thefish2010
thefish2010
Joined: Dec 24, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 53
December 25th, 2009 at 2:23:33 PM permalink
I wasn't playing roulette, I was playing mini-bac (on the player side). Sorry I didn't make this more clear in the original post. Mini-bac is very fast - if you switch tables during shuffling, you can do about 120 hands per hour. I was doing 50/100/200/500/1000/2000/5000/10,000, so I was picking up an extra $100-$1,000 here and there. I had to go up to $10,000 once (and won - 1 over 0), and $5,000 several times.

At the end of the day I left with 9 chocolates ($45,000). I had a total of $2,000 of my own cash dropped, so my actual profit was $43,000. It may have been 13 or 14 hours....I started a little after noon and went to bed at 1 or 2. I was pretty drunk by then too.


Quote: DorothyGale

Quote: thefish2010

After about 12 hours, I hadn't yet lost more than 7 in a row, and therefore was up about $45,000 (at $50/hand!).



Winning $45k at $50 per hand for 12 hours using a martingale isn't possible short of playing in the land of OZ.

In the martingale system, after every win you are up $50. That is, any string of losses followed by a win nets you exactly $50. At a normal game pace of 30 spins per hour, you're going to win on average (18/38)-th of those bets, or about 14 of them. If you're very lucky and the dealer is very fast, I'll give you 20 wins per hour. For 12 hours, you will win at most 20*12 = 240 bets, at $50 each gives you 240x$50 = $12,000. There is no way you can get to $45k playing a martingale at a $50 bet playing for 12 hours. Even if you won EVERY bet at a normal game pace, that's only 30 spins * 12 hours * $50 = $18,000.

Your actual expected winnings GIVEN that you didn't have a string of losses that wiped you out and that you are playing $50 at 30 hands per hour is roughly (14 wins per hour)* (12 hours) * ($50 won per win) = $8,400 won.

Then again, you had the experience, so maybe you can fill in the missing details ...

DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
December 25th, 2009 at 2:29:22 PM permalink
Quote: thefish2010

. I was doing 50/100/200/500/1000/2000/5000/10,000, so I was picking up an extra $100-$1,000 here and there.



OK, mini-bac makes it possible. And you are accelerating the martingale, so that also makes it possible.

You don't win $100 to $1000 here and there. The only way to get those bets out is to have a sequence of losses. For example, to win $1000 means you lost $50, $100, $200 and $500. So you had a net loss of $850 followed by a win of $1000 for a net of $150.

The only time you are ahead in a true martinagale is after a win. For example, if you were betting $50, $100, $200, $400, $800, $1600 etc, then each of the following puts you ahead $50:

W
LW
LLW
LLLW
LLLLW
LLLLLW
LLLLLLW
etc...

The only way NOT to win $50 is to leave the table on anything other than a win (assuming no max bet on the table).
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
thefish2010
thefish2010
Joined: Dec 24, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 53
December 25th, 2009 at 2:35:20 PM permalink
Actually, here and there I was picking up an extra $1K. As I said, I had to go up to $5,000 several times. Each time that happened, I won $5,000, and lost $2000+$1000+$500+$200+$100+$50, which is $3850. 5,000-3850=+$1,150. Anyway, over time, this system is a loser. But it was certainly fun :).

Quote: DorothyGale

Quote: thefish2010

. I was doing 50/100/200/500/1000/2000/5000/10,000, so I was picking up an extra $100-$1,000 here and there.



OK, mini-bac makes it possible. And you are accelerating the martingale, so that also makes it possible.

You don't win $100 to $1000 here and there. The only way to get those bets out is to have a sequence of losses. For example, to win $1000 means you lost $50, $100, $200 and $500. So you had a net loss of $850 followed by a win of $1000 for a net of $150.

The only time you are ahead in a true martinagale is after a win. For example, if you were betting $50, $100, $200, $400, $800, $1600 etc, then each of the following puts you ahead $50:

W
LW
LLW
LLLW
LLLLW
LLLLLW
LLLLLLW
etc...

The only way NOT to win $50 is to leave the table on anything other than a win (assuming no max bet on the table).

DorothyGale
DorothyGale
Joined: Nov 23, 2009
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 639
December 25th, 2009 at 2:45:20 PM permalink
Quote: thefish2010

Actually, here and there I was picking up an extra $1K. As I said, I had to go up to $5,000 several times. Each time that happened, I won $5,000, and lost $2000+$1000+$500+$200+$100+$50, which is $3850. 5,000-3850=+$1,150. Anyway, over time, this system is a loser. But it was certainly fun :).

Quote: DorothyGale

Quote: thefish2010

. I was doing 50/100/200/500/1000/2000/5000/10,000, so I was picking up an extra $100-$1,000 here and there.



OK, mini-bac makes it possible. And you are accelerating the martingale, so that also makes it possible.

You don't win $100 to $1000 here and there. The only way to get those bets out is to have a sequence of losses. For example, to win $1000 means you lost $50, $100, $200 and $500. So you had a net loss of $850 followed by a win of $1000 for a net of $150.

The only time you are ahead in a true martinagale is after a win. For example, if you were betting $50, $100, $200, $400, $800, $1600 etc, then each of the following puts you ahead $50:

W
LW
LLW
LLLW
LLLLW
LLLLLW
LLLLLLW
etc...

The only way NOT to win $50 is to leave the table on anything other than a win (assuming no max bet on the table).



Got it, thanks for the extra details.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"

  • Jump to: