Please tell me why this system will not work?
1. Assuming there were unlimited table maximums, at what hypothetical maximum would this system make sense, if any? What I mean is, would their ever be a scenario in which the average winnings would be worth it to lose the final amount in that rare case?
2. If this system was used but by multiplying the amount that you were down for the next bet by a factor of 2.5 or 3, would this be statistically good odds?
Hypothetically, with no table maximum limits, I could keep betting the amount of money I lost (or triple) and never lose, assuming I had unlimited money and unlimited time.
I hope these questions make some sort of sense and I would truly appreciate it if someone could write up an answer. Thanks!
2. Martingale with unlimited time, money, and limits has been discussed numerous times. Bottom line is that it would still be negative expectation, but in any number of lifetimes the chances are high it would show a profit first.
Quote: jmeister12I am fairly new to Blackjack and have been wondering about the martingale strategy. Normally, this strategy does not work because you simply get your money back and do not make anything once you finally win the hand in games such as roulette. But in Blackjack, there is the added factor of being able to double on higher probability hands as well as split, and of course getting a Blackjack. I have multiple questions:
1. Assuming there were unlimited table maximums, at what hypothetical maximum would this system make sense, if any? What I mean is, would their ever be a scenario in which the average winnings would be worth it to lose the final amount in that rare case?
2. If this system was used but by multiplying the amount that you were down for the next bet by a factor of 2.5 or 3, would this be statistically good odds?
Hypothetically, with no table maximum limits, I could keep betting the amount of money I lost (or triple) and never lose, assuming I had unlimited money and unlimited time.
I hope these questions make some sort of sense and I would truly appreciate it if someone could write up an answer. Thanks!
1) What? Not really sure what you're saying, it doesn't make much sense. Theoretically, if there was no table maximum, martingale would allow the blackjack player to never lose to the house (never win much either). Practically speaking, it would still be a poor idea because if you didn't have a lot of money, you may eventually take a loss that would bankrupt you. With unlimited time and money, you're playing a negative expectation game that you will always eventually break even at...so you would wanna cash out as soon as you are ahead.
2) No. No betting system can change the odds. What some betting systems do is tilt the odds in funny ways. Example: Normally, a decent basic strategy player who plays for a long time, but a set time (not an arbitrary point, such as refusing to quit until ahead) has a 2/3 chance of losing some small amount of money at the end, and a 1/3 chance of winning a small amount. Followed to the letter, one betting system can give a 99% chance of not losing any money, and 1% chance of losing an egregious amount. In the end, it all works out to the house having the exact same statistical edge.
You can only beat blackjack with counting or shuffle tracking. Your system will not work. Go try it if you don't believe it. You can always gamble and get lucky, but then it's not really a system. You will not get a different answer from anyone who knows what they are talking about.
Quote: jmeister12Hypothetically, with no table maximum limits, I could keep betting the amount of money I lost (or triple) and never lose, assuming I had unlimited money and unlimited time.
And those assumptions are why in the real world the system would never work.
the Marty. Some even think they've discovered something new.
Quote: jmeister12First off, I really appreciate the response. I was mainly asking the questions to figure out what I was missing, as opposed to actually thinking I had a never before thought of strategy. So if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, BizzyB, you are saying that there is a strategy where there is a 99 percent chance of losing money but a 1 percent chance of losing a ton?
99% chance of NOT losing, yes. And yes, 1% of losing a ton. It's some sort of complicated martingale-esque strategy, where you are risking thousands of dollars to win one betting unit, 5 bucks or 25 bucks or whatever. Eventually, you will lose. And all of your tiny wins will be more than wiped out by one loss.
Quote: EvenBobSomewhere in the world, everyday, somebody discovers
the Marty. Some even think they've discovered something new.
A dealer I once had reluctantly revealed his strategy for beating casinos in his past life. He hadn't named it. He thought he invented Martingale. I laughed at him, and told him what it's called. But I don't think this OP thinks he discovered fire, he prob just doesn't fully understand the flaws.
Quote: paisielloAnd those assumptions are why in the real world the system would never work.
Well, exactly. I could bet a billion. If I lost, i bet 10 billion. If I lose again, I bet 100 billion. If I win, then I quit and I'm a billionaire? If I have unlimited money, why am I using a strategy to beat casinos out of money? Maybe makes more sense if there no table limits and my credit card realized how good of an investment this was gonna be, and extended me some credit.
Quote: jmeister12Just want to clarify that I do not think I thought of some genius system, I simply wanted to know the main flaws of the system.
That's good! The main flaw is that you will lose more money than you win.
For example, you might be able to set it up so you win 9 sessions out of 10. But when you lose, you lose 12x as much as you win the times that you win. So you can see that you will usually win, but when you lose, it's a very ugly loss, and you never know when that loss is coming. It could happen the first time you try the system.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat's good! The main flaw is that you will lose more money than you win.
For example, you might be able to set it up so you win 9 sessions out of 10. But when you lose, you lose 12x as much as you win the times that you win. So you can see that you will usually win, but when you lose, it's a very ugly loss, and you never know when that loss is coming. It could happen the first time you try the system.
To add, the house edge never changes with Martingale, or any other betting system. Winning is about shifting the odds to your favor. This is what card counting does; you have an edge over the house, which is calculated on as an average, on a per hand basis. You literally have the edge, not just once and awhile. All Martingale, and other betting systems, do is increase volatility, which universally means greater risk. Use Martingale and you have the same chances of coming out ahead in the long term are the same as anyone else, except your chances of losing more are greater. Granted, your chances of higher returns are greater as well. If you think about it, it's just a waste of time. Find a big table, put all the money you can afford on one hand if you want the chance at high risk/high rewards.
If you can afford added risk, it is not harmful to use Martingale, so long as you know it is of no help. It does not decrease your odds.
First, the Marty DOES work, your statementQuote: jmeister12I am fairly new to Blackjack and have been wondering about the martingale strategy.
Normally, this strategy does not work because you simply get your money back and do not make anything once you finally win the hand in games such as roulette.
is an absolute false statement.
where did you find this 100% false information?
The Marty wins a unit once the first win happens.
This has been proven for over hundreds of years by the world's top mathematicians
and even some bottom ones too.
bet
$5.00
$10.00
$20.00
$40.00
$80.00
$160.00
$320.00
all lost. Net loss = $635
one win $640.00
covers all the losses and one is left win a $5 profit.
Take for example an 11 step Marty starting with $5 bet
Bankroll required $10,235
00Roul even money bets
Probability of one progression to lose = 0.000858441
Prob to win = .999142
In order to double my $10G bank before that first big loss, I need only 2,047 wins in a row.
00Roul = 17.239220% about a 1 in 6 chance
far from 0%
other games
0Roul = 26.166317% 1 in 4
Pass Line at Craps = 31.136259%
Player at Baccarat = 31.330090%
so from 1 million Marty players well over 300,000 could easily double their starting bankroll before a major loss.
some would still have some money left over for a meal and transportation back home.
Oh, the 300,000 that does a bankroll double act
they will all be on Oprah unless Ellen gets to them first
Fame and fortune.
IF a casino, maybe the one I own,
allows you unlimited credit and no max bet limits, you could keep on winning for a very long time.
But why would I do that for you?
let us see where you stand first
Quote: 7crapsFirst, the Marty DOES work, your statement
is an absolute false statement.
where did you find this 100% false information?
The Marty wins a unit once the first win happens.
This has been proven for over hundreds of years by the world's top mathematicians
and even some bottom ones too.
bet
$5.00
$10.00
$20.00
$40.00
$80.00
$160.00
$320.00
all lost. Net loss = $635
one win $640.00
covers all the losses and one is left win a $5 profit.
Take for example an 11 step Marty starting with $5 bet
Bankroll required $10,235
00Roul even money bets
Probability of one progression to lose = 0.000858441
Prob to win = .999142
In order to double my $10G bank, I need only 2,047 wins in a row.
00Roul = 17.239220% about a 1 in 6 chance
far from 0%
other games
0Roul = 26.166317% 1 in 4
Pass Line at Craps = 31.136259%
Player at Baccarat = 31.330090%
so from 1 million Marty players well over 300,000 could easily double their starting bankroll before a major loss.
some would still have some money left over for a meal and transportation back home.
Oh, the 300,000 that does a bankroll double act
they will all be on Oprah unless Ellen gets to them first
Fame and fortune.
IF a casino, maybe the one I own,
allows you unlimited credit and no max bet limits, you could keep on winning for a very long time.
But why would I do that for you?
let us see where you stand first
Ok, assuming this guy actually owned a casino, he would want you to think Martingale is a good idea. Direct quote from a pit boss "I love progression players." Everything is a bunch of half-truths. When you make your initial house bet at $5 on roulette, the house's theoretical take is about $.25. Before you even play, the 11th bet of $5K--in the future, their theoretical take is close to $5 so they want you to use the system. If you actually get to that bet, their expected value is closer to $250, so they really want you to take it.
I would not quote anything you hear from a pit boss, unless he is telling you things that could help you get away with counting.Quote: BizzyBOk, assuming this guy actually owned a casino, he would want you to think Martingale is a good idea. Direct quote from a pit boss "I love progression players."
Quote: AxelWolfI would not quote anything you hear from a pit boss, unless he is telling you things that could help you get away with counting.
You suspect the pit boss of lying, that he secretly desires players use winning systems?
I like a positive betting progression better than a negative one, myself, but both have the same sort of flaws. I just prefer betting winnings than chasing losings in trying to take advantage of streaks.
I suspect pit bosses know less about gambling and betting systems then the average person on this message board, and that a significant amount of pit bosses are complete idiots.Quote: BizzyBYou suspect the pit boss of lying, that he secretly desires players use winning systems?
Quote: AxelWolfI suspect pit bosses know less about gambling and betting systems then the average person on this message board, and that a significant amount of pit bosses are complete idiots.
It continually shocks me how little pit bosses know about gambling. I have heard things out of pit bosses' mouths that you would have to have been there to believe. and since they are "the boss," their ignorance is always accompanied by stubbornness and confidence.
Quote: sodawaterIt continually shocks me how little pit bosses know about gambling..
First of all, you never talk to the pit boss,
you're talking to a floor supervisor. All the
people running around in the pit are not
'pit bosses'. There is only one pit boss, he's
the floor manager, and he's never (ever)
ignorant, as you claim. Please learn how
casinos operate, there's a good lad..
I dont lnow how he got these prob #s (although Im sure correct) but remember reading this thread a while back. (btw looks like line2 or 1 of bac bank is typo?))..
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/12713-why-the-martingale-is-always-counted-till-maximum-table-bet/3/
hows the math on this? i wouod have answered .3349 for pass line 6step as example.
(1-.5071^6)^63 ?
It's A general term and you know it. If you want to get technical I doubt anyone has the actual tittle of pit boss. Even the dealers will say ask the pit boss when referring to the supervisors, Even supervisors refer to themselves as pit bosses especially when you ask them outside of work what they do.Quote: EvenBobFirst of all, you never talk to the pit boss,
you're talking to a floor supervisor. All the
people running around in the pit are not
'pit bosses'. There is only one pit boss, he's
the floor manager, and he's never (ever)
ignorant, as you claim. Please learn how
casinos operate, there's a good lad..
Quote: EvenBobFirst of all, you never talk to the pit boss,
you're talking to a floor supervisor. All the
people running around in the pit are not
'pit bosses'. There is only one pit boss, he's
the floor manager, and he's never (ever)
ignorant, as you claim. Please learn how
casinos operate, there's a good lad..
Wow, thanks for the non-correction.
Let me give YOU some education on this topic, as it seems you are mistaken.
There are three levels of casino management that are on the floor.
The first level is floor supervisor or floorman. He is the one standing behind the tables responsible for supervising the dealers, logging and rating play, and generally managing the game. He is who will take your card when you first sit down.
The next level is pit boss. This is the RANKING floorman in a pit. It's not a technical title but every pit will have a floorman who is in charge. In a large pit of games, perhaps with 2 or 3 floormen, there will be one ranking pit boss. A large casino may have several pit posses working different large pits, supervising the floormen. A pit boss is the person a floorman might go ask if he can write a comp to a player asking for one. A pit boss will also be the one who decides to open new tables. This is the level of employee I was referring to when I said I was shocked as to how ignorant pit bosses often are w/r/t gambling.
Finally there is the shift manager, who is the final word on all table-game disputes. I have not yet encountered an ignorant shift manager, bit I am sure they are out there.
Quote: sodawater
The first level is floor supervisor or floorman. .
How is this different from what I said. The pit manager
(nobody calls them pit posses anymore) is in charge
of the floor supervisors. They are not the idiots you
say they are, but often the floormen are barely able
to tie their shoes. Half of them seem to still be dealers
on the weekends who put on a monkey suit during the
week and pretend they know what they're doing.
Especially the women.
They are out there and in large numbers.
Quote: EvenBobHow is this different from what I said. The pit manager
(nobody calls them pit posses anymore) is in charge
of the floor supervisors. They are not the idiots you
say they are, but often the floormen are barely able
to tie their shoes. Half of them seem to still be dealers
on the weekends who put on a monkey suit during the
week and pretend they know what they're doing.
Especially the women.
Do you even read the posts that you reply to?
In my post I said yes, there are floormen. And then in large pits, there are ranking supervisors known as pit bosses. The distinction between "pit boss" and "ordinary floorman" is that the pit boss is the ranking supervisor in the pit. He will be the one to approve things like written comps slips.
In your original post, you said there was one "floor manager" for the whole casino-- now you are saying there is a "pit manager" to supervise the floormen in the pit. That's exactly what I was saying when I referred to pit bosses often being ignorant.
Quote: sodawaterDo you even read the posts that you reply to?
You don't get to 14000 posts by pausing to read what others write.
Quote: sodawater
In your original post, you said there was one "floor manager" for the whole casino-- .
No I didn't. Do you even read what I post?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou don't get to 14000 posts
You and cesspond are obsessed by post counts.
You really need to find another hobby.
Quote: AxelWolfI suspect pit bosses know less about gambling and betting systems then the average person on this message board, and that a significant amount of pit bosses are complete idiots.
So, in the context you made your statement, you are implying this particular pit boss is an idiot and knows nothing, based on the evidence indicating he believes progression systems do not work? And that I should not blindly conform to his belief? I really don't get it, are you trying to warn the OP not to trust pit bosses? Not really a good example if that's the case. That pit boss knows more about what he loves than anyone on this message board. He is also correct in suggesting progression players pay his salary. It's not like he told me what the weather was like on his way to work, I'd never believe him then! He's not a meteorologist, he knows nothing about weather!
Quote: bahdbwoy(btw looks like line2 or 1 of bac bank is typo?))..
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/12713-why-the-martingale-is-always-counted-till-maximum-table-bet/3/
I guess I should complete that triple bankroll table some day.
No typo for the Banker.
I had looked at that one and it is because you have to bet a bit more to include the 5% commission.
So a higher bankroll is better for the 4 than 3, but close they are.
that is correct (I get 33.9557%) for the probability to double before the first loss.Quote: bahdbwoyhows the math on this? i would have answered .3349 for pass line 6step as example.
(1-.5071^6)^63 ?
At the first loss, one will more likely have some winnings left over, not enough to restart the same 6 step Marty
but enough most times to attempt to bet big to get back to 63 units and then keep going.
That is where the extra 11.64% comes from
example
player lost 6 in a row and 63 units but was up 49 units when it happened.
Next bet should be 14 units to get back to 63
if lost next bet of 28 units (from 35 units left after last loss)
a loss leaves 7 units.
next bet or abort the system
player more than likely on tilt at this point
And you know that because you are intimately aware of any talent the members of this forum possess.
Before calling Bob a braggart , I suggest you look in the mirror
Quote: Buzzard" That pit boss knows more about what he loves than anyone on this message board. "
And you know that because you are intimately aware of any talent the members of this forum possess.
Before calling Bob a braggart , I suggest you look in the mirror
Huh? Are you now suggesting that members may have the ability to see into the minds of people I vaguely reference in a post, who may be separated by vast distances? I am now convinced that comments you make are not credible in any context. I suppose this is helpful information. Thank you. You have a talent for saying peculiar things like 'braggart'. I will go to the mirror right now, so I can practice saying weird things to people in public--as you suggested.
I am suggesting no one use a pit boss to support an argument when it comes to gambling. Unless you are giving example of their stupidity.Quote: BizzyBSo, in the context you made your statement, you are implying this particular pit boss is an idiot and knows nothing, based on the evidence indicating he believes progression systems do not work? And that I should not blindly conform to his belief? I really don't get it, are you trying to warn the OP not to trust pit bosses? Not really a good example if that's the case. That pit boss knows more about what he loves than anyone on this message board. He is also correct in suggesting progression players pay his salary. It's not like he told me what the weather was like on his way to work, I'd never believe him then! He's not a meteorologist, he knows nothing about weather!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou don't get to 14000 posts by pausing to read what others write.
You don't get to 14,000 posts by pausing to do anything
Quote: AxelWolfI am suggesting no one use a pit boss to support an argument when it comes to gambling. Unless you are giving example of their stupidity.
Why? You act like pit bosses know less than dealers, or even ploppies. Serious prejudice seems to me. Who knows more about gambling than the pit boss besides the AP and the rarer, less effective optimal strategy player? Pit bosses know more than 99% of everyone else. Some are clueless on counting or how often the deuce will bust, others have more of an idea. It's like you are comparing the stupidest PB to the smartest AP, and then that's your sweeping conclusion. I think it'd be wiser to compare the average pit boss to the average person and conclude that a pit boss probably could know progression systems don't work...and the fact that they do not work, does not support your argument not to use a pit boss' statement on gambling.
Quote: michael99000You don't get to 14,000 posts by pausing to do anything
Sooo eaten with jealousy, 114 posts in 3.5 years
and 100 of them are about me. lol
I think I stated in my prior post, they know less about gambling then the avrage person on this forum. Why use them for backing up any statements concerning gambling system claims either way?Quote: BizzyBWhy?
No, I am suggesting there are forum members who's knowledge may match or surpass that of the pit boss in question. Why do you have a problem with that ?
Quote: BizzyBI have a problem because, to avoid a possible personal insult suspension, I'll just say I think your stance is silly. It's like saying never ask a person for the date or for the time, because your cell phone has more accurate data. So if I'm signing an unimportant piece of paper that wants the date, and I can't think of it--and I left my cell phone at home--I should always run home to check the date then come back instead of just asking. You're saying even though the person in front of me is looking at a calendar, I should never trust the date they give me. You're saying that even though you are 100% certain the person is correct because you are an expert, do not use his emotional reaction (not his knowledge) to bolster your own argument. You're in essence saying, apply no common sense in the real world, and trust people on the internet, people including "savvy" mini-baccurat players. You are NOT saying only do not trust PBs about more complicated things they are less likely to grasp. Probably went totally overboard with silly.
Quote: onenickelmiracleJust back it up Bizzy with something beyond just your opinion if it's not common sense. prove it or be quiet.
You want me to prove that progressions do not work, and that all pitbosses have genuine emotions? Nope, I think it's all common sense. Is there something specific I said that requires evidence?
Quote: PhattyDI suppose the martingale could work if you know you have an advantge while counting. Easier than some kind of Kelly math. But if you "should" win more with a possitive count, you'd end up flat betting or minimal betting per Martingale. You'd lose out on the opportunity to bet bigger, unless you raise your base unit bet during possitive counts.
I had a thought like this before. I read somewhere that using Martingale while counting increases your risk of ruin because you are not betting efficiently. The only point would be cover. You should bet kelly.
Quote: jmeister12I am fairly new to Blackjack and have been wondering about the martingale strategy. Normally, this strategy does not work because you simply get your money back and do not make anything once you finally win the hand in games such as roulette. But in Blackjack, there is the added factor of being able to double on higher probability hands as well as split, and of course getting a Blackjack. I have multiple questions:
1. Assuming there were unlimited table maximums, at what hypothetical maximum would this system make sense, if any? What I mean is, would their ever be a scenario in which the average winnings would be worth it to lose the final amount in that rare case?
2. If this system was used but by multiplying the amount that you were down for the next bet by a factor of 2.5 or 3, would this be statistically good odds?
Hypothetically, with no table maximum limits, I could keep betting the amount of money I lost (or triple) and never lose, assuming I had unlimited money and unlimited time.
I hope these questions make some sort of sense and I would truly appreciate it if someone could write up an answer. Thanks!
It would work, that is exactly why there are table limits.
Quote: BiggreddIt would work, that is exactly why there are table limits.
There are table limits to control the casino's variance, and to group classes of bettors together. Preventing martingale is incidental.
Perhaps you should try and improve either your vocabulary or your self control. Evenbob is available for consultation.
Quote: Buzzard" I have a problem because to avoid a possible personal insult suspension, I'll just say I think your stance is silly. "
Perhaps you should try and improve either your vocabulary or your self control. Evenbob is available for consultation.
You think I should improve my self control because I did not make a personal insult? Alternatively, you think I could instead improve my vocabulary because I used the word silly instead of 'braggart'? Kinda sounds to me like your being a "braggart" about awkwardly inserting the term "braggart" into a sentence.
It appears we have a failure to communicate ! Perhaps English is not BizzyB first language or the public education system has failed him ?
