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.