ThatDonGuy
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
• Posts: 3398
April 29th, 2018 at 9:13:39 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Your examples don't suggest to me Martingaling. Do you mean that if you would lose a dollar, next time two dollars is bet, then four dollars, etc? If so you don't get 170 rolls for \$170 etc.

You could 'hit it twice' if you get lucky, you wouldn't want 'the probabilities to play out'

Sounds like a pseudo-Martingale - bet 1 until the total amount lost is less than what would be won on the next bet of 1, then bet 2 until the losses again exceed the value of a win, then (presumably, in this case) bet 3, and so on.
troopscott

Joined: Apr 3, 2017
• Posts: 346
May 3rd, 2018 at 10:03:31 AM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

Sounds like a pseudo-Martingale - bet 1 until the total amount lost is less than what would be won on the next bet of 1, then bet 2 until the losses again exceed the value of a win, then (presumably, in this case) bet 3, and so on.

Yes. Not sure it would work or not. The amount of time at the table to cycle through is the issue i see but because of the numner of bets made before an increase i think it is the most likely to ne jit of a progressional/martingale type system to hit.
Venthus
Joined: Dec 10, 2012