Twist on Martingale system - trying to figure out the math here...

$5/$1000 table limit, best odds for player (i.e. BJ pays 3:2, etc)...is this game out there with a $5/$1000 limit?

Bankroll: Main stack ($1,960); Extra wager stack ($1000)...making total at table $2,960.

Betting style:

Out of main stack I bet as follows:

#1) Bet $5. If win, profit $5. Back to #1. If lose, on to #2.
#2) Bet $10. If win, profit $5. Back to #1. If lose, on to #3.
#3) Bet $15. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #4.
#4) Bet $30. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #5.
#5) Bet $60. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #6.
#6) Bet $120. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #7.
#7) Bet $240. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #8.
#8) Bet $480. If win, break even. Back to #1. If lose, on to #9.
#9) Bet $1000. If win, profit $40. Back to #1. If lose, on to bar.

The "extra wager stack" is a separate source of funding that I would use any time I wanted to split or double down.

In addition...I would play "never bust" - always force the dealer to make a hand AND beat mine.

So what I can't get my mind around basically is...

First, what are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust.
Second, since extra profit will be made whenever I get a blackjack (and obviously, the farther into the sequence I am, the higher the profit), how significant is that to the overall final edge?

Any input would be greatly appreciated! I tested this method out on a free game online for around 3 hours (I know, small sample size for sure) and profited $435.

1. "Never bust" is a terrible strategy that will cause you to rapidly lose. You give up 4%+ to the house when you use it. (Wiz says 3.91%.)

2. Nine-hand losing streaks are a lot more common than you'd think. Especially playing "never bust".

3. Martingales don't work. Eventually, you will suffer a big loss that wipes out all your small wins.

4. No, they really don't work.

5. Modified Martingales don't work, either.

6. Not even your super special ingenious modified Martingale.

7. Not even that other guy's fantastical wonderful modified Martingale that involves adding the last bet to your birthdate and shoving a banana in your ear before making your next bet.

8. Martingales, of whatever variety, don't work.

9. No, they don't work. They never have worked, despite 400 years of mighty effort on the part of gamblers, and they never will work. Because they can't.

10. Sorry. (I have this strange feeling, however, that you remain unconvinced.)

Quote: mkl654321

1. "Never bust" is a terrible strategy that will cause you to rapidly lose. You give up 4%+ to the house when you use it. (Wiz says 3.91%.)

2. Nine-hand losing streaks are a lot more common that you'd think. Especially playing "never bust".

3. Martingales don't work. Eventually, you will suffer a big loss that wipes out all your small wins.

4. No, they really don't work.

5. Modified Martingales don't work, either.

6. Not even your super special ingenious modified Martingale.

7. Not even that other guy's fantastical wonderful modified Moartingale that involves adding the last bet to your birthdate and shoving a banana in your ear before making your next bet.

8. Martingales, of whatever variety, don't work.

9. No, they don't work. They never have worked, despite 400 years of mighty effort on the part of gamblers, and they never will work. Because they can't.

10. Sorry. (I have this strange feeling, however, that you remain unconvinced.)

Wait a minute, I think you are trying to say Martingale won't work?

Thanks for being a complete asshole. Glad you feel so superior on a chat board. I was looking for some math for the entire strategy, not a dickheaded response.

bruski- go over to the companion website, wizardofodds.com It has good information on why your system will not work in the long run. As far as the 'never bust' concept, it is inherently flawed. Given any number you have, say, 13, and any card the dealer has, say, 9, there is an optimal strategy to maximize your chance of winning or pushing that hand. It is called basic strategy, and is easy to learn, also available on the other web site. If you stand on a 13 against a 9 instead of hitting you are less likely to win than if you hit. My crude calculation has you losing 9 in a row with your strategy about 1 in 200 times.

Bruski if you really want to play using a strategy why not try this? Learn a basic card counting system and increase your bet by half as long as the shoe is slightly positive after each win. Once you lose go back to the original 1 unit bet. If the count goes negative after a win keep it the same until you lose. You will not win as often but your wins will bigger and more exciting. You will be even or have a slight edge over the house. Also, you'll never want to jump out of your hotel room window because your Martingale lost 11 hands in a row including 2 double downs and a push on a Blackjack!

Ok thanks. I play basic strategy when I play. What I wasn't really clear on was, if not busting would make it harder for the dealer to beat you over a 9 hand stretch as opposed to playing basic strategy over those same 9 hands, since the dealer would have to both make a stopping hand and finish with a hand higher than yours. But it appears from some of the responses I've seen here that this is in fact not the case - that playing basic strategy for those 9 hands gives you the best chance of success (short of counting cards). Seem right?

I was really trying to see if someone could figure out the math of my system just so I had some sort of house edge percentage to see.

Thank you for the responses so far, very helpful.

no bust = -3.9% as MKL said. How many times do you need it stated before you grasp the truth?

The math result for your system is the same as the math result without your system.

Quote: bruski

Thanks for being a complete asshole. Glad you feel so superior on a chat board. I was looking for some math for the entire strategy, not a dickheaded response.

The math is very simple. You cannot add negative numbers to result in a positive sum. Therefore, there is no need to parse out the exact numbers for your strategy--simple mathematics says it cannot work, nor can any other Martingale system.

And you should know that language such as yours is not tolerated here.

One more time please.

Although as an frequent visitor to this forum I know that martingales never work I also know that they frequently work but not enough to overcome a loss. The problem is if you lose the 9 hands in a row then you are out 1960. Then you would have to win 49 martingales on the 9th hand (profit of each being 40) or, win a one or two-hand martingale (profit 5) at least 392 times (without a loss) just to break even on the one you lost. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing much. Because of the slowness of the game blackjack might not a good venue for such a play. One of the critical problems with the method suggested is that 66% of the time you get a break even as an outcome. Consequently you are going to spend a lot of time just spinning wheels.

I would suggest a change to your strategy. Go to a craps table and wait until three pass numbers have been made in a row. Then start your martingale on the don't pass line. It will take some time because very few shooters make three passes in a row. However most craps venues don't mind you standing there doing nothing as people "track" tables all the time.

While it is possible for someone to make 12 passes in a row I've never seen it. Of course I'm ignoring the "pesky odds" again and have only been playing craps for 40 some odd years so let's just say the likelihood of this happening is really, really small even though there is a mathematical possibility that it could happen.

Another way to do this and one I've seen people actually use is on the field (confession - I've even used it). Wait for several non-field numbers to come in a row and then start your martingale. Can't possibly work but once again I've never seen twelve non-field numbers come in a row (I have seen eight) but just because I haven't seen it doesn't make the math change.

Another way would be using one of the outside bets at roulette. Again wait for a predetermined period of reds/blacks, highs/lows, even/odds to pass by and then start the martingale.

The Wizard has some free games where you could test these things out and then determine whether you want to try it for real or not.

Quote: Martin

I would suggest a change to your strategy. Go to a craps table and wait until three pass numbers have been made in a row.

Wait for several non-field numbers to come in a row and then start your martingale.

Again wait for a predetermined period of reds/blacks, highs/lows, even/odds to pass by and then start the martingale.

The dice have no memory, nor do they have ears or the ability to answer prayers.

Quote: clarkacal

The dice have no memory, nor do they have ears or the ability to answer prayers.

What do you mean? They answer "NO" all the time.

Quote: AZDuffman

What do you mean? They answer "NO" all the time.

They are however widely accepted to be feminine.

Quote: bruski

>And you should know that language such as yours is not tolerated here.

Fuck off.

Thank you! Hey if he wants to use his system I say let him, we can all thank him for offering to share with us a system that will not likely have a huge wipeout, maybe he can take us to dinner with all the money he is making off of it!

Quote: clarkacal

The dice have no memory, nor do they have ears or the ability to answer prayers.

Of course - how ignorant of me to forget that single, most important aspect. Oh thank you wise one for setting me on the path to enlightenment.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Thank you! Hey if he wants to use his system I say let him, we can all thank him for offering to share with us a system that will not likely have a huge wipeout, maybe he can take us to dinner with all the money he is making off of it!

The man asked a simple question - he neither instructed you, begged you, or otherwise attempted to coerce you into using the method he proposed. True to their nature however the Wizard's Welcoming Warriors jumped on him and stomped him to dust.

Quote: Martin

The man asked a simple question - he neither instructed you, begged you, or otherwise attempted to coerce you into using the method he proposed. True to their nature however the Wizard's Welcoming Warriors jumped on him and stomped him to dust.

Probably because he's about the 18,734th person to post his 'Thuper Thystem" on this board, and 18,721 of those systems have been based on some kind of Martingale, which we are kind of sick of hearing about. Anyone with the tiniest knowledge of mathematics, or gambling, or both, should know that a Martingale can't work. But we keep getting asked to do a rigourous, extensive mathematical analysis--and when we say, "No analysis needed. It's a Martinglae--therefore it can't work." Or--"You can't beat a negative expectation game with any combination of bets." Simple truths--yet all the system posters blow a gasket when we refuse to subject yet another goofball system to rigorous analysis.

Quote: Martin

Of course - how ignorant of me to forget that single, most important aspect. Oh thank you wise one for setting me on the path to enlightenment.

Well, you did offer some pretty ridiculous advice--"wait until the table gets hot." Anyone offering such advice might very well have to be reminded that there is no such thing as a "hot table", in the meaning of "the players have recently won, so the players are more likely to win in the immediate future."

Quote: bruski

$5/$1000 table limit, best odds for player (i.e. BJ pays 3:2, etc)...is this game out there with a $5/$1000 limit?

You can find lots of shoe-dealt games with (at least) those limits. They'll be H17 games, and may not offer late surrender, but they pay 3:2 on BJ and most will allow double after split.

Lets not forget Bruski dropped the F bomb, doing that will get you on a final warning from the pit I hear,

Yah let's not forget that. Let's do forget though that someone brand new to your forum who asked what appeared to be a simple question (since I haven't been around this forum to see the million others who've asked similar ones) gets completely lit up by what I'm guessing is a forum regular. That's all good for the forum. For those who actually tried to offer some constructive criticism, it's appreciated. No need to ban me, I'm out.

OK, I'll answer your question strictly in terms of math.

Quote: bruski

Betting style:
(martingale)
...
In addition...I would play "never bust" - always force the dealer to make a hand AND beat mine.
...
First, what are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust.

The odds of winning with the "never bust" strategy are approximately equal to the odds of being dealt either a 19-21 or 2-11 and upgrading to 19-21, plus the odds of dealer busting. You will win approximately 40% of hands and lose about 50%. Pushes not counting, you will lose about 55% of hands and win 45%.

The odds of losing 9 hands in a row are 0.55^9=1/217. The probability of a 9-hand losing streak can then be found as 1-(1-1/217)^(N-8)...
edit: Nevermind the formula. I've been told this calculation for the risk of a losing streak is oversimplified, and seems to double-count longer streaks. An accurate calculator can be found here: http://www.pulcinientertainment.com/info/Streak-Calculator-enter.html
The correct probabilities are 10.6% in 60 hands, 21% in 120, 39% in 240, 65% in 500 and 88% in 1,000 hands.

---
However, this should be put into context for comparing with other betting patterns. Here is a post I recently wrote elsewhere about martingale, I'll repost it here, tweaked a bit for context.
---

While most betting systems are mathematically neutral, martingale stands out as being mathematically damaging to the player in all long-term performance metrics, such as risk of ruin, SCORE, time to double the bankroll, and, critically, chance to double the bankroll.

For instance, the risk of ruin in typical blackjack with a 64-bet bankroll is 10% in 1,000 hands, 1.8% in 500 hands, or 0.01% in 200 hands. A 6-step martingaler will run out of his 64 bets the first 6-loss streak he gets. The probability of a 6-loss streak in fair coin flip is 1/64 (or 1/45 in blackjack), and a streak can begin on any hand.

So, it will take only 50 fair coin flips or 36 hands of blackjack to provide a 50% risk of ruin with 6-step martingale. A 10% risk of ruin is reached in a mere 10 hands. A 1.8% chance will be exceeded in just 6 hands, since your first 6-hand sequence entails a 2.2% risk of ruin. That is for a bankroll that will last flat-bettors through thousands of hands.

All this while, martingale limits the winnings to a single unit at a time, slowing down the winnings. Even under ideal conditions, perfect 1-0-1 (just what martingale is designed for), a 6-step martingaler needs 128 bets to double his bankroll, a 86% risk or ruin in coin flip or 94% in blackjack.

So while per-bet house edge is unchanged, with a martingale the chance to double a 64-bet bankroll is a mere 14% in fair coin flip, as opposed to 50% for a flat-bettor. This is a mathematical disadvantage, voluntarily creating house edge even in a game that doesn't have any. All martingale provides in the long run is just massively increased risk of ruin, without a corresponding increase in gain.

---

I agree that a lot of people have seen the Martingale and variations before. However, not everyone has, and I think it's on the regulars to be able to explain gently why it's a non-working strategy, based on the questions the player asked.

Or keep schtum.

Your ire can be reserved for the point when the poster has revealed themselves to be willfilly ignorant/selling snake oil/unable to follow a logical train of thought.

Both questions could have been answered with some math, and it might just have been that the math would have been enough to convince the OP why it's a bad idea (TM).

As with all forum, what's old too one person is brand new to another, and repeated questions and themes will always appear. Or the forum disappears up its own backside into a insular community of anti-social jackarsery.

Quote: mkl654321

Well, you did offer some pretty ridiculous advice--"wait until the table gets hot." Anyone offering such advice might very well have to be reminded that there is no such thing as a "hot table", in the meaning of "the players have recently won, so the players are more likely to win in the immediate future."

Yeah - I didn't say "wait until the table gets hot" or anything of the sort. I said that I've never seen a person make 12 passes in a row. I also said that while it is possible, in my 40 plus years of playing craps I've never seen it. Of course the dice don't remember but craps is a very simple, binary game. It is biased to the dark side. Even the house edge shows that. (And although people scoff at small biases I do not. Small errors accumulate into large errors, small advantages accumulate into large advantages. And even if that advantage is on the losing side I will lose less if I play the don't. That is just a cold, hard mathematical fact).

I also said that I have never seen more than 8 field numbers rolled in a row and while I am certain that it has happened I am also certain that it doesn't happen very often. I am also certain that for every set containing 8 field numbers rolled in a row there has been at least one set of 7.n non-field numbers rolled in a row (there being fewer non-field numbers than field numbers). I am also certain that craps is a closed system and that it contains a small number of events and that it regresses to the mean a lot more often than many people credit it with doing.

So if you are going to quote me try actually reading what I say and quoting me accurately. I think I have had the EV Knighthood up to my ass and beyond and I should be doing better things with my life. So if you will pardon me I will leave you now - for good.

Quote: thecesspit

Both questions could have been answered with some math, and it might just have been that the math would have been enough to convince the OP why it's a bad idea (TM).

But why should anyone bother to do the math? It's like resorting to a detailed explication of physics and chemistry to show someone why their scheme to turn cotton balls into plutonium won't work.

It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, "It won't work." If you explain the math, and by some miracle that person understands that math and agrees with the conclusion, they'll just go back to their basement and cook up some different system in the forlorn hope that the math will validate that new one.

I think the odds of the math convincing the OP that Martingales don't work were about 40,000,000 to one. I respect the various quixotic tries to do so, though.

Quote: P90

OK, I'll answer your question strictly in terms of math.

The odds of winning with the "never bust" strategy are approximately equal to the odds of being dealt either a 19-21 or 2-11 and upgrading to 19-21, plus the odds of dealer busting. You will win approximately 40% of hands and lose about 50%. Pushes not counting, you will lose about 55% of hands and win 45%.

The odds of losing 9 hands in a row are 0.55^9=1/217. The probability of a 9-hand losing streak is 21% in 60 hands, 40% in 120 hands, 54% in 180 hands, 65% in 240 hands, 90% in 500 hands, 99% in 1,000 hands. The formula is 1-(1-1/217)^(N-8), where N is the number of hands played.



---
However, this should be put into context for comparing with other betting patterns. Here is a post I recently wrote elsewhere about martingale, I'll repost it here, tweaked a bit for context.
---

While most betting systems are mathematically neutral, martingale stands out as being mathematically damaging to the player in all long-term performance metrics, such as risk of ruin, SCORE, time to double the bankroll, and, critically, chance to double the bankroll.

For instance, the risk of ruin in typical blackjack with a 64-bet bankroll is 10% in 1,000 hands, 1.8% in 500 hands, or 0.01% in 200 hands. A 6-step martingaler will run out of his 64 bets the first 6-loss streak he gets. The probability of a 6-loss streak in fair coin flip is 1/64 (or 1/45 in blackjack), and a streak can begin on any hand.

So, it will take only 50 fair coin flips or 36 hands of blackjack to provide a 50% risk of ruin with 6-step martingale. A 10% risk of ruin is reached in a mere 10 hands. A 1.8% chance will be exceeded in just 6 hands, since your first 6-hand sequence entails a 2.2% risk of ruin. That is for a bankroll that will last flat-bettors through thousands of hands.

All this while, martingale limits the winnings to a single unit at a time, slowing down the winnings. Even under ideal conditions, perfect 1-0-1 (just what martingale is designed for), a 6-step martingaler needs 128 bets to double his bankroll, a 86% risk or ruin in coin flip or 94% in blackjack.

So while per-bet house edge is unchanged, with a martingale the chance to double a 64-bet bankroll is a mere 14% in fair coin flip, as opposed to 50% for a flat-bettor. This is a mathematical disadvantage, voluntarily creating house edge even in a game that doesn't have any. All martingale provides in the long run is just massively increased risk of ruin, without a corresponding increase in gain.

---

nice post

Quote: Martin

Of course - how ignorant of me to forget that single, most important aspect. Oh thank you wise one for setting me on the path to enlightenment.

What did I do?

Quote: mkl654321

But why should anyone bother to do the math?

It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, "It won't work." If you explain the math, and by some miracle that person understands that math and agrees with the conclusion, they'll just go back to their basement and cook up some different system in the forlorn hope that the math will validate that new one.

I disagree with your comments for two reasons. I think that the reason this website exists is to educate and inform people. By just telling someone something won't work in answer to their question...

Quote: bruski

So what I can't get my mind around basically is...

First, what are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust.
Second, since extra profit will be made whenever I get a blackjack (and obviously, the farther into the sequence I am, the higher the profit), how significant is that to the overall final edge?

Any input would be greatly appreciated! I tested this method out on a free game online for around 3 hours (I know, small sample size for sure) and profited $435.

... you are in effect telling them that their question is not valid and is not worth answering. I assume that you have decided that the question is not worth answering mathematically mkl but please don't presume that others on this site feel the same way. I know you like to respond to every post on the site (or at least the overwhelming evidence points to that conclusion) but perhaps you might look at a post such as this one and simply decide not to post anything instead of jumping on it and insulting the poster.

I know (as does anyone who has read your posts) that you don't believe any kind of Martingale system can possibly create an advantage for a player. I agree with you as do most here. If you feel you've explained this to death and have no inclination to take the time to explain it again, you could just ignore the question.

My second point is that having read your posts in the past it seems to me that you are not sufficiently capable of actually performing the math to answer many of these math oriented questions. It's not that you can't add and subtract and multiply and divide; I'm sure you can. It just seems that the breaking down of the questions to be able to create a workable formula is a bit over your head from time to time. Rather than leave the question for someone better suited to provide an answer, you prefer to give some half-hearted quasi-mathematical answer and then deride the person who has asked the question.

I'd say that's what's happened here.

To the OP (Bruski), I'm working on an answer.

Whats an OP?

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Whats an OP?

Original Prankster or poster

Quote: mkl654321

But why should anyone bother to do the math? It's like resorting to a detailed explication of physics and chemistry to show someone why their scheme to turn cotton balls into plutonium won't work.
It's a far better service to simply say to such a person, "It won't work."

That may be true for the OP, but there are also people who are not sure, and who can be convinced by math.

What's more, while it's common knowledge that martingale can't beat the house, a lot of otherwise knowledgeable players still try martingale-like patterns once in a while, thinking that while it can't help, it can't hurt either. I've seen lots of sites and even books say things like "martingale trades some big losses for a lot of small wins", "you can try it for some short sessions", etc., treating it as a neutral proposition, while it's not.

So it can be a good idea to show again that while most betting systems are just useless, martingale or generally progressive-betting loss recovery is actively and devastatingly harmful to the player, skyrocketing the long-term house advantage or even reversing player advantage, a financial suicide, and should be avoided, not just dismissed.

Quote: bruski

No need to ban me, I'm out.

Somebody just alerted me to some bad behavior in this thread. I was going to ban bruski for 14 days, but see he resigned, which is even better.

Is there another forum more appropriate for system players I can steer the ignorant to?

How about setting up a Wizard of Systems forum. [/tongueincheek]

I think it's worthwhile to keep the martingalers coming and for forum members to set them straight. P90s' answer was great.

Quote: Wizard

Is there another forum more appropriate for system players I can steer the ignorant to?

Try:http://www.smartergamblers.com/forum (this is the homepage)
http://www.crapsforum.com/
http://www.twentyoneforum.com/
http://www.rouletteforum.com/

They all can be reached from the same website.
There are some good ones there.
WoV Member "goatcabin" a great craps answer man hangs out there. There is good stuff but they have sections for systems.

Quote: TheNightfly

IMy second point is that having read your posts in the past it seems to me that you are not sufficiently capable of actually performing the math to answer many of these math oriented questions. It's not that you can't add and subtract and multiply and divide; I'm sure you can. It just seems that the breaking down of the questions to be able to create a workable formula is a bit over your head from time to time. Rather than leave the question for someone better suited to provide an answer, you prefer to give some half-hearted quasi-mathematical answer and then deride the person who has asked the question.

I'd say that's what's happened here.

To the OP (Bruski), I'm working on an answer.

I don't know what makes you think I'm "not sufficiently capable" of performing the math. I'm not nearly as good at that at the Wiz, and many other posters, but I can certainly do basic probability calculations. That's not exactly "over my head". Especially since I learned the math that refutes a Martingale in second grade.

I think (and obviously, you disagree) that going ahead and applying the math, and wasting your time in doing so, gives the question a validity it doesn't deserve. The whole point of understanding basic probability theory is that you DON'T waste your time analyzing Martingales and other hopeless "systems". But feel free to knock yourself out--but I hope you realize that the inevitable conclusion that you reach won't convince the OP AT ALL--not of the general hopelessness of what he's trying to do, at any rate. The best you might be able to do is send him back to the drawing board, to change one of the parameters of his system in the futile hope that that will make some kind of difference.

Quote: mkl654321

I don't know what makes you think I'm "not sufficiently capable" of performing the math. I'm not nearly as good at that at the Wiz, and many other posters, but I can certainly do basic probability calculations. That's not exactly "over my head". Especially since I learned the math that refutes a Martingale in second grade.

I think (and obviously, you disagree) that going ahead and applying the math, and wasting your time in doing so, gives the question a validity it doesn't deserve. The whole point of understanding basic probability theory is that you DON'T waste your time analyzing Martingales and other hopeless "systems". But feel free to knock yourself out--but I hope you realize that the inevitable conclusion that you reach won't convince the OP AT ALL--not of the general hopelessness of what he's trying to do, at any rate. The best you might be able to do is send him back to the drawing board, to change one of the parameters of his system in the futile hope that that will make some kind of difference.

The reason I included Bruski's post in my response was to point out that he asked two questions and at no time did he say that he had found a way to beat the game using a Martingale.

Quote: bruski

So what I can't get my mind around basically is...

First, what are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust.
Second, since extra profit will be made whenever I get a blackjack (and obviously, the farther into the sequence I am, the higher the profit), how significant is that to the overall final edge?

You chose not to make any effort to answer his questions. I can understand why someone might not want to take the time to answer his questions but I don't understand why someone would instead take the time to ridicule his post. He asked two math based questions. 1. "What are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust?" 2. "Since extra profit will be made whenever I get a blackjack (and obviously, the farther into the sequence I am, the higher the profit), how significant is that to the overall final edge?"

I happen to be curious enough to want to work out these answers. I know that neither answer will give me any reason to believe that he has discovered a way to overcome the house edge but I am interested to know what his risk of ruin will be compared to flat betting.

To answer in the manner you did was just plain nasty. That was my point. From the response from the OP I'd say he looks at it this way as well. If you think it's better to be nasty than to simply stay out of the conversation then this isn't going to be a very welcoming place to new members.

Quote: TheNightfly

The reason I included Bruski's post in my response was to point out that he asked two questions and at no time did he say that he had found a way to beat the game using a Martingale.


You chose not to make any effort to answer his questions. I can understand why someone might not want to take the time to answer his questions but I don't understand why someone would instead take the time to ridicule his post. He asked two math based questions. 1. "What are the odds of losing 9 straight hands where you never bust?" 2. "Since extra profit will be made whenever I get a blackjack (and obviously, the farther into the sequence I am, the higher the profit), how significant is that to the overall final edge?"

Perhaps you didn't realize that those questions were veiled attempts to self-validate his system. If the answer to 1.) had been a sufficiently small number, he was prepared to say, "Well, gee, I never lose nine in a row, so okay then!" If the answer to 2.) had been a sufficiently large number, he was prepared to say, "Well, gee, if that number is large enough, all I have to do is wait until I get a blackjack!" He was showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how it all works. (Why do you think he asked for "nine", instead of five, six skillion, or eleventy-twelve? Because he asked himself what was the greatest number of hands he could ever remember losing, and he thought to himself, gee, I can't ever remember losing nine in a row. And if you think you'll never lose (insert number here) hands in a row, of course a Martingale will work for you!

I think what you're not realizing is that any mathematical proof you might have offered would just have convinced him that his specific system wouldn't work (assuming you even managed that), not what he NEEDS to know, which is that systems don't work, period.

Quote: mkl654321

Why do you think he asked for "nine", instead of five, six skillion, or eleventy-twelve? Because he asked himself what was the greatest number of hands he could ever remember losing, and he thought to himself, gee, I can't ever remember losing nine in a row. And if you think you'll never lose (insert number here) hands in a row, of course a Martingale will work for you!

Actually, he chose 9 because that is as far as his system would allow with a spread of $5-$1,000 which he mentioned at the start of the post.

I tend to think that my farts smell pretty good. I also tend to think that everyone else's farts really stink. I can remember a few times however when even I've been disgusted at the smell of my own farts. I often wonder if that's how you feel when you read some of what you've written... does it disgust you or do you just breathe it all in?

Quote: TheNightfly

Actually, he chose 9 because that is as far as his system would allow with a spread of $5-$1,000 which he mentioned at the start of the post.

I tend to think that my farts smell pretty good. I also tend to think that everyone else's farts really stink. I can remember a few times however when even I've been disgusted at the smell of my own farts. I often wonder if that's how you feel when you read some of what you've written... does it disgust you or do you just breathe it all in?

Your questions have just reached the point where I don't dignify them with answers.

Quote: Wizard

Somebody just alerted me to some bad behavior in this thread. I was going to ban bruski for 14 days, but see he resigned, which is even better.

Is there another forum more appropriate for system players I can steer the ignorant to?

While I don't condone buski's choice of language, he was provoked. A new poster should not have to see a first response that basically ridicules him, and that is what happened.
Nightfly has tried to point out (nicely I might add) why the response could be construed as mildly offensive, but of course it is falling on deaf ears.

Sure all the regulars here know the answer to the question, but many new people to this site don't. If we feel that gives license to behave badly, then this site is doomed to all of the regulars posting and responding to each other all the time. That sounds like !fun

Knowing what I know about Martingales and systems, I ignored this thread - until I saw earlier today that the Wiz had responded. I assume that he too was ignoring it until he got alerted to a problem here.

Having read the thread, I have several comments.

1 - I think the wrong member got banned. Or at least another member should have been suspended at the same time. Yeah, we all know Martingales don't work. And I'm sure bruski understood that risking $1,000 for a $40 profit would be dumb. But he had a valid question. MKL's response to the question was over-the-top, and justified bruski's "asshole" reply.

2 - Bruski's second post tried to get this thread back on track, to no avail.

3 - MKL's response, the one that generated the F.U. reply, appeared to be intentionally designed to generate the type of response that he got - albeit, edited afterwards.

4 - As bad as the Never Bust strategy is, it's one of three strategies listed under the Bad Strategies section of the Wiz' BJ page. And it's got the lowest edge of the three. Interestingly enough, lower than the edge on Double Zero Roulette. Would his question have been dismissed so quickly if it was based around Roulette?

Quote: Wizard

Somebody just alerted me to some bad behavior in this thread. I was going to ban bruski for 14 days, but see he resigned, which is even better.

Is there another forum more appropriate for system players I can steer the ignorant to?

5 - I do not think it is a good thing that bruski resigned. Although his question revolved around the Martingale, both of his first two posts showed a reasonably intelligent mind at work. He could easily have become a valued member here.

6 - As long as he resigned, I recommend sending an email to him, containing P90's well thought out reply, from the third post on page three.

7 - Sending this or any other player to another board is not the answer as long as the Betting System section exists. Perhaps this thread should have been moved to that section.




OK. I'll get off my soapbox now.

Quote: TheNightfly

Actually, he chose 9 because that is as far as his system would allow with a spread of $5-$1,000 which he mentioned at the start of the post.

I tend to think that my farts smell pretty good. I also tend to think that everyone else's farts really stink.

I like to use this analogy with smokers who think its absurd people are offended by their smoke. If I was in a public place and constantly farted I wouldn't mind, and I would probably enjoy it, but it pollutes the air to everyone else and they don't enjoy it at all.

Perhaps it's time for sticky threads and FAQs?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

3 - MKL's response, the one that generated the F.U. reply, appeared to be intentionally designed to generate the type of response that he got - albeit, edited afterwards.

5 - I do not think it is a good thing that bruski resigned. Although his question revolved around the Martingale, both of his first two posts showed a reasonably intelligent mind at work. He could easily have become a valued member here.

3. Nonsense. And any attempt to shift any blame for his response from him to me is misguided, to say the least.

5. We've endured many, many, many threads/posts from people who want to use the resources here to "test their system." And so far, WE HAVE ONLY HAD TWO RESULTS:

a) The OP leaves in a huff after we refuse to validate his system.
b) After about 500 posts, including such nonsense as debates about "challenges", the OP leaves in a huff.
NEVER HAPPENS: c) The OP says, "Wow! I now understand the fundamental flaw in my thinking! Thanks guys!!!!"

And his reaction, as much as you are inclined to excuse it, pretty much weakens your contention that he would have been a valuable member of this board.

Suggestion: It wouldn't be too hard to set up a "Martingale refute template" would it? Whenever another system user comes along we just input his initial bet, starting bankroll and IF statements, and copy paste the output p(small win of $x), p(disaster of $y), and total EV. Just play it like a tarot reading where its vague enough to apply to everyone (bj, craps, roulette players etc), yet specific enough such that joe chump no. #50243 thinks you actually spent hours rigorously testing out his system. Here, I'll even supply the conclusion paragraph:

... therefore although most of the time you will win $X, the rare occasion you do lose n times in a roll will wipe out all your small wins and then some, for a total EV of e. Therefore Joe your system is like going out and having sex with strangers, without protection: More often than not you'll come out clean; but the ONE time you get unlucky, the ONE time you contract their disease, its bad enough to wipe out all the extra pleasure you had from the previous hundred nights, put you out of action for years, and may even cause your financial penis to freeze and fall off.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

5 - I do not think it is a good thing that bruski resigned. Although his question revolved around the Martingale, both of his first two posts showed a reasonably intelligent mind at work. He could easily have become a valued member here.

If there is one thing I have learned in my 14 years as a gambling writer, system believers are hopeless. The odds that logic will convince them of their folly are about the same as those of their systems working long term. Did 98steps ever show the slightest doubt in his system, despite hundreds of posts trying to enlighten him? The only way for system players to possibly see the light is via their wallets. After trying and losing with several systems, or more, the seeds of doubt might take root and grow.

I admire the effort to save them, but I think it is a wasted effort.

Quote: gog

financial penis

At last, we have a simple, concise term to use instead of all that "Dow Jones Average" and "federal deficit" stuff!

Quote: Wizard

If there is one thing I have learned in my 14 years as a gambling writer, system believers are hopeless. The odds that logic will convince them of their folly are about the same as those of their systems working long term. Did 98steps ever show the slightest doubt in his system, despite hundreds of posts trying to enlighten him? The only way for system players to possibly see the light is via their wallets. After trying and losing with several systems, or more, the seeds of doubt might take root and grow.

I admire the effort to save them, but I think it is a wasted effort.

Perhaps I am naive, but I believe he really was looking for an idea of what the HE would be on his variation. He may even realize it is not a winning play. Perhaps he just wants to be an informed gambler, and this site has plenty of people who have the ability, and the inclination, to tell us what that HE is. I have asked for comment on more than one hair-brained craps schemes, and a few members have taken their time to explain to me what the HE would be. This forum also pointed me to WinCraps ,and that has allowed me to try different things and see the results. Does any of this make me a better gambler? Not really. However, I am a more informed gambler now.