip to seven losses took a double step. Seven losses in a row is not likely on ONE string of 7 bets, but over the course of a couple hundred hands, it becomes likely. pacomartin is our go-to guy on that.

If you want to have the best chance of winning, just bet it all once on one hand. You'll either double your money or go broke, but you won't be pissed off (when you lose the 7 in a row) about "how bad your luck was".

Quote: wildqat

Quote: DJTeddyBear

You have an interesting twist to avoid total financial ruin: Reset when you hit -$320.

But how many times does that happen, vs the number of times you win more than $320?

Well, you get a net loss about 49.1% of the time.* In order to hit the reset button, you have to lose 7 times in a row. That has a 0.69% chance of happening. And your actual loss in that case is $5+$10+$20+...=$635 (assuming no doubles or splits).

I suppose the 99.31% of the time you don't run into seven losses in a row, you'll eventually win the $635 to cover the times you do. It'd be a long grind, though, unless you win a double after several losses (and your bankroll can cover a double; to cover just a double with the $320 bet out there, you'd need to start with at least $955, and that's a best case scenario).


* Of course, that counts surrender, which may not be possible at Bodog. If not, it still wouldn't change things much, because you only surrender 4.5% of the time, and you wind up losing most of those anyway (15 vs. 10, 15 vs. 9/10/A, etc.).

Damn. I completely neglected the time probability of hitting seven losses. Over time, that 0.69% chance is enough to make it a losing system overall.

Assume the below math is wrong, because I've already made made one dumb mistake, so I'll probably make another.

Assume you never double, never split, never surrender, and never hit the reset button with a 42.5% chance of winning. You'll need 127 total wins, which on average should be mixed with about 147 losses and 26 pushes. Using binomial distribution with 300 hands, you have at least a 25% chance of hitting the reset button (by splitting the 300 hands into groups of 7, you get about 43 groups of seven, which is probably an invalid way of looking at it) and a 54% chance of making your 127 units. With 350 hands, you'll almost for sure get your 127 wins (better than 99% chance), but you'll have a larger chance (almost 30%) of making seven losses, which will nullify your 127 wins. Even with the minimum games to make your wins (127), you still stand at least a 11.7% chance of hitting reset, with right about zero chance of making your 127. Even at 250, you only have a .5% chance of 127 wins, but 21.5% chance of reset.

If you look at it as (hands - 7) sliding groups (1-7, 2-8, 3-9, etc., probably the valid way of looking at it) the situation becomes even worse. You stand a 56% chance of resetting even before you hit the 127-hand minimum.

Again, my math and logic could be totally wrong here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that really, the system won't work over time. You have too much of a chance of hitting reset before you have a chance of covering hitting reset.

I understand what everyone is saying, I just am not 100% certain as to how the two factors (odds of a 7 in a row loss and advantage of doubling/splitting/BJ on a big bet) play out to determine the overall money odds.

I am leaning toward not positive, so thanks for your input.

I did try a version at Bodog with a $500 bank roll and lost it all quickly, but I messed-up by not putting up a minimum of $1000 and changing the approach in mid-stream b/c of a loss on a big double down and trying to get back to equal (you know the game).

Gambeano

You are gambling (hoping) that you will have that opportunity to double/split/BJ when you have a big bet, and then hoping you will win that hand. Hell, we all want those great player advantages when we have a big bet out, whether we are using a system or not! It's just not assured enough to make a winning strategy out of.

There is a related post last updated a few days ago about how the greater pays affect the Martingale, and the general consensus is that bonuses like BJs actually HURT you, because it makes the 7 losses in a row more likely. The fact that BJs pay 3:2 mean that you'll actually win fewer hands relative to the house edge. A game that only pays even money and never gives a bonus (if it had the same house edge) would mean you'd have less of a chance at the 7 in a row (Baccarat).

a double down loss or split loss is treated just like a normal 1x loss, I don't try to recover the loss in the next bet.

Anyway, I have called the "host" several times, and they are sending three cars to come and pick me and two friends up, plus a pick-up truck for all three of our life savings.

Thanks for the advice,

Gambeano

Quote: gambeano

Anyway, I have called the "host" several times, and they are sending three cars to come and pick me and two friends up, plus a pick-up truck for all three of our life savings.
Gambeano

LOL. Glad you have a sense of humor about this, unlike some of the people in other threads...

I'm way late to this, but if I was to do a double up on a loss on any bet, I would bet on something where my odds of losing are less than 50%. Example would be the Banker bet at bacarrat which wins 50.68% of all non tie decisions. Consider the place 6/8 at craps as a single wager, 10 chances to win, six to lose. Contrast this with BJ where you only win about 47% of non tie decisions. Think of it as the miracle of compounding in reverse. If you were to examine the chances of losing 7 times in a row by taking the loss percentage to the 7th power, you would see a hugh difference in the odds of it happening. Try it on your calculator! (Oh and I know it doesn't change the house edge)

That's what I was getting at with the 3:2 BJ payout. it seems nice, but it's at the expense of more losses than the house edge suggests overall, which is bad for Martingale.

Yep. Best game for Martingale/Doubling is banker in baccarat, even with the commission. Plus the limits are often higher. I've seen streaks up to 11 in a row. Starting at $10, if you doubled on each win you would end up with $20,480. That wouldn't run up against the limits even in my local shop.