Modified Martingale Results (Read Before Diss)

Hey guys,

First time poster but huge follower since I turned 21 (3 years ago). After educating myself on the Hi-Lo system and doing quite well, I of course ran into some variance that every long term player is due. Its hard to grasp getting 16 time after time against the dealers 10 up-card when the true count is +9 but the important thing to remember is.... its possible and it happens.

Now, no doubt, counting is the best strategy to win large amounts of money over the extended period of time...

HOWEVER,

I use a strict cut and dry martingale system that Ive used over the past month and Id like to hear you guys opinion on it.

Every session, I buy in at at a $25 table for $200

This gives me room to double my bet 3 times.

My goal profit is $100 a day, playing every day. When I get it, I color up and leave.

If I lose my $175, 3 bets for the day, I walk, no rebuys, no questions asked.

Below are my results for the month of March.

26 wins, 4 losses, 1 off day.

+$2600
-$700
=$1900 profit for the month.

4 losses in a month is pretty in line with the probability of losing 3 bj hands in a row around 15%... Question is am I missing something? This is more of a penny pinch, long-term move, but why couldnt it work with strict play? If i up my bets and use the same system i can grow that profit even more..

Either way, I appreciate every response even if Im missing something and get called an idiot.

Thanks in advance

**
Even with a counting system which everyone says gives the best possible results, Ive counted perfectly at tables and have had sessions where Ive struggled to make any profit whatsoever (or lost). This is a much simpler, less headache-invokving approach as a possible alternative to making monthly profits

To make a little more complex, I did keep a general count and if it gets too far into the negative say, -2 true I dont double losses and usually sit out until it improves .

All appropriate doubles, splits are taken provided the count is somewhat neutral or positive... profit goals and loss rules are not changed by this

Just out of curiosity, how much time do you spend on a rt to the casino?
How do you split or double your $100 bet?

This is why casinos exist. They love the uneducated gambler that suffers from gambler's fallacy and doesn't have a true idea of statistics. This is not to disrespect you of any sort, but quite simply trying to get you to grasp something around your head for a second. If you dont have a mathemtical edge, no progression will EVER work, it just CANNOT and WILL NOT. The people that have these progressive ideas are also the people that believe in being 'due'. That just because something happened whether you won or lost, you're now 'due' to win. Lets say red came out 20 times in a row, sure enough, black is 'due' to come out, but i hate to break it to ya, every spin is 50/50, well of course there is also green so it's a bit less, but you get my point. The odds never change just because a certain number came out 20 times in a row. Nothing is due. The odds are what they are every spin or every roll of the dice and doesn't change because the same number or color came out many times in a row. This logic can also be applied in other games as well. Just because you lost 10 hands of blackjack in a row, it doesnt mean you're 'due' to win the 11th hand.

An even better example is the heads/tails scenario. Okay, we got a quarter that's 50/50 right. If i flip 80 tails and 20 heads, does that mean in the future heads is going to 'catch up' and even out the tails in the long run? I mean it's 50/50 right? Well guess what, WRONG. What happens is that it is indeed 50/50 in the long run, but what people dont understand is the concept behind the averages. If you flip 80 tails and 20 heads in the first 100 flips, it's still a 50/50 flip from there on out and heads wont be 'due' to catch up and out-flip tails by 60 times to even it out. What happens in the long run is that you start to consistently hit your EV, which in this case it's 50/50. So for example, you will start to get heads once, then tails, then heads, then tails and the sample size will eventually get 'diluted' enough to affect the long term average of being 50/50. So even though you flipped 80 tails and 20 heads to start off, the next 5,000 flips were all 2500 tails and 2500 heads, so where are we at now? 2580 tails and 2520 heads. That's starting to get pretty close to 50/50 huh? As time goes on, it gets even closer to your EV of 50/50. The point is that heads doesn't need to ever catch up from its beginning set back of being down 80 to 20 to get the averages back to 50/50 in the long run.

Hope I cleared that up for you on how statistics actually work as well as the process on how averages work in the long run. It all comes back down to whether you have an edge or you do not.

Eh, I dont think you really read my post. Theres no fallacy here. I understand you and your not wrong but thats not the idea

This is simply based on the idea that given a neutral/positive count, I will win my $100 mark on a negative progression system and leave, more times than I will lose my buy-in thus making profit for the month

When I lose my buy in, I count my losses and leave. If i fail to make my $100 mark and lose my buy in even 8 out of 30 (27%) ($1400) times of the month, I will still make profit($800) because I practice good self control... leave when I win $100, leave when I lose my buy in.

Ohh, i thought you were talking about roulette when i heard martingale lol. Well the concept still applies. It all comes back down to whatever edge you have as well as your bet size. Average bet * your Average edge/or House edge (-EV) that determines how much money you will make or how much you will lose. The rest is noise.

Because you don't have an advantage or an expectation to make money.

Average time spent on a rt is usually about half a 6-deck shoe or 15-20 minutes from buy in... And good question, ive only doubled on the first and second progressions, If Im on my 3rd progression and run into a 10 or 11 Ill just take a hit.... Had a split opportunity, 8's against up card 5 which was one of my losses.

Count was neutral, stayed on 16, dealer flipped a 9 under 5, drew a 4, I left.

Yeah you didnt read my post.

Quote: colew9898

Hey guys,

First time poster but huge follower since I turned 21 (3 years ago). After educating myself on the Hi-Lo system and doing quite well, I of course ran into some variance that every long term player is due. Its hard to grasp getting 16 time after time against the dealers 10 up-card when the true count is +9 but the important thing to remember is.... its possible and it happens.

Now, no doubt, counting is the best strategy to win large amounts of money over the extended period of time...

HOWEVER,

I use a strict cut and dry martingale system that Ive used over the past month and Id like to hear you guys opinion on it.

Every session, I buy in at at a $25 table for $200

This gives me room to double my bet 3 times.

My goal profit is $100 a day, playing every day. When I get it, I color up and leave.

If I lose my $175, 3 bets for the day, I walk, no rebuys, no questions asked.

Below are my results for the month of March.

26 wins, 4 losses, 1 off day.

+$2600
-$700
=$1900 profit for the month.

4 losses in a month is pretty in line with the probability of losing 3 bj hands in a row around 15%... Question is am I missing something? This is more of a penny pinch, long-term move, but why couldnt it work with strict play? If i up my bets and use the same system i can grow that profit even more..

Either way, I appreciate every response even if Im missing something and get called an idiot.

Thanks in advance

**
Even with a counting system which everyone says gives the best possible results, Ive counted perfectly at tables and have had sessions where Ive struggled to make any profit whatsoever (or lost). This is a much simpler, less headache-invokving approach as a possible alternative to making monthly profits

To make a little more complex, I did keep a general count and if it gets too far into the negative say, -2 true I dont double losses and usually sit out until it improves .

All appropriate doubles, splits are taken provided the count is somewhat neutral or positive... profit goals and loss rules are not changed by this

Are you looking for someone to tell you its a good system? I think you know better than that. Even you yourself probably understands there is a flaw with Marty. But even so, since you tried it and it's been working for you, there's nothing anyone can say or do to get you to stop. You will probably keep it up until it eventually goes bad. Either you will learn your lesson and live your gambling life on the straight and narrow, thinking back about how dumb it was, and then realize "everyone" was right, or you will forever be a gambler's fallacy guy playing with -EV and living for the variance.

But I do and I did. Odds are in my favor of winning 4 units ($25) using a negative progression in a single session. Losses throughout the month are to be expected, but altogether from a monthly standpoint I will make profit given the sheer fact that Im the favorite for winning a single session

No.

I want you to explain to me why...

Given everything I said...

That hitting my $100 mark with a neutral/positive count (Only 4 bets) and leaving, will fail more times than it will work in a given month.

Quote: AxelWolf

Are you looking for someone to tell you its a good system? I think you know better than that. Even you yourself probably understands there is a flaw with Marty. But even so, since you tried it and it's been working for you, there's nothing anyone can say or do to get you to stop. You will probably keep it up until it eventually goes bad. Either you will learn your lesson and live your gambling life on the straight and narrow, thinking back about how dumb it was, and then realize "everyone" was right, or you will forever be a gambler's fallacy guy playing with -EV and living for the variance.

Theres literally no fallacy in this. Im only progressing three times before i walk.How arent the odds in my favor for a given month, that I will lose my $175 more times than I will win 4 bets ($25 unit) and leave with my $100 profit... Think from a monthly profit standpoint and explain the math to me if you know it, instead of just shouting GAMBLERS FALLACY

If it works, why limit yourself to 100 per day? There are many blackjack tables and casinos. A trip to the table is a trip to the table. After a couple of weeks day in and day out, I'm sure you will look back and have a good laugh, all be it a little more poor.

Quote: MaxPen

If it works, why limit yourself to 100 per day? There are many blackjack tables and casinos. A trip to the table is a trip to the table. After a couple of weeks day in and day out, I'm sure you will look back and have a good laugh, all be it a little more poor.

Why?

Because winning 4 bets and leaving is self control. Given the probability of losing my buy-in, 3 hands in a row, is around 15% I will win the majority of the time before I hit that variance. Thus leaving me with $100 profit for the day. Explain your math on why not. Thats what im looking for

Quote: MaxPen

If it works, why limit yourself to 100 per day? There are many blackjack tables and casinos. A trip to the table is a trip to the table. After a couple of weeks day in and day out, I'm sure you will look back and have a good laugh, all be it a little more poor.

To add if I win 4hands, $100 before I lose my buy-in($175) the majority of the time (which I am the favorite for) Ill turn a monthly profit even with session losses. Unless you can show me probabilities stating otherwise

Quote: colew9898

But I do and I did. Odds are in my favor of winning 4 units ($25) using a negative progression in a single session. Losses throughout the month are to be expected, but altogether from a monthly standpoint I will make profit given the sheer fact that Im the favorite for winning a single session

How do you figure you're the favorite?

You're at best a 46.36%'er ignoring ties for the purposes of a streak.

https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/blackjack/probability/

Lol wow. 48.49% per hand playing blackjack using a casino instruction card? Is that what your referencing?

Definitely a favorite for a session to win 4 units of $25 using a negative progression system given a neutral/positive count.

Odds of losing a hand in black 52.51%
Odds of losing two hands in a row at blackjack (.5251^2) 27%
Odds of losing three (.5251^3) 14.478%

Martingale alone will eventually fail unless one has an unlimited bankroll.

However if my goal in a session is to only win 4 units of $25 using this system and a positive/neutral count, yea Im the favorite every day.

And if im the favorite in a session... stastically speaking I will win more times than Ill lose in a month giving me an overall profit for the month

Quote: colew9898

Why?

Because winning 4 bets and leaving is self control. Given the probability of losing my buy-in, 3 hands in a row, is around 15% I will win the majority of the time before I hit that variance. Thus leaving me with $100 profit for the day. Explain your math on why not. Thats what im looking for

"Self Control" is all you need to be a winner. Who knew? Think about what you are saying. 😜

What's the difference between an hour and a day? Pertaining to your session of course. Is it some kind of theory based on pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered?

Quote: colew9898

Lol wow. 48.49% per hand playing blackjack using a casino instruction card? Is that what your referencing?

Definitely a favorite for a session to win 4 units of $25 using a negative progression system given a neutral/positive count.

Odds of losing a hand in black 52.51%
Odds of losing two hands in a row at blackjack (.5251^2) 27%
Odds of losing three (.5251^3) 14.478%

Martingale alone will eventually fail unless one has an unlimited bankroll.

However if my goal in a session is to only win 4 units of $25 using this system and a positive/neutral count, yea Im the favorite every day.

And if im the favorite in a session... stastically speaking I will win more times than Ill lose in a month giving me an overall profit for the month

Now I'm really confused. What do you do after losing the first hand and the count is negative? Not that it matters, because you are the dog.

Favorite in a session? Really? The odds are the same regardless whether you play 100 hours in a few weeks or 100 hours in 6 months. You're just tricking your mind by capping your trips and thinking you're a bigger winner than you actually are.

You actually sound like a degenerate who doesnt have the wherewithal to grind out profits in counting and are starting to question if it works or not so you're looking for shortcuts.

Quote: colew9898

Theres literally no fallacy in this. Im only progressing three times before i walk.How arent the odds in my favor for a given month, that I will lose my $175 more times than I will win 4 bets ($25 unit) and leave with my $100 profit... Think from a monthly profit standpoint and explain the math to me if you know it, instead of just shouting GAMBLERS FALLACY

Because the odds ARE WHAT THEY ARE. You winning or losing depends on the edge you have or lack thereof * your average bet * hours played. That simple.

Quote: ZenKinG

Because the odds ARE WHAT THEY ARE. You winning or losing depends on the edge you have or lack thereof * your average bet * hours played. That simple.

But wait, there's more. Lol.........just like a bad late night infomercial. You never double 11 or anything plus you never split when on the third progression. We aren't paying attention.😱

It gets him out of the house and probably is only going to cost him about 15 bucks a day on average. "Self Control" is what it's all about.🤑

You sit at the table, your chance of winning the hand is roughly 47%.
You lose. The next hand, your chance of winning is roughly 47%.
You lose. What are your chances of winning the next hand?

At what point do you think you are the favorite?

Quote: MaxPen

How do you figure you're the favorite?

You're at best a 46.36%'er ignoring ties for the purposes of a streak.

He's saying, in the aggregate, he can win 4 hands @25 before he loses 3in a row @175.

Win 1, he's up one unit

Lose the next, Martingale to 2 units.

Win the next, back to +1 unit.

Lose the next 2, Martingale 1-2-4.

Win the next hand, back to +1 unit.

Win the next hand, +2 units.



If he loses the next 3 hands in a row, he leaves, with his 200 br down to 75. Win after 1 or 2 losses, he's back to +2 units. Etc. (Don't mean to patronize anybody, and God knows I'm no expert, but I'm not sure we're all working from the same understanding of what he's describing.)

Worst case is, he loses 3 in a row without ever winning one, and leaves with $25. But he zeros out loss of 1 hand or 2 hands with a subsequent win, and nets his wins until he has 4 of them for +100 on the day.

However if 15% of the time he will have 3 losses in a row, Who's to say at what point in the progression the 3 losses will come? The more back-and-forth there is on 1 or 2 losses, the more likely it will stretch to 3 losses and out. If his play is all considered 1 long session, then maybe that 15% is accurate. It doesn't feel accurate to me; I would think he's in for a worse time than that. But for every 20 sessions, if that's correct, he wins $1700 and loses $525.

Comes down to whether the 15% is a good stat. It would still be a slightly winning system if it lost 35% of the time, and won 65%. (1300 -1225 per 20 sessions).

I know I've seen 3 losses in a row many times, but I'm generally flat-betting, . Stopping and starting don't seem to really matter. But a person could run many such sessions together, ratholing each hundred in wins, counting how many times they hit their top bet and lost it, (either event causing a "new " session reset), and get some stats to look at. Idk.

Hopefully one of the math guys can get over here and make some sense out of this. Meanwhile OP should see Wizard's appendix 4, I think it is.
What about when you double down and lose? What if you lose two doubles in a row? I think that is the major weakness of the progression systems. If you say well I just won't double, you are lowering your EV significantly.

Quote: billryan

You sit at the table, your chance of winning the hand is roughly 47%.
You lose. The next hand, your chance of winning is roughly 47%.
You lose. What are your chances of winning the next hand?

At what point do you think you are the favorite?

The question I see is, is it wrong to look at it from the other side?

House has 53% chance of winning each hand. 53% ^3 is 14.9%. Then session over/reset to base unit.

You're not favored on any one hand. But perhaps you're favored in that one circumstance of 3 in a row. Any other result, in a rolling total, is either a net gain or a recovery back to zero + any wins to that point. And the any other result should happen 85% of the time.

Again, it doesn't feel like that's accurate, but I can't pinpoint the flaw. A true Martingale depends on always having to double your bet until you win, right? But he's cutting his losses and starting over each series rather than continuing to chase lost funds or ultimately hitting the table max and disasterville.

Quote: colew9898

will make profit given the sheer fact that Im the favorite for winning a single session

Sir: their are potentially two meanings for being the favorite. you are correct that you are the favorite to win $100 before you lose $175. But you are not the favorite as to whether or not you will profit or lose money in the long run; over a considerable amount of time. If the Cleveland Browns played the New England Patriots last year in the very first game and the money line was - 1200; which means for every $100 I bet I will win $8.33, I would be the favorite to win my bet on the Patriots on that given day. I can make a similar kind of bet every Saturday or Sunday during football season (including college football) and each day I make my bet I would be the favorite to win my bet for that given day. But that doesn't mean that I would be the favorite to have a profit after the entire season is over. If I win 11 bets in a row and then lose one bet I have a net loss. You are breaking your session up into single days imagining that you have stopped a gambling clock. But the clock is artificial. It doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if you play your progression each day for 100 years of if you keep playing straight for the same amount of time. Eventually, in the long run, the negative expectancy of the game will influence your results towards the negative. A mathematician's definition of the long run is infinity. But in real time the negative influence of a negative expectancy is very strong and can rear its' ugly head at any time.

Quote: colew9898

Hey guys,

First time poster but huge follower since I turned 21 (3 years ago).

Welcome to the forum. You raised reasonable questions, but as you might expect, there are none here who will confirm that your betting strategy is a good idea. . . Except me, who will congratulate you on having found an exciting and fun way to lose money.

Quote:

After educating myself on the Hi-Lo system and doing quite well, I of course ran into some variance that every long term player is due. Its hard to grasp getting 16 time after time against the dealers 10 up-card when the true count is +9 but the important thing to remember is.... its possible and it happens.

TC+9 is pretty damned rare of itself, but even when you have it, your advantage is only about 3.5% which can easily be drowned out by perfectly normal variance. Without a bankroll approx 100 times your max bet, even when card counting, you are favourite to go bust: Read Romes a-z articles.

Quote:

I use a strict cut and dry martingale system that Ive used over the past month and Id like to hear you guys opinion on it.

Every session, I buy in at at a $25 table for $200

This gives me room to double my bet 3 times.

My goal profit is $100 a day, playing every day.

OK. Opinion coming up. Take it or leave it.

A tiny red flag in that you aren't buying in for $175 and might occasionally be tempted to lose the full $200, but we will set that aside.
I'm going to be generous and assume that you are in a good game with perfect Basic Strategy and that the house edge is pretty close to zero.

Observation #1: You will be screwed if you find yourself unable to double or split when the hand demands it: E.g. Your $100 wager out you get Ace-Ace against a six. or 8-8 against a 7. By not being able to play proper basic strategy on absolutely every occasion, you will be increasing the house edge way above 0.5% towards possibly 5%. If you are doing that you are setting yourself up for a fall even before anything else.

Observation #2: If this system works for you and you make $100 per day on $175 buy-in often enough to be a long term winner, then it would work for me and all my mates with $10,000 target per day and $17,500 buy-in for each of us. We would collectively take the casinos to the cleaners and soon everyone would copy our strategy and no casino would survive. Note how that hasn't happened and ask yourself 'why not?' OK, a few of us would go bust, but we would pool our profits to cover that.

Observation #3: You wanted some maths:-

Assuming zero house edge, for ANY betting strategy, for any one session
If starting bankroll is $175 and target profit is $100 and only possible outcome is to walk out with either $0 or $275 ( Having eliminated the possibility of winning more )
Probability of session success is 175/(175+100) = 175/275 = 63.63%. Better than 50%. If you'd taken $775 in and been prepared to risk that, the probability of a session win would be more like 88%. Take in $10,000 and you can be almost sure to win your $100 session target profit.

See OnceDear's rule of thumb at https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/2/#post1370

Now lets look at your results for the month. You put at risk $175 * 30 =$5250 and you made a profit of $1,900 Let's look at what might have happened.

Winning Days	Losing Days	Winnings	Losses	Net Profit
0	30	0	5250	-5250
1	29	100	5075	-4975
2	28	200	4900	-4700
3	27	300	4725	-4425
4	26	400	4550	-4150
5	25	500	4375	-3875
6	24	600	4200	-3600
7	23	700	4025	-3325
8	22	800	3850	-3050
9	21	900	3675	-2775
10	20	1000	3500	-2500
11	19	1100	3325	-2225
12	18	1200	3150	-1950
13	17	1300	2975	-1675
14	16	1400	2800	-1400
15	15	1500	2625	-1125
16	14	1600	2450	-850
17	13	1700	2275	-575
18	12	1800	2100	-300
19	11	1900	1925	-25
20	10	2000	1750	250
21	9	2100	1575	525
22	8	2200	1400	800
23	7	2300	1225	1075
24	6	2400	1050	1350
25	5	2500	875	1625
26	4	2600	700	1900
27	3	2700	525	2175
28	2	2800	350	2450
29	1	2900	175	2725

You were a bit lucky, but nothing spectacular. It could have gone $7150 worse or $825 better..

Quote:

Thanks in advance

**
Even with a counting system which everyone says gives the best possible results, Ive counted perfectly at tables and have had sessions where Ive struggled to make any profit whatsoever (or lost).

That is absolutely as expected and why even the best card counter needs to put a massive bankroll at risk and needs to get in hundreds of thousands of games to squash out perfectly ordinary variance.

Correction

Quote: OnceDear

Winning Days	Losing Days	Winnings	Losses	Net Profit
30	0	3000	0	3000

You were a bit lucky, but nothing spectacular. It could have gone $7150 worse or $1100 better..

Quote: colew9898

why couldnt it work with strict play? If i up my bets and use the same system i can grow that profit even more..

Once you said this, no one is going to pay much attention to whether you do it when you have a positive count or not - the gist of your post seems to be saying you'd love to ditch card counting and go to the Marty.

Quote:

Either way, I appreciate every response even if Im missing something and get called an idiot.

I hope so but I also hope you learn something. I suppose the Martingale, with a close limit, is not a crazy thing to do, it is a way of increasing your bet when you are favored, although I would certainly pay attention to other problems others have pointed out. But you seem to already know it doesn't work generally - yet you want to believe it does, it seems. It really is just a way of increasing your bets when you are losing; do you really think it matters that you do that perfectly, just so? If that "just so" interferes with doubling down at the right time, etc., it is just getting in the way.

Quote: odiousgambit

I hope so but I also hope you learn something.

I doubt he really wants the feedback that he should reasonably expect. I take it more of a thread about saying 'Hey look guys, I won, See how I did it', which is fair enough in its own way. I've posted similar in the past.

Quote:

I suppose the Martingale, with a close limit, is not a crazy thing to do

I'm one of the few here that actually recommends Marty as a fun way to lose. If I find my session bankroll at £475, I would get great amusement in Martying with a base bet of £5 untill I have £500 or £0. I'm the first to laugh at the fact that twice now It's been £0, but I still find progressives amusing. My personal favourite is 5, 10, 15, 15, 15. A mugs game, but straight betting is boring as hell.

Quote:

But you seem to already know it doesn't work generally - yet you want to believe it does

I concur and if his story is true, he can even back it up with flawed empirical evidence. I don't discount him being a troll just yet.

Quote: colew9898

Below are my results for the month of March.

26 wins, 4 losses, 1 off day.

+$2600
-$700
=$1900 profit for the month.

Too small of a sample size. Check back in after air 1000 sessions.

Quote: colew9898

Lol wow. 48.49% per hand playing blackjack using a casino instruction card? Is that what your referencing?

Definitely a favorite for a session to win 4 units of $25 using a negative progression system given a neutral/positive count.

Odds of losing a hand in black 52.51%
Odds of losing two hands in a row at blackjack (.5251^2) 27%
Odds of losing three (.5251^3) 14.478%

With a 48.49% chance of winning (ignoring pushes, presumably), and ignoring any bonus you might get for blackjack for the moment, your system will win more times than it loses. That is easy enough to show:
The probability of losing a hand is 51.51% (not 52.51%), so the probability of winning a hand before losing three in a row is 1 - 0.5151³ = 0.86333. The probability of doing this four times in a row, which is when you color up, is 0.86333⁴ = 0.55553, or about 5/9.
The problem is, when you win, you end up ahead $100, but when you lose, you end up behind anywhere from $100 to $175 depending on how many wins you had up to that point.

The one thing that could be in your favor is if you wait until the count is positive before starting. Assuming your strategy changes accordingly, this should increase the probability of winning a hand, and change the final results accordingly.

Also keep in mind that the more you bet, the more you expose to the house edge, which is another problem with Martingale. If you have fixed daily limits, you're probably better off making larger bets. For example, every bet is $100; stop when you are ahead by 1 bet or behind by 2.

Instead of us wasting our time here, why don't we let the OP explain to us how he can add up a group of negative numbers and get a positive result.

PS: I did read the OP.

Quote: RS

Instead of us wasting our time here, why don't we let the OP explain to us how he can add up a group of negative numbers and get a positive result.

PS: I did read the OP.

Maybe he's multiplying negative numbers. That will get positive results! :-)

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Maybe he's multiplying negative numbers. That will get positive results! :-)

That's the key, instead of waiting until he wins 4 hands, he has to wait until he wins -4 hands.

OP: lilredrooster, oncedear, and thatdonguy gave you the responses you're looking for. Reread their responses until you understand them and why your system is flawed.

1) To RS's point about adding up negative numbers... So say you play 4 hands today, average bet $50, and the count was neutral 0 in all of them (assume .5% HE). Your EV today is EV(1 session) = (4*50)*(-.005) = -$1

Every single time you go in and play ~4 hands you're expected to lose $1 in the long run. So how on Earth, by any amount of "waiting" or "self control" does this number ever change to a positive? The only numbers you're changing from session to session are the number of hands (4) and your average bet (50). If you're not counting and playing in positive counts (where the HE swings to the player) then you'll NEVER have a positive expectation in the game.

2) To mimic what the others said as well, blackjack doesn't have sessions. We say that to conveniently break up our discussion about our long run journeys, but there really isn't anything other than 1 big session. Whether you play 4 hands every day for a week (28 hands total) or if you just sit and straight play 28 hands in a row, there is no difference to your bankroll/expectations. The illusion that "self control" breaks up "sessions" and thus you have the ability to be the "favorite" in a small session is silly. Again, reread the posts I mentioned above to understand that a bit further.

3) Your counting experience seemed 100% normal. My teammate and I counted for ~300 hours, betting big in all of these "huge" positive counts and we were in the red after 300 hours. While unlikely, it was not mathematically impossible and we just ended up on the bad side of variance that we eventually came out of. Counting takes a very large bankroll compared to your spread to get your Risk of Ruin (RoR) down to a safe amount (usually around under 5% for part timers and under 1% for professionals).

4) Lastly again rehashing something already mentioned... Your sampling size is too small. Go ahead and continue doing this and you'll find your answer for yourself on why it doesn't work. Ride the good variance while you can, but I hope you don't give it all back and then a ton more in the process.

The logic has been explained. Now for some numbers. I ran a quick one billion hands under the following assumptions:

6D, S17, BJ pays 3:2, basic strategy
$200 bankroll
+$100 target
Martingale 1/2/4 and then quit on 3rd loss
No splits or double on the 4 unit bet
Repeat same bet on ties

Results:

Winning sessions: 57.6%, mean win $111.87, mean rounds 5.9, mean std dev $20.06
Losing sessions: 42.4%, mean lost $155.39, mean rounds 5.2, std. dev. $41.10
Overall: lost $1.44 per session

Advantage was -.59%, slightly worse than basic strategy due to limits on doubles and splits

Keep in mind; the cards don't know that you left and came back. Life is just one session.

Quote: colew9898

Either way, I appreciate every response ...

Cole,

So, you've been lurking here for years, knowing how the statistics experts chew up and spit out folks who post about their success using a Martingale bet system. And, you waded right into that buzz saw with both eyes wide open? Wow! One medal awarded for bravery, if for nothing else.

Perhaps you enjoy reading about statistical analysis. If so, the following research by Miller and Sanjurjo may interest you:

Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers

A Bridge from Monty Hall to the (Anti-)Hot Hand: Restricted Choice, Selection Bias, and Empirical Practice

And, if you don't enjoy reading statistical analysis -- I know, it's hard to believe that some folks don't enjoy light reading such as those papers -- then you may prefer the write-up for the general reader, here:

Momentum isn’t magic – vindicating the hot hand with the mathematics of streaks

And, notwithstanding what others have said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If your 4-step Marti works for you, then damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! Good luck.

I read the title

Good luck man, you're gonna be rich

Quote: QFIT

Results:

Winning sessions: 57.6%, mean win $111.87, mean rounds 5.9, mean std dev $20.06
Losing sessions: 42.4%, mean lost $155.39, mean rounds 5.2, std. dev. $41.10

The evidence is right there, the system is a winner 57.6% of the time. Lol

Does anybody else think this thread was started by another member here who likes to post controversial stuff just to get attention?

All depends upon your key to happiness. 57.6% of the time you go home in a good mood, much appreciated by your family. You lose money; but it's a small price to pay for your donation to the casinos such that APs can continue to exist.

Quote: colew9898

Why?

Because winning 4 bets and leaving is self control. Given the probability of losing my buy-in, 3 hands in a row, is around 15% I will win the majority of the time before I hit that variance. Thus leaving me with $100 profit for the day. Explain your math on why not. Thats what im looking for

Because eventually that 15% catches up to you.

You would be better off trying this on Pai Gow.

I'd hate to be in a situation where I had $100 out and drew 8-8 vs dealer 7, or get an 11 vs a dealer 6. The possibilities are endless.
You lose at $25, double down on your $50 and lose. Now what?
Suppose you split twice on your first bet, double down on one and lose all. What's your next bet?
A game plan works great .. until the first shot in the head.

I agree with the previous poster. Paigow might be better for this. At least you don't have to worry about doubling down or splitting. If I have the opportunity to split 8s vs a 6 or double 11 vs 6, there is no way in hell I wouldn't do it.

Quote: DRich

The evidence is right there, the system is a winner 57.6% of the time. Lol

Does anybody else think this thread was started by another member here who likes to post controversial stuff just to get attention?

I think applying something like martingale or a variation of such to card counting is an idea that has merit. However, if you are serious about card counting you should be able to do some calculations to at least get a rough idea of how it might perform. So I think its more likely that the idea is half baked or they are just not good at counting rather than someone doing something trolly/malicious.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Too small of a sample size. Check back in after air 1000 sessions.

That would be 3 years.

Money management techniques can stretch a winning/losing streak over many days/weeks/months/years.
I use them myself when playing games under 100% (or even <101% games with a small edge).

Sometimes I purposely lose money...for various reasons.
(1) camouflage
(2) show action in casino to continue to receive free rooms & FP. (on days when I can't find enough high advantage games).

Sometimes due to freak of nature, a winning streak on a losing game can continue for a long time with money management.
There's one sub-100% game where I won $8K mid-2016...and just managed to lose the last of it this morning.
Sometimes I used a "lose max $200-500-1,000/session" to keep playing.

What most critics are failing to acknowledge is that to most people winning over 30-90 days is fun.
...especially compared to the vast majority of people who lose most days in the casino.

Could be better to just
(1) Applaud the "system" player
(2) Nicely want them about systems which don't work in the long run, and point them to some FAQ.
(3) Come back & post when you've made at least a million in net profit (without getting booted).

----
IMO There are many many "numbers rule" people on WoV who vehemently (religiously) defend their approach.
Most people will not reach the "long run" in their play, and their win/loss with depend on short-term performance.

Get a life.
Not everyone is out to play 10,000 hts of BJ/craps/XYZ-game.

There are valid stock market strategies which involve "trying to hit home runs"
(1) Taking risky bets when you have less than $200K to try to get in the $200K-1M+ region.
(2) If you lose,save money from your main job, and try again.
(3) If you do make $200K-1M+, switch to a sound long-term system.

In gambling, we might talk about "implied bankroll" & RoR. Some people are young enough to go broke a lot taking very high RoR, rebuilding their bankroll thru non-gambling, and to try again & again. Some of us have enough bankroll, we don't feel like going broke.

Quote: mamat

Money management techniques can stretch a winning/losing streak over many days/weeks/months/years.
I use them myself when playing games under 100% (or even <101% games with a small edge). . .
Sometimes due to freak of nature, a winning streak on a losing game can continue for a long time with money management.

So, Like me, you acknowlege the value of systems in generating entertainment, albeit at the price of some risk of stupid losses?
I've played Blackjack over 3 years now. Total action over £2,000,000: Profit to date just under £7,000 ( But it was once as high as £18,000. I've NEVER had a lifetime loss position at blackjack and have had hundreds, maybe thousands of hours of fun. ( Unlike Roulette that I used to play where I'm a few thousand down )

Quote:

What most critics are failing to acknowledge is that to most people winning over 30-90 days is fun.
...especially compared to the vast majority of people who lose most days in the casino.

Could be better to just
(2) Nicely warn them about systems which don't work in the long run, and point them to some FAQ.

----
IMO There are many many "numbers rule" people on WoV who vehemently (religiously) defend their approach.
Most people will not reach the "long run" in their play, and their win/loss with depend on short-term performance.

I guess I agree. Sometimes, some established members shred newbies with their newly discovered bullsh1t system. I think we should generally be nice to such newbies while shredding their system. But some newbies won't be told, so we must knock them down if their ideas would encourage other newbies to lose their shirts.

Quote:

There are valid stock market strategies which involve "trying to hit home runs"

Some say: But then some investment systems are equally bogus.

Quote:

(1) Taking risky bets when you have less than $200K to try to get in the $200K-1M+ region.
(2) If you lose,save money from your main job, and try again.
(3) If you do make $200K-1M+, switch to a sound long-term system.

I've preferred to start with my sound long term system from an early age. Worked for me.

Quote: OnceDear

IMO There are many many "numbers rule" people on WoV who vehemently (religiously) defend their approach.
Most people will not reach the "long run" in their play, and their win/loss with depend on short-term performance.

Perhaps we can just send "betting systems" people to a FAQ, rather than have 10 people pounce on them...

One way people succeed (in entrepreneurship & gambling) in
(1) Get lucky in lucky in beginning doing whatever & win a decent bankroll, enough to make mistakes
(2) Shift to a sound +EV strategy before the mistakes make the bankroll shrink too much

Talk to most entrepreneurs after 10 years & they will tell you that they had no f**king clue running their first company (although they thought they did).

-----
Among profitable gamblers we might see
(1) people happy to make $1,000-5,000 lifetime. Having fun.

(2) Some make a difficult living $20,000-$60,000/yr. "Break-even gamblers" who pay expenses for themselves & their family (or women, drugs, sports betting, and a little of the "good life")

(3) Pros doing $50K-300K/yr and building a serious bankroll. Sometimes the ones who make $80K are better at saving money than the $150K types who live the "good life".

(4) The rare solo gamblers and professional teams doing $500K-$5M/yr. Why rare? Most gamblers building 7-8 figure bankrolls move on to (a) real estate (b) stocks (c) starting companies (d) get jobs as math teachers/professors (e) start their own gambling websites/casinos ... rather than stay in gambling.

Among all these profitable types, I've found it very common for people to have "problem gamblers" in the family. It's often how people are introduced to the world of gambling. Uncle Mike loses -$150K/yr gambling, and brings family & relatives to Vegas for free hotel rooms, shows, food, etc... Cousin John likes math & has more self-control than Uncle Mike, and eventually becomes an AP making $80K/yr.

-----
Being harsh on beginning gamblers with "craps systems" or "betting systems" is not all that helpful IMO. Just scares people away.

When you've been losing 90% of your Vegas visits, and you find some way to win 90% of the time with a betting system, it's exciting! (-EV, but they have 10X the winning visits compared to before).

Yes, later on, you might want to learn +EV strategies.

Even simpler betting system than Martingale.

I had some friends who found that one bet a day ($500-1,000) at baccarat was the best way they could win.
They had fun for 1-2 months before they ended up losing.

They realized that baccarat was hard to beat with many bets, but couldn't quite grasp the +EV concept, so they decided on the "one bet a day" strategy.