Quote:rdw4potusIf it could only be one property, maybe something like Golden Nugget would be good? They have limits as low as $5 and as high as several thousand (you'd stay in the building but change tables).

If I went to Vegas to try this, I'd start at Jokers Wild on a $2 game (do they still have that table?) and keep track of the series that had extended to the house max. Then, at some interval, i'd go to a high-limit table with liberal strip rules and play the hands that i "owed" myself.

But then you are taking away the entire theory of the Martingale player....a table is "due".

Quote:odiousgambitDetermine ahead of time that without question you will not balk at the big bet end. You will find your opportunity to risk the 7th double up will come right away, possibly first session.

Quote:AcesAndEights

I don't understand the Martingale. All that pain to win one unit if it even works.

Yep, then poiklp will be back to where he started, and needing a shower.

And possibly a change of drawers... hehe

If you really want to use a martingale system then why not do it on a + EV situation like an online bonus? you have to get wagering requirements finished anyways. Perhaps try at a place like Palms casinos that have a loss rebate. I think you can add .2% just for the hot chicks at the Palms.

Turn that frown upside down.

Reverse martingale and as soon as the stack gets so big you can't let it just sit there, grab that stack and head for the door!

Try to lose $1,000 buying the 4 or the 10 on craps. Each time it hits say "press it all the way" and when they ask you for more money, give it to them.

If you lose $1,000 $25 at a time before seeing a big gigantic stack of chips on the felt .. so big you can't just leave it sitting there any more, you're probably not as easily excited by money as I am.

And the worst case is that you lose a little more than $25 every six rolls (or about $5 per roll of the dice when you include the vig).

You need no skill to play the game this way, and it's just as exciting as martingale if you have big cash to throw it away. And if you do lose, at least it will take three hours to do it. But more likely, you'll get ahead $200 to $2000 and think "holy shit that didn't take any time at all!"

Caesar's has $50,000 limits on all of their craps tables and have $10 minimums almost all the time. Most tables stop at $5,000 unless you talk them into raising it.

So at Caesar's they will let you reverse martingale $25 into a $147,500 payday if you take it down after buying the 4 for $50,000.

$25

$75 (toss in $1 to get to $75)

$225 (toss in $3 to $4 required to get to $225)

$675 (toss in $9 to press up to $2000)

$2000 (just tell them "go to $5900")

$5900 (just tell them "go to $17,000" - at this point you collect $405)

$17000 (just tell them "go to $50,000" - at this point you collect $150)

$50000 (tell them $147,500 and down)

You cost basis along this trail is

$25 -> $26 -> $29 -> $38 -> $38 -> then you win $367 -> then you win $517 -> then you win $148,017

In theory, I have enough hard 8's and hard 10's from my 4242 set that I could have won over $475,000 keeping the $50,000 up around my 3000th throw doing this using a set of 5153. That puts a hard ten on the top of my set (what normally gets me hard 8's) and an easy ten on the finger part of my set (what normally gets me a hard ten).

But I would lose about $10,000 the first 2600 rolls (about $3.84 per roll) and watch lots of stacks get taken off the ten in disgust before that moment.

Quote:Mission146The best way to think about the Martingale is in the sense of Laying Money on a huge favorite in a sporting event.

That's not entirely true. With the layed sport bet, you fix the amount of money you want to risk at the beginning. For the martingale, you at least have the option to leave earlier than calculated.

Mission, you seem to like some mathematics of martingale. Here is some funny fact: Each try of a 14-level martingale is a worser bet (in terms of EV) than giving the base unit directly to the house (for double-zero martingale that is).

Quote:MangoJThat's not entirely true. With the layed sport bet, you fix the amount of money you want to risk at the beginning. For the martingale, you at least have the option to leave earlier than calculated.

That's absolutely right, and I qualified, "...if someone is truly committed to a six-step Marty, then I look at is as one bet comparable to Laying the Favorite (Huge favorite!) in Sports Betting," in my post. By truly committed, I meant that they are absolutely going to go all the way with it.

Quote:Mission, you seem to like some mathematics of martingale. Here is some funny fact: Each try of a 14-level martingale is a worser bet (in terms of EV) than giving the base unit directly to the house (for double-zero martingale that is).

I'm not sure what you mean by that, to be honest. For example, if your base bet is five units, and you give the five units directly to the House, then you have a 100% chance of losing five units and a zero chance of profit. If you bet ten units on your second step of a 14-step Marty, then the expected value of that bet is:

18/38 * 10 = 4.7368

20/38 * -10 = -5.2632

-5.2632 + 4.7368 = -0.5264 Units EV

In terms of having an EV worse than -5 Units for an individual bet on a 14-Step Marty, you don't reach that point until you are betting 160 Units (Step 6):

18/38 * 160 = 75.7895

20/38 * -160 = -84.2105

-84.2105 + 75.7895 = -8.421 Units EV

If you are on Step 5, Betting 80 Units, you still have a better EV than giving 5 Units directly to the House:

18/38 * 80 = 37.8947

20/38 * -80 = -42.1053

-42.1053 + 37.8947 = -4.2106 Units EV

Thus, you have a better Expected Value betting 80 units on an Even-Money Proposition in 00-Roulette than turning five units over to the House for no reason.

Quote:AcesAndEightsI don't understand the Martingale. All that pain to win one unit if it even works.

You know that's not how it goes in real life. After that first success and that red chip firmly in the shirt pocket, they will repeat, accumulating those red chips.... until.... you know the rest of the story....

Quote:Mission146The best way to think about the Martingale is in the sense of Laying Money on a huge favorite in a sporting event. For example, let's say that I have USC taking on West Liberty University in College Football, now you've probably never heard of West Liberty University, so let me assure you that it would a ridiculous match-up. If I lay some bones on U.S.C. and win, I'm going to have to lay an absurd amount of money to win $100, but if I lose (unlikely), then I will lose an absurd amount of money.

In this sense, I look at someone committed to the Martingale System as making one bet. I have no idea why, but Roulette seems to be one of the most popular games in which to play the Martingale.

Let's say you're going to start with $10 and you are committed to a six-step Marty, so $10-$20-$40-$80-$160-$320. If you win at any point in this Marty chain, then you are ahead $10.

Now, the probability of losing in Single-Zero Roulette is 19/37 on an Even-Money Bet. You would have to lose six of those in a row for your Marty to fail, and the odds of that happening are: (19/37)^6 = 0.018336281232080496

Therefore, you have a 1 - 0.018336281232080496 = 0.9816637187679195 chance of winning $10 and a 0.018336281232080496 chance of losing $630.

-630 * 0.018336281232080496 = -11.551857176210713

10 * 0.9816637187679195 = 9.816637187679195

-11.551857176210713 + 9.816637187679195 = -1.7352199885315187 EV of Six-Step Marty

The Expected Value as relates the House Edge is going to be a function of the average bet, which is not going to be $630 in total bets (obviously).

-1.7352199885315187/0.02702702702702703 = -64.20313957566618

It appears (if my logic is right, and it may not be) that your average bet should be about $64.20.

I should also add that you have to have 63 successful Martingale attempts prior to losing one in order to be Even. Based on the probability of a successful six-step Marty run on Single-Zero Roulette:

1 - (0.9816637187679195)^63 = 0.6883604024402588 or a failure rate of 68.836%

If your average bet is $64.2 and you go for 63 attempts, then the total amount bet is -64.20313957566618 * 63 = -4044.7977932669696

If the Expected loss of the Six-Step Marty is -1.7352199885315187 per 63 attempts, then 63 * -1.7352199885315187 = -109.31885927748567

If you divide 109.31885927748567/4044.7977932669696 = 0.02702702702702703 which is the House Edge of single-zero Roulette.

Coincidence? Absolutely not.

Conclusion

I would imagine that all but the most determined would drop four or five in a row and then bail. I know I certainly would because you and I both understand the independence of future results to the past results. Obviously, if you have lost five in a row and are doing a six-step Marty, the Odds of failure are no longer 0.018336281232080496, but are now 19/37.

In any case, though, if someone is truly committed to a six-step Marty, then I look at is as one bet comparable to Laying the Favorite (Huge favorite!) in Sports Betting. You're betting $630, though not all at once, to win $10 and you have a 98.17% chance of success.

There are only two reasons to run a Martingale:

1.) Someone is under the misguided impression that it should be a long-term winner.

AND

2.) Someone just likes to play Roulette that way.

If someone is doing it for reason #2, and is not risking money that is needed for essentials, (i.e. playing with entertainment money) then that's just fine because it doesn't make the long-term expectation of the game any better or worse.

That is why The Wizard says that all gambling systems are worthless. The important thing to note about the term, "Worthless," is that the term does not necessarily denote negative value, it denotes no positive or negative value whatseover, mathematically.

However, there can be a subjective value to gambling systems insofar as they may or may not increases one's entertainment/enjoyment value. If they do that, then while they are still worthless in the mathematical sense, they have a positive entertainment value for the player. If the player is going to expose x bankroll to a negative expectation game, then he may as well play in whatever manner he most enjoys.

I'm not sure how I missed that reply, but that's actually a great metaphor to use for me. For instance, I followed the Wizard's advice last spring and laid some of the huge favorites at the Oscar's. Kind of a similar idea, except the strategy of laying the Oscar's favorites has been "vetted" by someone like the Wiz and he thinks a player following that strategy actually has the best of it...as opposed to Martingaling craps or roulette, where you definitely don't have the best of it. Same idea with the no safety on the SuperBowl...I'm hoping to lay down some chunky action on that next year, despite the recent history...